Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application_Part1TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS    LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................4 LIST OF DRAWING SHEETS ...................................................................................................7 PROJECT TEAM ...................................................................................................................9 1 Existing Conditions.....................................................................................................11 1.1 Structures .......................................................................................................................... 12 1.2 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................... 12 1.3 Water ................................................................................................................................1 2 1.4 Topography ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.5 Adjacent Land Uses............................................................................................................. 13 1.6 Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 13 1.7 Access ................................................................................................................................1 3 2 Project Description ....................................................................................................14 2.1 Design Intent ...................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Key Findings ....................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Land Use Summary ............................................................................................................. 17 2.4 Design with Regard to Natural & Cultural Resources ............................................................ 18 2.4.1 Natural Resources ...................................................................................................... 18 2.4.2 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 20 2.5 Residential Neighborhood Design ........................................................................................ 21 2.5.1 Neighborhood A ......................................................................................................... 23 2.5.2 Neighborhood B ......................................................................................................... 24 2.5.3 Neighborhood C ......................................................................................................... 25 2.5.4 Neighborhood D ......................................................................................................... 26 2.5.5 Neighborhood E ......................................................................................................... 27 2.5.6 Neighborhood F ......................................................................................................... 28 2.6 Affordable Housing ............................................................................................................. 29 2.7 Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Production ............................................................... 31 2.7.1 Introduction to Bonsai Communities ............................................................................ 31 2.7.2 Renewable Energy Production ..................................................................................... 32 2.7.3 Efficient, Sustainable & Healthy Building ...................................................................... 32 2.7.4 Efficient Building Practices .......................................................................................... 34 2.8 Access & Circulation ........................................................................................................... 35 2.8.1 Access Points ............................................................................................................. 35 2.8.2 Vehicular Circulation & Parking.................................................................................... 35 2.8.3 Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation .................................................................................. 35 2.9 Community Amenities ........................................................................................................ 36 2.9.1 Community Center ..................................................................................................... 36 2.9.2 Pedestrian Bridge & Trail System ................................................................................. 36 2.9.3 Parks ......................................................................................................................... 37 2.9.4 Landscape Enhancements ........................................................................................... 37 2.10 Utilities .......................................................................................................................... 38 2.10.1 Water & Wastewater .................................................................................................. 38 2.10.2 Natural Gas ................................................................................................................ 39 2.10.3 Electric ...................................................................................................................... 39 2.10.4 Communications ........................................................................................................ 39 2.11 Phasing .......................................................................................................................... 40 TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 3 3 Conformance with County Comprehensive Plan ..........................................................41 3.1 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 1, Public Participation........................................ 41 3.2 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 2, Housing......................................................... 43 3.3 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 3, Transportation .............................................. 45 3.4 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 4, Commercial and Industrial ............................. 46 3.5 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 5, Recreation and Open Space ........................... 47 3.6 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 6, Agriculture .................................................... 49 3.7 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 7, Water and Sewer Services .............................. 50 3.8 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 8, Natural Resources ......................................... 51 3.9 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 9, Natural Resource Extraction ........................... 52 3.10 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 10, Urban Area of Influence........................... 52 4 Conformance with County PUD Guidelines ..................................................................54 5 TCI Lane Ranch PUD Guide .........................................................................................67 TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 4 LIST OF APPENDICES    A. Vicinity Maps, Current Zoning Map, Adjacent Land Uses Map, Adjacent Parcels Map    B. Site Inventory and Proposed Site Plan    C. Preliminary Plat    D. Garfield County Visual Corridor Map, Slope Hazard Profile Map, Soil Hazard Profile Map, USDA  Soil Designations Map    E. Deed of Trust    F. Statement of Authority and Title Commitment    G. Deed for Water Rights    H. Mineral Rights Documentation    I. Garfield County Resolution PC‐2007‐05: Comprehensive Plan Amendment    J. Meeting Minutes from Garfield County Planning Commission Hearing July 11, 2007 regarding TCI  Lane Ranch Sketch Plan review    K. Sketch Plan Extension Letters    L. Mid Valley Metropolitan District: Commitment to Serve Letter, February 14, 2007    M. Mid Valley Metropolitan District: County Approvals for Expansion of Service    N. Mid Valley Metropolitan District: Proposed Infrastructure Improvements, December 11, 2008    O. Mid Valley Metropolitan District: Utility Easements and Permits, December 29, 2008    P. Mid Valley Metropolitan District: Water Supply Documentation, December 29, 2008    Q. Mid Valley Metropolitan District: Water System Master Plan, August 2008    R. Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment Report    S. Wetland Determination Report    T. Geotechnical Study    U. Radiation Survey    V. Drainage Report    W. Traffic Impact Study    X. CDOT State Highway Access Permits    Y. Roaring Fork Conservancy: Letter of Engagement  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 5   Z. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions    AA. Affordable Housing – Proposed Deed Restriction    BB. TCI Lane Ranch Open House Invitations, Invitees, Sign‐In Sheets and Comments    CC. RFTA Board Meeting Minutes & Letter of Support from Waldorf School    DD. Utility Provider Commitment Letters    EE. List of Property Owners within 200’ of TCI Lane Ranch    FF. Letter of Owner’s Representation    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 6 TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 7 LIST OF DRAWING SHEETS   (Separately Bound)    1. COVER SHEET  2. NOTES  3. NOTES AND LEGEND  4. SITE PLAN  5. DEMOLITION PLAN  6. GRADING PLAN (1 OF 4)  7. GRADING PLAN (2 OF 4)  8. GRADING PLAN (3 OF 4)  9. GRADING PLAN (4 OF 4)  10. DETAILED GRADING PLAN  11. MASTER UTILITY PLAN (1 OF 3)  12. MASTER UTILITY PLAN (2 OF 3)  13. MASTER UTILITY PLAN (3 OF 3)  14. EROSION CONTROL (1 OF 3)  15. EROSION CONTROL (2 OF 3)  16. EROSION CONTROL (3 OF 3)  17. RIVERSTONE DRIVE PLAN AND PROFILE (1 OF 4)  18. RIVERSTONE DRIVE PLAN AND PROFILE (2 OF 4)  19. RIVERSTONE DRIVE PLAN AND PROFILE (3 OF 4)  20. RIVERSTONE DRIVE PLAN AND PROFILE (4 OF 4)  21. HAYSTACK DRIVE PLAN AND PROFILE (1 OF 6)  22. HAYSTACK DRIVE PLAN AND PROFILE (2 OF 6)  23. HAYSTACK DRIVE PLAN AND PROFILE (3 OF 6)  24. HAYSTACK DRIVE PLAN AND PROFILE (4 OF 6)  25. HAYSTACK DRIVE PLAN AND PROFILE (5 OF 6)  26. HAYSTACK DRIVE PLAN AND PROFILE (6 OF 6)  27. SUNLIGHT TRAIL PLAN AND PROFILE (1 OF 2)  28. SUNLIGHT TRAIL PLAN AND PROFILE (2 OF 2)  29. STARLIGHT WAY ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE  30. WINDROW WAY ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE  31. EARLY ROSE COURT PLAN AND PROFILE (1 OF 2)  32. EARLY ROSE COURT PLAN AND PROFILE (2 OF 2)  33. MAYFLY BEND PLAN AND PROFILE (1 OF 2)  34. MAYFLY BEND PLAN AND PROFILE (2 OF 2)  35. STONEFLY BEND PLAN AND PROFILE (1 OF 2)  36. STONEFLY BEND PLAN AND PROFILE (2 OF 2)  37. FIREFLY LOOP PLAN AND PROFILE (1 OF 2)  38. FIREFLY LOOP PLAN AND PROFILE (2 OF 2)  39. DRAGONFLY SPUR PLAN AND PROFILE  40. TYPICAL ROAD SECTIONS  41. UTILITY DETAILS 1  42. UTILITY DETAILS 2  43. UTILITY DETAILS 3  44. DRAINAGE DETAILS  45. EROSION CONTROL DETAILS  46. BOX CULVERT DETAILS  47. WATER FEATURE DETAILS  PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PLAN ‐ SHEET 1  PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PLAN – SHEET 2  L‐1 LANDSCAPE PLAN  L‐2 REVEGETATION PLAN  87B563 LIFT STATION DRAWING – SHEET 1  87B565 LIFT STATION DRAWING – SHEET 2  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 8   TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 9 PROJECT TEAM      Applicant  TCI Lane Ranch, LLC  401 Tree Farm Drive  Carbondale, CO  81623    Land Planning & Owner’s Representation  Noble Design Studio  Contact: Jon Fredericks, ASLA  401 Tree Farm Drive  Carbondale CO 81623  970.963.7027    Energy & Renewables Consulting  Bonsai Communities, LLC  Contact: Paul Spencer  401 Tree Farm Drive  Carbondale, CO 81623  970.963.5696    Engineering ‐ Primary  Drexel, Barrell & Co.  Contact: Mark Hageman  1800 38th Street  Boulder, CO 80301   303.442.4338    Engineering – Water & Wastewater  Zancanella & Associates, Inc.  Contact: Tom Zancanella, P.E.   1011 Grand Avenue  PO Box 1908  Glenwood Springs, CO 81602  970.945.5700    Engineering – Pedestrian Bridge  Loris and Associates, Inc.  Contact: Peter Loris, P.E.  2585 Trail Ridge Drive East   Lafayette, CO 80026   303.444.2073    Engineering ‐ Traffic  Drexel, Barrell & Co.  Contact: Mark Hageman  1800 38th Street  Boulder, CO 80301   303.442.4338  Architecture  DNM Architect  Contact: David Marlatt, AIA  161 Natoma Street  San Francisco, CA 94105  415.348.8910    Wildlife, Vegetation & Wetlands Consulting  Rocky Mountain Ecological Services  Contact: Eric Petterson  0222 Bobcat Lane  Redstone, CO 81623  970.963.2190    Geotechnical Consulting  Hepworth ‐ Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.  Contact: Steven Pawlak, P.E.  5020 County Road 154  Glenwood Springs, CO  81601  970.945.7988    Surveying  Drexel, Barrell & Co.  Contact: Mark Hageman  1800 38th Street  Boulder, CO 80301   303.442.4338    Legal Consulting  Garfield and Hecht, P.C.  Contact: E. Michael Hoffman  601 East Hyman Avenue  Aspen, CO 81611  970.544.3442    And    Patrick, Miller & Kropf, P.C.  Contact: Scott C. Miller  Ste. 200  730 East Durant Ave.  Aspen, CO  81611  970.920.1028        TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 10 TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 11 1 Existing Conditions        The Project site is a parcel of land located at 16411 Old Highway 82, 100.52+/‐ acres in size that  is currently zoned Agricultural/ Residential/ Rural Density (A/R/RD).    (Items listed below in bold are those that are proposed uses in TCI Lane Ranch.)     Uses by right in this Zone include:     Agricultural including farms, garden, greenhouse, nursery, orchard, ranch, small animal  farm for production of poultry, fish, fur‐bearing or other small animals and customary  accessory uses including buildings for shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or  property employed in any of the above uses, retail establishment for sale of goods  processed from raw materials produced on the lot; guiding and outfitting, and park;  single‐family dwelling and customary accessory uses. Accessory dwelling unit approved  as a part of a public hearing or meeting on a subdivision or subdivision exemption or  guesthouse special use approved after 7/95 and meeting the standards in Section  5.03.02; pipeline.    Conditional Uses in this Zone include:    Aircraft landing strip, church, community buildings, day nursery and school; group  home for the elderly. Boarding or rooming houses, studio for conduct of arts and crafts,  home occupation, water impoundments.    Special Uses in this Zone include:    Airport utility, feedlot as principal use of the lot, crematorium, agriculture related  business, resorts, kennel, riding stable, and veterinary clinic, shooting range facility,  two‐family dwelling, camper park, ski lift and trails; broadcasting studio,  communication facility, corrections facility, storage, storage of heavy equipment, golf  course driving range, golf practice range and accessory facilities, commercial recreation  facility/park, mass transit facility, public gatherings; storage of oil and gas drilling  equipment; site for extraction, processing, storage or material handling of natural  resources; utility lines, utility substations; recreational support facilities and guest  house. Accessory dwelling unit meeting the standards in Section 5.03.02 for any lot not  created after a public hearing or meeting after 7/95, kennel, Group Residential Facility  for Children & Youth.  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 12 Please see Appendix B for a map of items discussed below.    1.1 Structures  Current and historic uses of the property include  ranching with irrigated meadows, and residential  dwelling. There are four existing residences on  the property. Three of these are aging and of poor  quality, while one is a new modular home.  Various outbuildings also exist that were at one  time associated with typical ranching operations;  included in these are three log structures which  will be preserved. In addition, the property is  laced with a series of barbed‐wire and other types  of fences.      1.2 Vegetation  The property is dominated by two primary vegetation communities.  Irrigated pasture comprises approximately half of the site, while  cottonwood galleries dominate the other half. The majority of the  cottonwood galleries are adjacent to the Roaring Fork River where  they are associated with smaller quantities of spruce, ponderosa  pine, and juniper. Some of the isolated upland cottonwood galleries  are the result of many decades of water diversions to areas that  would otherwise be dry. Another notable vegetation community is  areas of gambel oak groves. These are limited in area, generally  occurring on the northern half of the property, but are generally in  good health.      1.3 Water  Both natural and diverted water courses exist on  the property. The property’s southern boundary is  formed by the centerline of the Roaring Fork  River, except where adjacent to an isolated parcel  of BLM‐administered land. Three primary  irrigation ditches also traverse the property  including the Basin Ditch, Middle Ditch (aka Blue  Creek Ditch), and the Lower Ditch. There are also  several lateral ditches existing on the property.  Historically, the ditches were used to flood  irrigate the pastures on the property. Wetlands  also exist on the property as detailed in Appendix  S, Wetland Determination Report.    ROARING FORK RIVER (RIO GRANDE TRAIL IN  BACKGROUND) PONDEROSA PINE NEAR RIVER  EXISTING LOG STRUCTURE TO BE PRESERVED  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 13   1.4 Topography  The site is generally level with an overall East‐West gradient of 0.8%, and an overall north‐south  gradient of 1.0%. A portion of this topographical change is located in a bench that bisects the  property from east to west through the properties mid‐section. The riparian forest adjacent to  the river is composed of a series of undulating channels, presumably created as the Roaring Fork  River historically migrated from north to south in the area. The property generally drains from  northeast to southwest at an overall grade of 1.4%, changing in elevation approximately 43  vertical feet.      1.5 Adjacent Land Uses  Surrounding land uses are varied, but are  primarily residential. To the west of TCI  Lane Ranch is Blue Creek Ranch PUD, with  an overall density of one unit per 1.6 acres,  with the development concentrated on 40%  of the 81 acres. To the northwest, the  Catherine Court property contains 8  dwellings on one acre. This residential  community primarily consists of mobile  homes. To the north of TCI Lane Ranch is  the CDOT Right‐of‐Way for Old Highway 82,  and State Highway 82, respectively. North  of the CDOT ROW is a 40‐acre parcel of  vacant land that at the time of this writing is  listed for sale. To the east lies the Waldorf School, with their school building and associated  accessory facilities and playfields. TCI Lane Ranch is bordered on the south by both the RFTA  ROW with the Rio Grande Trail, and also BLM‐administered lands that represent the northern  most portion of an area known as The Crown.      1.6 Utilities  A high‐pressure gas main bisects the property within a 50’ easement held by Rocky Mountain  Natural Gas Co., Inc. (now Source Gas). Holy Cross Electric holds a 20’ easement into the  property from Old Highway 82 to the location of the existing residences. Overhead electric lines  exist along the northern property boundary, adjacent to Old Highway 82. Qwest  Communications provides existing phone service to the property. All wastewater is currently  contained in septic systems. There are four existing domestic water wells on the property for  potable water. Irrigation water is provided via ditches previously described.  1.7 Access  There is one existing access point to the site. This access is located on the northern property  boundary connecting to/from Old Highway 82 (CDOT). The current access is a gravel driveway  leading to the existing residences. The property has no direct connection to any County road.    BLUE CREEK RANCH PUD TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 14 2 Project Description        2.1 Design Intent  The overall design intent for TCI Lane Ranch is centered on Randall Arendt’s concept of rural  clustering, allowing for the preservation of the majority of the site as open space. Great  considerations were given to the creation of six distinct neighborhoods, each with its own  character and variety of housing types. The land plan and neighborhood matrix has limited the  segregation of housing types as is commonly seen in many developments. Each neighborhood  was designed to be attainable to a variety of income levels. Affordable housing units, duplexes,  and smaller lots are distributed throughout the neighborhoods, as opposed to the typical  scenario of clustering similar housing types together into one particular location.    Another major goal of the design team was to preserve the public view corridor from Highway  82, and to provide a conservation easement buffer zone adjacent to the Roaring Fork River for  protection of water quality, wildlife, and to preserve the recreational experience of the river  corridor.    TCI Lane Ranch will also attempt to set a new benchmark in Colorado and possibly the United  States for energy efficient building practices and renewable energy production. Design  guidelines will set the construction standards of high‐performance homes and alternative  energy production methods. Additionally, a proposed 300‐Kilowatt solar farm within the  community will be the largest private solar array in the State, offsetting all of the electrical  needs of the community and distinguishing TCI Lane Ranch as one of the first, if not the first true  net‐zero community in the Nation.      TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 15 2.2 Key Findings    The proposed Preliminary Plan/ PUD Plan key findings:    • TCI Lane Ranch was granted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on July  11, 2007 by the Garfield County Planning Commission via Resolution PC‐ 2007‐05, which provided a designation of Residential High Density for  the property.     • The TCI Lane Ranch Sketch Plan was reviewed by the Garfield County  Planning Commission on July 11, 2007 with mostly favorable comments  and recommendations. The design team took the initial concerns of the  public and the recommendations of the Planning Commission to heart  and removed a controversial commercial tree nursery from the plan.  The current plan has been well‐received by the neighbors of this  proposed community.     • This plan proposes one of the first net‐zero communities in Colorado, if  not the Nation. Through the construction of a 300‐Kilowatt community  solar farm, TCI Lane Ranch will produce as much electricity as it  consumes. This community will also set a new standard for energy  efficient buildings that will exceed ENERGY STAR, and LEED standards.    • The project features a transit‐oriented location along Highway 82 that  encourages efficient use of public transportation to and from this  destination, including the incorporation of a direct trail to the existing  RFTA stop near Catherine Store.    • Affordable housing will be provided at 16%; 1.6 times the required  mitigation amount. Affordable housing units will be distributed  throughout the community, not relegated to one area of the project.    • The Preliminary Plan has incorporated a wide variety of housing sizes to  be intermixed throughout each neighborhood of the community. The  proposed zoning plan (PUD Guide) designates various maximum house  sizes, and distributes these housing sizes throughout the community.  • A clustering of development onto just 32% of the 100‐acre property,  which reduces potential development impacts to sensitive areas and  provides significant blocks of open space. The Conservation Easement  and Open Space tracts comprise 68% of the PUD.  • Each neighborhood has direct access to its own neighborhood park as  well as trails connecting to larger open space parcels. A community  center and park are also centrally located and easily accessible.  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 16 • TCI Lane Ranch includes a public pedestrian trail and bridge that crosses  the Roaring Fork River to access the Rio Grande Trail. This bridge  connection has been conceptually approved by RFTA, and a public  Recreational Path Easement will be dedicated to the Garfield County  Board of County Commissioners through TCI Lane Ranch to the Rio  Grande Trail. Additional provisions have been made for public fishing  access and parking.    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 17 2.3 Land Use Summary    OVERALL LAND USE BREAKDOWN   Total Land Area........................................................................................................100.52 acres +/‐  Total Developed Area (PUD Zones)   Single Family Residential; Duplex Residential;  Community Utility .............................................................................................. 31.74  acres +/‐  Total Open Space Area (PUD Zones)  Community Center; Common Open Space; Conservation Easement................. 68.78 acres +/‐  Total Number of Residential Lots...................................................................................................89   Total Number of Dwelling Units.....................................................................................................89    Total Area of Proposed Non‐Residential Floor Space   Community Center (1,450 sf); Ranch Cabin (650 sf); Log Shed (250 sf).........................2,350 sf  Total Number of Proposed Off‐Street Parking Spaces (1 space per BR, min.)....................200 ‐ 506  Total Proposed Density ..............................................................................1.13 acres/dwelling unit      RESIDENTIAL LOT BREAKDOWN  Unit Type / Max. Sq. Ft. Max. Sq. Ft. Quantity  Half‐Duplex 1900 sf 10  Half‐Duplex Affordable 1900 sf 8  Single Family 2600 sf 10  Single Family Affordable 2600 sf 6  Single Family 3800 sf 38  Single Family 5500 sf 17  TOTAL UNITS 89      ZONE DISTRICT SUMMARY  Zone District (per PUD Guide) Total Acres by Zone  Single Family Residential 26.730  Duplex Residential  4.034  Community Utility 0.978  Community Center 3.092  Private Common Open Space 33.297  Conservation Easement 32.391  TOTAL ACRES 100.52 +/‐      OPEN SPACE SUMMARY  Zone District (per PUD Guide) Total Acres by Zone  Conservation Easement (Tract B) 32.391  Private Common Open Space (Tracts  C, D, & E) 33.297  Community Center (Tract F) 3.092  TOTAL OPEN SPACE ACRES 68.78 +/‐  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 18 2.4 Design with Regard to Natural & Cultural Resources    A thorough evaluation of natural and cultural features was completed prior to commencing site  planning for TCI Lane Ranch. This site inventory and site analysis created the overall framework  for the community site plan. The design team utilized this framework to determine where  development would have the least impact on the project site, and which areas should be  preserved as Open Space and Conservation Easement.     2.4.1 Natural Resources  2.4.1.1 Floodway Area  Areas within the Floodway are proposed only for passive recreational uses, including  soft‐surface trails. One structure is proposed within the Floodway, which is a bridge  connecting TCI Lane Ranch to the Rio Grande Trail (RFTA). This bridge would provide  public pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the Rio Grande Trail, providing an  alternate transportation route for neighbors, residents and Waldorf School employees  and students. The bridge plans are located in the separately bound set of drawings.    2.4.1.2 Wetland Areas  A formal wetland delineation for the property occurred during the summer of 2007,  with a subsequent site verification by the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) in June of  2008. The Wetland Determination Report is included as Appendix S. In total, the  property contains 9.44 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The majority of the wetlands are  the result of and associated with the Middle Ditch (aka Blue Creek Ditch). This Plan was  designed to minimize wetland impacts, and is proposing less than one‐half acre of  wetland disturbance. This disturbance will be mitigated through the construction of up  to one acre of wetlands within the community in accordance with the ACOE via Section  404 of the Clean Water Act permitting process. The Preliminary Plat includes some lots  that contain areas of designated wetlands. These wetlands are protected though the  Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions included as Appendix Z. Wetlands  that are located on individual lots are further protected by a 20’ buffer from any  building envelope.    2.4.1.3 Upland & Meadow Areas  Approximately half of the property is  comprised of meadow and upland areas.  Historically, most of these meadows have  been irrigated through a system of lateral  ditches located on the property. All of the six  proposed neighborhoods are located in the  upland or meadow areas to minimize  disturbance to mature stands of vegetation  and wildlife habitat. Five of the six  neighborhoods provide a central open space  area that will preserve a portion of these meadows within each neighborhood.  TYPICAL MEADOW AREA  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 19     2.4.1.4 Forested Areas  The majority of the forested areas will remain  intact and preserved. In some neighborhoods,  lots are designed to allow homes to be  constructed within the forest fringe in order  to minimize visual impacts, and provide a  variety of lot types. Lots and building  envelopes in these areas have been designed  to utilize existing clearings, minimizing the  need to remove existing trees. The most  contiguous forested area on the property is  located within the proposed Conservation  Easement, and thus will not be impacted by  development. In other areas of the property, neighborhoods have been designed to  protect and utilize forests for screening.    2.4.1.5 Riparian Corridor  A voluntary riparian buffer zone was utilized in the design process in order to protect  water quality, wildlife habitat, and the recreation experience of the Roaring Fork River.  All areas of the property near the river will be dedicated Conservation Easement with no  lot coverage. Lots adjacent to this buffer will have building envelopes that limit home  construction to the front portion of the lots. Major vegetation species in the riparian  corridor include cottonwood, willow, spruce, juniper, pinion, and ponderosa.    2.4.1.6 Open Space  Open Space will comprise 68.78 acres  (68.4%) of TCI Lane Ranch. The majority of  dedicated Open Space within TCI Lane  Ranch is located along the north and south  boundaries. Along the river will be a  dedicated 32.39 acre Conservation  Easement to be managed by the Roaring  Fork Conservancy. Please see Appendix Y  for a Letter of Engagement with the  Conservancy. Along the northern property  boundary is a dedicated Open Space  corridor that will preserve visual resources from a public perspective of travelers on  Hwy 82. This corridor provides a 310’ to 410’ buffer from the CDOT Right‐of‐Way and is  directly compatible with the existing Open Space corridor on Blue Creek Ranch. The  central Open Space area of the plan contains the Blue Creek Ditch, a community center  and a large open park area. The Blue Creek Ditch will be improved by developing a more  naturalistic stream course, planting native vegetation, wetlands creation, constructing a  pedestrian trail and providing amenities such as benches and pet stations. The entire  PROPOSED OPEN SPACE ALONG HWY 82  TYPICAL AREA OF FOREST COVER  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 20 length of the Blue Creek Ditch within the property is located within community Open  Space. Near the center of the Project, the linear park widens to include a community  center and park. The community center will be provided by restoring an existing barn  where it is currently located. The park area will contain a multi‐use field, children’s play  area, community gardens and naturalistic amenities. The community center, park and  Blue Creek Ditch are accessible to all neighborhoods via the Project trail network.    2.4.2 Cultural Resources    2.4.2.1 Existing Structures  Three existing structures will be  preserved on the property. These  include a timber barn, which will  become the Community Center  building, providing residents a place  to hold community meetings and  events, and will also serve as a small  recreation center and HOA office.  Two other minor log structures within  sight of Highway 82 will be preserved  as a visual resource and utilized as  storage facilities. Three small residences currently existing on the property are in poor  condition from a health and safety standpoint, and this plan proposes to have them  razed.     2.4.2.2 Adjacent Land Uses  The TCI Lane Ranch site plan takes into  consideration adjacent land uses through a  design that respects existing development  patterns and land uses. Adjacent to Blue  Creek Ranch, homesites have been designed  to respect the existing pattern of  development. Open Space areas associated  with the two projects create a consistent  visual buffer for travelers of Hwy 82 for 3500  linear feet. Similarly on the east side of the  project, the site plan respects existing  development patterns with a large Open Space area adjacent to the Waldorf School  building. On the south side of the site, a large Conservation Easement adjoins the  adjacent public lands and recreational Rio Grande Trail. Restricting development in this  area protects the recreational experiences for users of the Trail and the Roaring Fork  River.      EXISTING TIMBER BARN TO BE PRESERVED ADJACENT WALDORF SCHOOL  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 21 2.5 Residential Neighborhood Design  Great care was taken to create a “rural cluster” style development pattern with distinct  neighborhoods separated by preserved Open Space areas, while providing housing types within  each neighborhood that are available to a variety of income groups. In order to create distinct  neighborhoods and preserve significant Open Space, lot size has been capped at 27,000 sf (just  over 1/2 acre). The Project site has been designed to accommodate a wide range of residential  dwelling sizes. Lot “Class” designations have been established that limit the allowable floor area  to be built on each lot. These designations were established to create a diversity of housing sizes  in each neighborhood, and to limit disturbance on lots that area adjacent to environmentally  sensitive areas. Lot classifications are as follows:    Lot Classifications  Lots Class Category Quantity Maximum Allowable Floor  Area (as defined in PUD Guide) Lot Description  1 10 1900 Square Feet Half‐Duplex  1‐A (Affordable) 8 1900 Square Feet Half‐Duplex Affordable  2 10 2600 Square Feet Single Family  2‐A (Affordable) 6 2600 Square Feet Single Family Affordable  3 38 3800 Square Feet Single Family  4 17 5500 Square Feet Single Family      Five of six neighborhoods have been designed with central Open Space and Park areas. Trail  systems connect to other common areas within and adjacent to the Project, allowing for an  efficient transportation system as an alternative to automotive travel.    Design Guidelines relating to the architectural character will promote contemporary and rustic  styling, with designs that blend with the existing landscape in colors, textures, materials, and  uniqueness. Specific energy efficiency design goals and guidelines have been established and are  included in Section 2.7.    The County Zoning Resolution requires that 10% of units be deed‐restricted and resident‐ occupied affordable housing units. This Plan includes 16% of the units as affordable housing  which will be dispersed throughout the community to promote diversity within each individual  neighborhood. Fourteen of the 89 total units will be deed‐restricted affordable units. Section 2.6  specifically addresses Affordable Housing.    Due to the sensitivity of lands within TCI Lane Ranch, building envelopes have been utilized to  establish structure locations. Building envelopes were specifically crafted on a site by site basis,  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 22 taking into consideration the existing drainage, vegetation, and topography of each lot. In many  cases, building envelopes were the precursor to lot delineation in the design process.    The overall density of TCI Lane Ranch is 1.13 acres per dwelling unit (100.52 acres / 89 dwelling  units). This density is compatible with surrounding land uses and the Residential High Density  designation of the Comprehensive Plan.    The following are detailed descriptions of each neighborhood. This section is best reviewed in  tandem with the Proposed Site Plan located in Appendix B.  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 23 2.5.1 Neighborhood A  Located in a meadow area adjacent to an existing Cottonwood gallery and Gambel Oak  grove, this neighborhood is comprised of 15 lots. A significant Open Space buffer has  been provided to the north and west of this neighborhood in order to protect the  privacy of residents in both Blue Creek Ranch and TCI Lane Ranch, and to preserve the  rural visual character from Highway 82. Additionally, the neighborhood provides a  centrally‐located park area for residents to recreate. This neighborhood matrix is as  follows:    • 2 Class 1 Lots Half Duplex up to 1900 SF  • 2 Class 1A Lots Half Duplex Affordable up to 1900 SF  • 2 Class 2 Lots Single Family up to 2600 SF  • 1 Class 2A Lots Single Family Affordable up to 2600 SF  • 7 Class 3 Lots Single Family up to 3800 SF  • 1 Class 4 Lot Single Family up to 5500 SF  • 15 Total Dwelling Units            NEIGHBORHOOD “A” LAYOUT        TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 24 2.5.2 Neighborhood B  Located in an existing pasture area adjacent to Blue Creek Ranch, this neighborhood is  comprised of 26 lots. An Open Space buffer has been provided along the west property  boundary in order to protect the privacy of residents in both Blue Creek Ranch and TCI  Lane Ranch. Several of the lots in this neighborhood overlook the proposed  Conservation Easement to the south. Additionally, the neighborhood provides a  centrally‐located park area and pond for residents to recreate. This neighborhood  matrix is as follows:    • 2 Class 1 Lots Half Duplex up to 1900 SF  • 4 Class 1A Lots Half Duplex Affordable up to 1900 SF  • 2 Class 2 Lots Single Family up to 2600 SF  • 1 Class 2A Lot Single Family Affordable up to 2600 SF  • 12 Class 3 Lots Single Family up to 3800 SF  • 5 Class 4 Lots Single Family up to 5500 SF  • 26 Total Dwelling Units        NEIGHBORHOOD “B” LAYOUT            TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 25 2.5.3 Neighborhood C  Located between two upland benches near the existing residential dwellings, this  neighborhood is comprised of 11 lots. Neighborhood C utilizes natural topography and  vegetation to embrace and screen the homesites. A small central neighborhood park is  also provided. This neighborhood matrix is as follows:    • 2 Class 1 Lots Half Duplex up to 1900 SF  • 2 Class 1A Lots Half Duplex Affordable up to 1900 SF  • 1 Class 2 Lot Single Family up to 2600 SF  • 1 Class 2A Lot Single Family Affordable up to 2600 SF  • 4 Class 3 Lots Single Family up to 3800 SF  • 1 Class 4 Lot Single Family up to 5500 SF  • 11 Total Dwelling Units          NEIGHBORHOOD “C” LAYOUT  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 26 2.5.4 Neighborhood D  The southernmost neighborhood in TCI Lane Ranch, this neighborhood is comprised of  13 lots. The neighborhood is focused around a large central open space meadow, and  also contains a public parking area for river access by foot. The neighborhood is fringed  and screened around the perimeter by stands of cottonwood trees and heavily forested  areas. This neighborhood matrix is as follows:    • 0 Class 1 Lots Half Duplex up to 1900 SF  • 0 Class 1A Lots Half Duplex Affordable up to 1900 SF  • 0 Class 2 Lots Single Family up to 2600 SF  • 0 Class 2A Lots Single Family Affordable up to 2600 SF  • 5 Class 3 Lots Single Family up to 3800 SF  • 8 Class 4 Lots Single Family up to 5500 SF  • 13 Total Dwelling Units        NEIGHBORHOOD “D” LAYOUT    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 27 2.5.5 Neighborhood E  Located in the southeastern area of TCI Lane Ranch, this smallest neighborhood is  comprised of 8 lots. The majority of the lots are located near the woodland fringe, while  the remainder back to common Open Space along the Blue Creek Ditch. This  neighborhood matrix is as follows:    • 0 Class 1 Lots Half Duplex up to 1900 SF  • 0 Class 1A Lots Half Duplex Affordable up to 1900 SF  • 3 Class 2 Lots Single Family up to 2600 SF  • 1 Class 2A Lot Single Family Affordable up to 2600 SF  • 4 Class 3 Lots Single Family up to 3800 SF  • 0 Class 4 Lots Single Family up to 5500 SF  • 8 Total Dwelling Units                                                                     NEIGHBORHOOD “E” LAYOUT                        TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 28 2.5.6 Neighborhood F  Located on the eastern edge of the property near the existing Waldorf School playfield,  this neighborhood is comprised of 16 lots. The neighborhood is arranged around a large  common central open space, with a single‐loaded street system. The neighborhood is  geographically separated from the others by topography and vegetation to the north,  and the Blue Creek Ditch to the south. A path connection provides access for Waldorf  school students and teachers though TCI Lane Ranch to the pedestrian bridge over the  Roaring Fork River. This neighborhood matrix is as follows:    • 4 Class 1 Lots Half Duplex up to 1900 SF  • 0 Class 1A Lots Half Duplex Affordable up to 1900 SF  • 2 Class 2 Lots Single Family up to 2600 SF  • 2 Class 2A Lots Single Family Affordable up to 2600 SF  • 6 Class 3 Lots Single Family up to 3800 SF  • 2 Class 4 Lots Single Family up to 5500 SF  • 16 Total Dwelling Units                                    NEIGHBORHOOD “F” LAYOUT  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 29 2.6 Affordable Housing  Affordable Housing within TCI Lane Ranch will be provided per section 4.07 of the Garfield  County Zoning Resolution. The affordable housing units within the PUD will be dispersed and  incorporated throughout the individual neighborhoods, encouraging a mix of housing types and  socio‐economic intermingling.     Calculation of Affordable Housing Requirement:    89 total units x 10% = 8.9 (rounded = 9 units required)    These nine (9) units are to be resident occupied and deed restricted per the Definitions  set forth in section 4.07.14 of the Zoning Resolution. The proposed Deed Restriction is  included as Appendix AA. The following proposed affordable housing agreement is in  complete compliance with 4.07.14 (3) as listed below:    (3) Management ‐ Ongoing management of the deed restrictions will be administered by  the Garfield County Housing Authority, or another approved housing agency, according  to an agreement brought forward by the applicant and approved by the County  Commission. That agreement will also stipulate the means of determining the allocation  of units, any proposed fees to fund the management agreement, and any other  necessary terms. The agreement will be adopted as part of the final plat. The County will  maintain a list of approved housing agencies in the Planning Director's office.    Pursuant to this section of the Resolution, the nine (9) required designated affordable  housing lots are as follows:    • Units to be conveyed to and administered by Garfield County Housing Authority:  Lots 1, 10, 11, 24, 25, and 28    • Unit to be conveyed to and administered by Roaring Fork Conservancy (local  quasi‐public employer and project partner): Lot 81    • Unit to be conveyed to and administered by Roaring Fork Transportation  Authority (local quasi‐public employer and project partner): Lot 38    • Unit to be conveyed to and administered by Holy Cross Energy (local quasi‐ public employer and project partner): Lot 27    Each of the above listed units shall be deed restricted in accordance with the Garfield  County Zoning Resolution. The proposed Deed Restriction is included as Appendix AA.  The entities to which they are conveyed shall retain the right of first refusal to buy back  the unit or to re‐sell to another qualified employee. If the managing entity does not  exercise those rights, the unit(s) shall be turned over to the Garfield County Housing  Authority. Based on the required computation of affordable housing units (Section  4.07.15.03 of Zoning Resolution), at least 16 bedrooms will be provided in these nine (9)  units, with a minimum of one (1) bedroom per unit. These nine (9) units will be  constructed at a rate that is proportional to the construction of market rate units within  the community, which will be a minimum of 10% affordable to 90% market rate at any  given time.  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 30   In addition to the nine (9) required affordable housing units, TCI Lane Ranch intends to  provide five (5) additional affordable housing units that will be perpetually deed  restricted and managed by the applicant for employees. These lots are as follows:    • To be administered by applicant, or conveyed to and administered by other  applicant‐owned entity: Lots 17, 36, 37, 66, and 89    In total, 16% of the units within TCI Lane Ranch will be provided as affordable housing.  This exceeds both the requirements of the current Zoning Resolution (10%) and those of  the future Unified Land Use Resolution (15%) which becomes effective in 2009.      TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 31 2.7 Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Production  2.7.1 Introduction to Bonsai Communities  As a sister company to TCI Lane Ranch, LLC (the applicant), Bonsai Communities will be  the majority homebuilder for TCI Lane Ranch and has been involved in the layout and  composition of the development from an efficiency, energy and environmental  requirements perspective. Bonsai Communities focuses on building sustainable, healthy  and energy efficient communities and homes that are backed with detailed scientific  analysis, and measured in reality to ensure the intended goals are met.     Each Bonsai Communities project, whether an entire community development or an  individual home, is built upon stringent healthy, sustainability, efficiency and quality  standards. These deep green standards are planned, quantified and measured in  practice as opposed to theoretical guidelines without implementation. The pillars of this  ‘deep green’ focus include:     ƒ Energy – substantial reliance on onsite energy production and energy  efficiency  ƒ Water – efficient use through structured plumbing, fixtures, appliances  and landscaping  ƒ Sustainable Materials – utilizing local, sustainable, recycled and reduced  content materials  ƒ Healthy Living – superb indoor air quality, daylighting practices, CO2  offset programs and natural inclusion into the surrounding environment  ƒ Site Planning – maximize solar south orientation, community spaces,  minimizing habitat disturbance and eco‐transportation accessibility   ƒ Building Processes – energy efficient building practices with well  constructed, insulated and equipped homes and offices    A sustainable, efficient and environmentally friendly community starts with well  thought‐out planning and design considerations, interwoven with the existing physical  attributes of the site itself. Some of the considerations made in the TCI Lane Ranch site  plan include:    • utilizing natural heating, cooling and daylighting of the homes by  maximizing southern exposure  • carefully planning building placement to minimize storm water runoff,  minimize habitat disturbance, protect open spaces and reduce erosion  risks   • design and placement of road systems and parking, pedestrian trails,  and bicycles to reduce the need for motorized transportation  • where possible, locating driveways, parking and entrances on the  buildings’ south side to reduce snow and ice build‐up  • minimizing visual impacts through the use of natural vegetation and  designs which meld with the surrounding environment and diminish the  visual impact of the homes and their imposition on the landscape  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 32 • considerable investment in trees and shrubs to reduce heat island  effects through providing shade, while also enhancing visual  appearance, offsetting CO2, providing increased air quality, and creating  a healthy living environment    2.7.2 Renewable Energy Production  TCI Lane Ranch will utilize a variety of energy production and efficiency practices to  eliminate the energy impact of its existence. Most notable, is the construction of a 300‐ Kilowatt photovoltaic solar farm on site, the largest private solar farm in the state of  Colorado. This installation of solar will be located in one central solar array as  designated on the site plan for optimal performance and long term maintainability to  remain effective. On average, this solar system would produce in excess of 1.6  Megawatts of power each day, representing an estimated 100% of each home’s daily  energy consumption.    A site‐specific solar radiation study was conducted by DNM Architect in order to analyze  the most productive location for a community solar farm. This analysis takes into  account latitude, topography, average sun angles throughout the course of the year and  satellite radiation data from NASA. The results of this study led to the location of the  solar farm within TCI Lane Ranch.    2.7.3 Efficient, Sustainable & Healthy Building  All homes within the community will be built and measured to strict self‐imposed  energy efficiency standards, exceeding those of the LEED rating system. Additionally, TCI  Lane Ranch will exceed ENERGY STAR compliance on 100% of its homes. Bonsai  Communities is an ENERGY STAR certified developer with 100% designation. This means  we have committed to 100% of the buildings we construct to meet or exceed the  ENERGY STAR efficiency standards.    Bonsai Communities prides itself on eclipsing the highest standards of energy efficiency,  sustainability and healthy living. TCI Lane Ranch dwellings will meet a very high standard  of efficiency, sustainability and healthy living in 5 key areas: electricity, gas (heating),  water, sustainable material use and healthy living standards. Each structure will be  designed, built and continually measured against the following minimal standards. If a  structure does not meet these stringent criteria during its post‐construction use, an  analysis will be conducted and an appropriate mitigation plan will be followed to regain  compliance. Bonsai Communities’ efficiency standards are achieved through following  our detailed design guidelines.    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 33 Following are the Bonsai Communities’ standards for each residential unit within TCI  Lane Ranch as compared to an average U.S. home, based on current statistics as of  11/1/2008:    Building Standards          100% less electricity   0 (zero) kWh of net electricity use per day as compared to the national average  of 29.19 kWh per day according to the U.S. Department of Energy, taking into  consideration a more efficient home and use thereof, as well as substantial  onsite alternative energy production offsets. Demand reductions will be  achieved through 90%+ daylighting designs to minimize electrical lighting use,  90%+ use of ENERGY STAR certified appliances, and energy efficient designs and  practices such as passive solar and shading designs to naturally minimize  heating and cooling loads.    50% less gas (heating)  62 million BTU per year compared to 124 million BTU per year average based on  Zone 1 climate information from the U.S. Department of Energy, achieved  through passive solar design, superior heating efficiency (radiant heat, high  efficiency boilers and thermostatically controlled on‐demand hot water  heaters), a tight and increased insulation thermal envelop. Passive designs  include considerations such as solar exposure and orientation, window  placement and glazing, appropriately sized and positioned overhands and decks,  heating masses such as dense floors and walls, solar chimneys to stack hot air  into the home, carefully planned cross drafting and air movement, and ideal  floor plans to optimize solar exposure in key areas throughout the day.    40% less water  210 gallons per day compared to 350 gallons of daily use for the average  household according to the American Water Works Association, achieved  through efficient fixtures, appliances and irrigation practices.    80%+ Sustainable materials ‐ criteria for sustainable materials:  ƒ Recycled content (> 15% depending on the type of material)  ƒ Renewable (as certified by an independent third party)  ƒ Resource efficient manufacturing (use of considerably less water,  energy or materials)  ƒ Proximity of materials and supply (within 800 miles)  ƒ Reduced content (> 10% less by volume)  ƒ Packaging (> 75% recyclable by weight)  ƒ Durability (variable depending on material type)    Healthy living standards  ƒ 90%+ IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) materials      ƒ 90%+ daylighting  ƒ Significant additional annual CO2 reduction through planted trees and  shrubs  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 34 ƒ Recycling centers will be installed in each home as well as in central  locations in the community to encourage sustainable living practices.  ƒ A community composting center will be centrally located for community  use  ƒ Community gardens will be located near the community center to  encourage community participation and self reliance on organic, local,  produce.    2.7.4 Efficient Building Practices  TCI Lane Ranch’s focus on minimal environmental impact will not be lost during the  construction process, arguably the most resource inefficient period of any development  project. Bonsai Communities starts with smart, efficient building designs to minimize  their overall material use and environmental impact. Structures are designed to be  visually appealing while minimizing unnecessary features such as elaborate dormers and  non‐structural items like heavy timber beams for enhanced appearance.     Offsite construction will be leveraged to the highest extent possible. Offsite means that  the structures will be custom built in a controlled factory environment; up to 95%  complete, and will then be transported to TCI Lane Ranch for placement and finish.  Offsite design and construction offers a number of unique opportunities to minimize  environmental impacts. The control available in a factory environment allows Bonsai  Communities to be extremely precise with material planning and use – less than 5%  waste is accomplished as compared to up to 40% through standard onsite construction  techniques. We are able to drastically reduce pollution, traffic, and wear and tear from  transportation to and from the building site by utilizing bulk material delivery in the  factory (normally by train), shortened construction timelines in the controlled  environment, close proximity of workers, and the delivery of a small number of  completed modules to the site. Finally, the physical disturbance of the building site can  be minimized, for there is no need to stage and store large amounts of material onsite  for extended periods or provide significant space for machinery and jobsite parking. In  many cases, we are able to clear only the building footprint itself and enough room to  deliver the completed modules. The offsite construction process also allows us to build a  better quality, tighter and more energy efficient structure through the use of pneumatic  tools, refined production practices and advantageous factory apparatus such as jigs and  hoists, all leveraged within a controlled building environment without the adverse  effects of inclement weather conditions on the structures during the construction  process.    For onsite construction, onsite recycling will be mandated to reduce the amount of  landfill waste. Carpooling, public transportation and efficient building supply delivery  will be encouraged to further reduce onsite transportation impacts.  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 35 2.8 Access & Circulation   2.8.1 Access Points  A total of three access points are proposed for TCI Lane Ranch. The two vehicular access points  are from Old Highway 82 on the north of the property. Access permits have been obtained from  CDOT and are included as Appendix X. These two primary access points from Old Highway 82  help to distribute traffic throughout the community while also allowing for secondary  emergency ingress and egress. It is presumed that some of the traffic generated by this project  will utilize the County Road 100 controlled access to Hwy 82, while some will utilize Old Highway  82 to the east of the project, connecting to Hwy 82 at Valley Road. A complete Traffic Impact  Study is included as Appendix W.    A third access point is from Blue Creek Ranch, via an existing 50’ access and utility easement  that was created by this applicant during that project’s development. This third access point will  be limited to emergency, pedestrian, and bicycle use only. Knock‐down bollards will be placed  that allow vehicular passage in the event of emergency. This access is being proposed as two  eight‐foot lanes (paved & Semi‐Primitive pursuant to 9:35, Subdivision Regulations). This third  access will serve to connect the two neighborhoods for emergency services and to provide  continuity in community circulation and pedestrian access.    2.8.2 Vehicular Circulation & Parking  All roads within TCI Lane Ranch have been designed per County standards as indicated in section  9:35, Subdivision Regulations, and meet minimum design criteria for emergency vehicles per  County and Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Standards. The road system within TCI  Lane Ranch PUD will be un‐gated and within private road and utility easements. Lot lines within  each neighborhood will extend to the centerline of roads. The road circulation pattern has been  designed to quickly disperse traffic into each of the six neighborhoods, helping to minimize  traffic volumes on any one road. Road construction sections and details are included in a  separately bound set of drawings accompanying this application.    2.8.3 Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation  The Proposed Site Plan promotes multimodal travel within and from the community, providing  connections to a variety of points within and surrounding the community, including to RFTA’s  Rio Grande Trail. A hierarchy of trails has been created for a variety of uses including paved  asphalt trails, compacted soft‐surface trails, and natural surface primitive trails. The low‐volume  street system within TCI Lane Ranch also serves as a secondary trails system for both bicycles  and pedestrians. The Proposed Site Plan in Appendix B details the trail system for TCI Lane  Ranch. Also please see section 2.9.2 Pedestrian Bridge & Trail System for more information on  trail amenities.      TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 36 2.9 Community Amenities  2.9.1 Community Center  An existing timber barn on the property will be renovated to become the centerpiece of TCI  Lane Ranch as a HOA community center building, and will be surrounded by a park and  community gardens on 3+ acres of Open Space. The community center building will provide  residents with a place to hold community meetings and events, and will also serve as a small  recreation center and HOA office. It is anticipated that indoor facilities may eventually include a  meeting room, exercise facilities, office, kitchen, and restroom on the two floors of the 1450 SF  structure. A small parking area provides space for up to 14 vehicles, including one accessible  space. The existing structure has been evaluated for structural integrity and has been deemed  appropriate for this use. The original architectural character and appearance will be kept intact  through the renovation process. The building will likely serve as a sales and management office  throughout construction phases, prior to being conveyed to the HOA. The community center will  provide an important amenity for residents and will foster community‐wide participation in  various events and programs.  2.9.2 Pedestrian Bridge & Trail System  As discussed in Section 2.8.3, a comprehensive system of trails has been designed as both a  recreational amenity and to promote efficient alternatives to motorized transportation. Specific  trail links have been provided to both the RFTA transit stop at County Road 100 and Hwy 82, and  also to the Rio Grande Trail via a pedestrian bridge to be constructed over the Roaring Fork  River.    The pedestrian bridge has been conceptually approved by RFTA’s Board of Directors, as  evidenced by the meeting minutes provided in Appendix CC. This pedestrian bridge has also  been endorsed by the Waldorf School of the Roaring Fork, as it will allow a direct connection  from that school’s campus through TCI Lane Ranch to the Rio Grande Trail. This connection will  reduce the need for students and teachers to bike or walk on County Road 100 or Old Highway  82. The Waldorf School has provided a letter of support also located in Appendix CC. This bridge  would be managed in coordination with RFTA’s management plan including seasonal closures,  and will be open to the public by way of a public Recreation Path Easement dedication to  Garfield County as indicated on the Preliminary Plat, Appendix C. Construction sections and  details of the pedestrian bridge are included in a separately bound set of drawings  accompanying this application.    Other proposed trails provide connections offsite to Blue Creek Ranch and the Waldorf School,  and to various destinations within the community. A hierarchy of trails has been created for a  variety of uses including paved asphalt trails, compacted soft‐surface trails, and natural surface  primitive trails. The low‐volume street system within TCI Lane Ranch also serves as a secondary  trails system for both bicycles and pedestrians. The Proposed Site Plan in Appendix B highlights  the trail system, while the Conceptual Landscape Plan included in a separately bound set of  drawings provides trail construction details.    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 37 2.9.3 Parks  Parks are provided at both the neighborhood and community levels. Each neighborhood will  have a small dedicated open space park, except for Neighborhood E which is adjacent to the  larger community park. The neighborhood open space parks contain aesthetic irrigation features  which also function as wetlands and stormwater retention. Neighborhood open space parks will  provide central areas for residents to pursue passive recreation activities in a neighborhood  format.     A centrally‐located 3+ acre community park will serve as the central identifying node of TCI Lane  Ranch and will provide a gathering place for larger community events. The Community Center  building is located within the community park. This park will also contain community gardens,  ponds, constructed wetlands, playground facilities, sports fields/open turf areas, facilities for  other outdoor sports, and landscaping. The community trail system allows for easy access to this  destination from each individual neighborhood. A small parking area provides space for up to 14  vehicles, including one accessible space.    2.9.4 Landscape Enhancements  TCI Lane Ranch will provide landscape enhancements with a focus on sustainability, proper  screening, stormwater treatment and recharge, and suitable plant materials with respect to  long‐term maintenance requirements and reducing potential wildlife impacts. A Conceptual  Landscape Plan and Revegetation Plan are included in a separately bound set of drawings as  Sheets L‐1 and L‐2.    The site and landscape character has been developed to compliment the local environment.  Specific site elements were designed with respect to climate, aspect, elevation, soil conditions,  and proposed uses. A strong emphasis is placed on incorporating ecologically‐sensitive and  socially‐conscious design features throughout the project, including the following:    • Utilize native and drought‐tolerant vegetation  • Promotion of infiltration of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces  • Limited use of irrigated turf  • Selection of plant material with regard to wildlife  • Creation of outdoor use areas that carefully consider the elements of solar orientation,  prevailing winds, shade, views, public safety and accessibility  • Promotion of a healthy, pedestrian‐friendly environment with opportunity for  exploration, discovery, and education  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 38 2.10 Utilities  2.10.1 Water & Wastewater  Sewer and water service will be provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District (MVMD). The  commitment to serve letter, County approvals, off‐site infrastructure improvement plans, and  easement exhibits are included in Appendix L, M, N & O, respectively. On‐site sewer and water  infrastructure plans are included in a separately bound set of drawings accompanying this  application.    The Mid Valley Metropolitan District has agreed to annex TCI Lane Ranch into its service area  boundary and provide service to this community. This annexation does not constitute a material  modification of the District’s Service Plan, as evidenced by supporting documentation from both  Eagle County and Garfield County located in Appendix M.    MVMD has assured TCI Lane Ranch and Garfield County that it has adequate legal and physical  water in place to serve the development. In compliance with the application requirements of HB  1141, CRS 29‐20‐305(2), Appendix P & Q provide documentation from MVMD’s general counsel  describing their legal and physical water sources, yields, Master Plan and drought year scenario.    The extension of MVMD service would begin from the Cerise Ranch development east of TCI  Lane Ranch, where existing MVMD easements allow for a connection to the State Highway 82  Right of Way (ROW). From this point, service will extend westward along the CDOT ROW, then  under Highway 82 via boring to reach TCI Lane Ranch. The accompanying plans and easement  exhibits in Appendix N & O provide detail on the alignment and sizing of these improvements.  TCI Lane Ranch will have two on‐site wastewater lift stations that will be built by the developer  and then conveyed to Mid Valley Metropolitan District for perpetual ownership and  management.    MVMD, as the responsible entity, will be obtaining such necessary permit(s) and authorizations  to extend their infrastructure to TCI Lane Ranch. Appendix O, a letter from Mid Valley  Metropolitan District’s general counsel, further explains their plan for obtaining a CDOT permit  and describes (with drawings) their planned utilization of their private easements within Cerise  Ranch for the water/sewer infrastructure extension.    Four wells with domestic underground water rights currently exist on the property, as described  by deed in Appendix G. The existing wells are all located within common open space on the site  plan, and will be capped with the Common Interest Community maintaining the rights to those  wells. The MVMD will also require the reservation of a new augmentation well site within TCI  Lane Ranch which will be provided in the location indicated on plans in Appendix N.    TCI Lane Ranch also owns significant water raw water rights from several ditches, as described  by deed in Appendix G. These water rights will be maintained and conveyed to the Common  Interest Community, with the exception of a portion that will be dedicated to the proposed  Conservation Easement for use in preserving and maintaining the conservation values of that  Tract. A letter of engagement for the Conservation Easement is included as Appendix Y. The  remainder of the raw water will be utilized to provide irrigation support of common areas and  residential lots within the community, including constructed wetlands. Irrigation for individual  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 39 lots will be provided by a separate raw water irrigation system that is fed by a centralized wet  well and pressurized pump station from one of the project’s ditches. The Design Guidelines will  prescribe maximum areas for spray irrigation within each lot.    2.10.2 Natural Gas  Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co. (now Source Gas) maintains a 50’ east‐west easement on the  property for their high‐pressure gas main, which also provides service to the existing residences.  Future natural gas service will be accommodated by the same source. A commitment to service  letter from Source Gas is provided in Appendix DD.    2.10.3 Electric  Holy Cross Energy currently provides power via overhead lines into the property. There is an  existing overhead power line running east to west in the CDOT Right of Way, adjacent to the  northern property boundary of TCI Lane Ranch. The existing overhead line within the property  will be moved, while the main east‐west transmission line will remain. All electrical lines within  the community will be buried. A commitment to service letter from Holy Cross Energy is  provided in Appendix DD.     TCI Lane Ranch and Bonsai Communities have been working extensively on a mutual agreement  with Holy Cross Energy to provide power to their grid via the proposed 300‐Kilowatt solar farm.  Under the initial terms of these discussions, produced power will be metered and supplied from  the TCI Lane Ranch solar farm directly to the grid. Holy Cross Energy will then provide rebates  back to the HOA and community members. The solar farm and this program will allow TCI Lane  Ranch to be a net‐zero community: power consumed will equal power produced. This proposed  agreement between TCI Lane Ranch and Holy Cross Energy is detailed in Appendix DD.     2.10.4 Communications  Telephone communication service will be provided to TCI Lane Ranch by Qwest  Communications. All Qwest communication lines will be buried within the community. Qwest  has indicated that they have adequacy to accommodate this plan, as evidenced by their  commitment to service letter in Appendix DD.    Cable communication service will be provided to TCI Lane Ranch by Comcast. All Comcast  communication lines will be buried within the community. Comcast has indicated that they have  adequacy to accommodate this plan, as evidenced by their commitment to service letter in  Appendix DD.    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 40 2.11 Phasing  The construction of infrastructure improvements is proposed to begin in summer of 2009. The  intent is to install the project’s entire infrastructure (roads, utilities, drainage, etc.) in one  continuous phase throughout 2009, with asphalt paving to occur prior to closing of local asphalt  plants in the fall of 2009. Trails, landscaping, revegetation and the pedestrian bridge are planned  to occur primarily during the 2010 construction season.    Homebuilding is planned to begin by the applicant in 2010. The existing gravel access road into  the property will be maintained during the preliminary vertical construction phase to  accommodate construction traffic and material staging.    It is anticipated that approximately 15‐25 homes will be constructed per year until buildout.  Under this scenario, full buildout is expected between 2013 and 2015. This plan is of course  subject to market conditions and will be adjusted accordingly.    Affordable housing will be built concurrently and proportionately with free market housing in  accordance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution.   TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 41 3 Conformance with County Comprehensive Plan          The Applicant believes the proposed project is in general conformity with the County  Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The Project is located within Comprehensive Plan Study Area  1.     The following section presents the Goals and Objectives from Section III of the Comprehensive  Plan and provides a response as to how the project meets these Goals and Objectives.     3.1 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 1, Public Participation  GOAL:   An integral part of County land use planning is the opportunity for  citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.     OBJECTIVES:   1.1 To develop and maintain a citizen involvement program that clearly  defines the procedures by which the public can be involved in land use  and policy decisions.     1.2 To ensure that there will be continuity of citizen involvement.     1.3 To ensure that citizens have access to information that enables the  identification and comprehension of issues.     1.4 To ensure that the citizen involvement program complies with  statutory requirements.     1.5 The Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission and  Planning Staff should be responsive to issues raised in the planning  process.     1.6 To ensure that all regions of the County are allowed equal  representation and participation into the planning process.         RESPONSE: The design team held two open houses at key stages of the design process to discuss  the proposed project with neighbors and land owners in the vicinity. The first open house was  held on February 13th 2007 at the Village Smithy restaurant in Carbondale. The second open  house was held on June 18th 2008 at the Noble Design Studio in El Jebel. The goals of these open  houses were threefold:     - Provide a forum for neighbors to share their hopes, vision and concerns regarding how  the site will be developed.   TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 42   - Provide an opportunity for the design team to present the project program at various  stages and assure attendees that the team is conscious of their circumstances    - Allow the design team to gain a sense of how TCI Lane Ranch can work with neighboring  developments    The design team believed that by inviting the public to participate in the Project, citizens would  gain a deeper understanding of the team’s vision and motivations. By providing a forum for  citizens to interact directly with the design team, a sense of trust could was established as local  residents were included in the process.     The open house invitee lists, invitation letters, sign‐in sheets, and comments are provided in  Appendix BB.       TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 43 3.2 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 2, Housing    GOALS:   To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents  equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe,  efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect  the natural environment.     Housing at cost of no more than 30% of gross median income.     Designate appropriate areas.     Encourage mix of housing types within a development.     Deed restrictions placed on the title to fix increase in value of a home.     Address the challenge of lack of public support.     Designate and encourage growth‐favorable zones adjacent to community  limits.       Objectives    2.1 – To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to  residents throughout Garfield County.     2.2 To ensure construction of quality housing by continued enforcement  of the County's building code.     2.3 – Residential development should be designed and located to ensure  compatibility with existing and future adjacent development.     2.4 – The County should encourage the development of energy efficient  design, including solar access    2.5 – Residential development should respect the natural characteristics  of a particular site, including topography, vegetation, water features,  geology and visual relationships with surrounding land uses and view  sheds.     2.6 The County should coordinate efforts with the Garfield County  Housing Authority and respective municipalities to foster regional  housing goals.         RESPONSE: The Applicant believes in creating integrated communities and for this reason, the  Project exceeds the County’s affordable housing requirement. According to the Code, the  project is required to provide 9 units of affordable housing; however the Project proposes 14  units. Furthermore, the Project provides free market lots ranging from less than ¼ acre to ½  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 44 acre, helping to ensure that homesites will be attainable for a variety of income levels. The  neighborhoods have been designed such that affordable, duplex and smaller units are  distributed throughout the Project and not relegated to a specific area. Each lot within the  community is also has a designated Maximum Allowable Floor Area, to encourage diversity of  home sizes.     The Project is compatible with surrounding land uses. Blue Creek Ranch, to the west of the  Project, is a residential community with a density of one dwelling unit per 1.6 acres.  Additionally, the two projects are very compatible in terms of contiguous open space, public  river access and trails, and providing a visual buffer to Highway 82. Further west, the Aspen  Equestrian Estates has one dwelling unit per 1.2 acres. TCI Lane Ranch as proposed will have a  density of one dwelling unit per 1.13 acres.  Development on the Waldorf School property,  directly East of TCI Lane Ranch, is concentrated to an area adjacent to Old Highway 82. Under  the proposed plan, land immediately west of the school would remain as open space.     The Applicant is a strong advocate of ecologically‐based design and ‘green’ construction. It is  hoped that this project will serve as a demonstration for sustainable design and construction. To  attain this goal, the Design Guidelines for TCI Lane Ranch will contain strict minimum  requirements for energy efficiency and green building practices for all homes constructed within  the development. The proposed lot layout ensures that each home will have adequate solar  access.     TCI Lane Ranch has been carefully planned to avoid impact to the significant natural features of  the site. A large portion of the most valuable habitat is contained within a proposed  Conservation Easement area adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. Mature tree stands have also  been preserved in open space areas or are located outside proposed building envelopes. The  middle ditch, aka Blue Creek, will be located within an open space area which will be improved  with pedestrian trails and trees for the enjoyment of residents.     Open space provides a visual buffer between the developed portions of the site and Highway  82. This open space buffer is similar and contiguous to an open space parcel on Blue Creek  Ranch. The two parcels together will provide a significant visual buffer to users of Highway 82.  As with Blue Creek Ranch, ranching activities are anticipated to continue within this open space  area which will help maintain the rural character of the site.      TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 45 3.3 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 3, Transportation    GOALS:   Ensure that the County transportation system is safe, functional,  appropriately designed to handle existing and future traffic levels and  includes options for the use of modes other than the single‐occupant  automobile.     Determine appropriate nodes and collector points for public  transportation.     A bus system extended beyond Glenwood Springs should be supported.     Explore rail/bus combination within Study Area I.     Work cooperatively with City of Rifle to develop a Park and Ride facility.     Support public transit services to seniors, youth, and minorities.       OBJECTIVES:  3.1 To encourage the development of a regional public transit system  that respects the interaction between emerging land use patterns and  travel behavior in the Valley.     3.2 To encourage the use of modes other than the automobile.     3.3 Proposed developments will be evaluated in terms of the ability of  County roads to adequately handle the traffic generated by the proposal.     3.4 Proposed developments will include street designs that will reduce  adverse impacts on adjacent land uses, respect natural topography and  minimize driving hazards.     3.5 Proposed developments will provide a minimum number of access  points on through streets and highway corridors.     3.6 Proposed commercial and industrial development will direct traffic to  roadways capable of handling projected traffic.     3.7 Street extensions will be required to occur in a logical manner.       RESPONSE: The proposed development is located near a RFTA park‐and‐ride facility, making it  convenient for residents to commute by bus. Proposed trails within the development would  connect to the Blue Creek Ranch trail located on the south side of Old Highway 82 and provide  direct non‐motorized access to this transit facility. The project also proposes the construction of  a pedestrian bridge across the Roaring Fork River to connect directly to the Rio Grande Trail  which will facilitate easy bicycle travel to the Town of Carbondale and points up valley. A  dedicated public Recreation Path Easement will connect this bridge through TCI Lane Ranch to  Old Highway 82 and maintain access for the public in perpetuity.   TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 46   The development does not directly connect to a County maintained roadway, but rather  connects to Old Highway 82 which is owned and maintained by CDOT. The Traffic Impact Study  is included as Appendix W. Access permits have been obtained from CDOT for the two proposed  access points from Old Highway 82. These permits are included in Appendix X.    The Project has been designed such that the proposed internal roadways avoid impact to the  natural features of the site. The site does not contain steep topography that would restrict the  proposed road layouts. All roadways have been designed to minimize driving hazards. The  Project does not propose access points in excess of those needed to provide adequate  circulation and emergency service. The proposed road connection to Blue Creek Ranch has been  designed as an emergency and pedestrian access only.    3.4 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 4, Commercial and Industrial  This section has been omitted as the project is not seeking approvals for commercial or  industrial land uses.      TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 47 3.5 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 5, Recreation and Open Space    GOALS:   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.     Interconnect trail system through the county with community trail  systems.     Extend trail system along river corridors.     Obtain rights‐of‐way and address private land issues.     Look to the communities to be the centers for community activity with  county guidance.     Work with the communities to develop a Colorado River trails and  preservation plan.     Determine the appropriate location for the Fairgrounds.       OBJECTIVES:   5.1 Encourage the location of active recreational opportunities that are  accessible to County residents.     5.2 The County will support and encourage the creation of open space,  through the development and implementation of zoning, subdivision and  PUD regulations designed to retain and enhance existing open space  uses.     5.3 Access to public lands will be expanded and maintained.     5.4 Rafting and fishing access will be strongly encouraged during the  development review process.     5.5 Visual corridors are considered an important physical attribute of the  County and policies will reflect the need to carefully plan these areas.     5.6 Noise, parking and accessibility will be major concerns.     5.7 Encourage interaction between county/community.       RESPONSE: The proposed Project retains 68.4% of the site as permanent open space. The  majority of this open space will remain in a natural, undeveloped state. There are three main  open space areas within the Project; a proposed 32.4 acre Conservation Easement adjacent to  the Roaring Fork River, a linear park associated with Blue Creek Ditch in the middle of the site,  and a large pasture area adjacent to Highway 82. There are also five smaller open space areas  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 48 which serve as neighborhood parks. An extensive trail network connects the neighborhoods to  the open spaces and the river, and provides alternate pedestrian routes through the site.     All of the open space adjacent to the Roaring Fork River will be within a Conservation Easement  to be held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy (see Appendix Y). This open space will provide a  visual buffer to users on the Rio Grande Trail, fishermen and boaters. Some primitive trails will  be located within this open space. This trail network significantly increases public fishing access  along this portion of the Roaring Fork River. In addition, the Applicant is proposing the  construction of a pedestrian bridge across the river to connect directly with the Rio Grande Trail.  The bridge will be accessible via a public Recreation Path Easement from the Rio Grande Trail  through TCI Lane Ranch to Old Highway 82. The bridge will be subject to the same seasonal  wildlife closures as the Rio Grande Trail. A public parking area is included in the southern portion  of the site to facilitate river access.     The central open space area contains Blue Creek Ditch, a community center, community  gardens, and a non‐programmed open park area. Blue Creek Ditch will be improved by  developing a more naturalistic stream course, planting native vegetation, constructing a  pedestrian trail and providing amenities such as benches and pet stations. The entire length of  Blue Creek Ditch within the property is located within community open space. Near the center  of the Project, the linear park widens to include a community center and park. The community  center will be provided by restoring an existing barn where it currently exists. The community  center will provide residents a place to hold community meetings and events, and may also  serve as a small recreation center. The park area will contain a multi‐use field, children’s play  area, community gardens and naturalistic amenities. The community center, park and Blue  Creek Ditch are accessible to all neighborhoods via the Project trail network.     A large open space area has been provided adjacent to the Highway 82 corridor. This open  space is intended to preserve the rural viewshed along Highway 82. It is anticipated that  ranching activities will continue on this parcel, which will maintain the rural qualities of the  property. This open space is contiguous with a similar open space parcel on Blue Creek Ranch.  These two open space parcels provide a significant continuous visual buffer to development as  viewed from Highway 82.    The five neighborhood parks are designed to provide residents a convenient place to participate  in active or passive recreation. These small open spaces also contribute to a more open and  rural neighborhood feel.      TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 49 3.6 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 6, Agriculture    GOAL:   To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in  operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review.     Consider the use of Transfer of Development Rights.     Join farmers and ranchers together to develop a land use plan for  agriculture.     Consider land trusts and conservation easements.    OBJECTIVES:  6.1 Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing  farms and ranches.     6.2 Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher‐intensity  adjacent uses.     6.3 Developments adjacent to agricultural uses should be reviewed in a  manner that allows for flexibility in resolving compatibility conflicts with  adjacent uses.       RESPONSE: The Project proposes to maintain ranching activities on the site in the open space  area adjacent to Highway 82, and partially within the Conservation Easement. A similar open  space parcel on Blue Creek Ranch has mostly been used as a fall/spring grazing area. The TCI  Lane Ranch open space has been designed so that it can be easily connected to the Blue Creek  Ranch agricultural parcel. These two parcels will provide access in perpetuity to ranch land,  which will become a more valuable resource in the future. The ranch use on this parcel will be  buffered from the residential areas by stands of existing mature trees and newly planted trees.    The project also includes a central community garden, which will provide residents with an  opportunity to grow vegetables in collaboration with neighbors in a resource‐efficient manner.      TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 50 3.7 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 7, Water and Sewer Services    GOALS:   To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost‐effective  and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new  development.     OBJECTIVES:   7.1 Development in areas without existing central water and sewer  service will be required to provide adequate and safe provisions for these  services before project approval.     7.2 Development located adjacent to municipalities or sanitation districts  with available capacity in their central water/sewer systems will be  strongly encouraged to tie into these systems.     7.3 Projects proposing the use of ISDS will be required to assess the site's  capability to accommodate these systems prior to project approval.     7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed  project on existing water and sewer systems.     7.5 Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private  water and sewer systems.     7.6 High‐density development, defined as exceeding one (1) dwelling unit  per one (1) acre, will be required to assess the potential of connecting  into existing central water and sewer facilities.       RESPONSE: The Project will be served by connecting to the Mid Valley Metropolitan District  sewer and water service. A letter from Mid Valley Metro District indicates that the District has  existing capacity to accommodate TCI Lane Ranch. Details of this service provision are included  in Appendix L.      TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 51 3.8 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 8, Natural Resources    GOALS:   Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the  environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical  capacity of the land and is in the best interests of the health, safety and  welfare of Garfield County.     Enhancement of the river corridor.     The reclamation of land after extraction processes.     Protection of watersheds and flood plains.     Control of drainage that impacts the communities.     OBJECTIVES:  8.1 The County of Garfield reserves the right to deny a project based on  severe environmental constraints that endanger public health, safety or  welfare.     8.2 Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical features  of the land and design projects in a manner that is compatible with the  physical environment.     8.3 Garfield County will ensure that natural drainages are protected from  alteration.     8.4 River‐fronts and riparian areas are fragile components of the  ecosystem and these areas require careful review in the planning  process.     8.5 Development proposals will be required to address soil constraints  unique to the proposed site.     8.6 Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological  resources and critical wildlife habitats are protected.     8.7 Development will be encouraged in areas with the least  environmental constraints.       RESPONSE: TCI Lane Ranch has been carefully planned to avoid impact to significant natural  features of the site. A large portion of the most valuable habitat is contained within the  proposed Conservation Easement area adjacent the Roaring Fork River. A majority of existing  mature trees on the property have been purposely located within open space areas or lay  outside proposed roadways and lots. The Middle Ditch, aka Blue Creek Ditch, will be located  within an open space area which will be improved with pedestrian trails and trees for the  enjoyment of residents.     TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 52 Lots have been arranged so that there is a major buffer between the riverbank and the rear of  lots. Building envelopes will further restrict construction towards the front of the lots in this  area. The natural drainages on the property are generally located within open space or are  outside building envelopes. The Applicant is proposing a large open space parcel adjacent to  Highway 82 in order to preserve the view corridor from that roadway.     3.9 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 9, Natural Resource Extraction    This section has been omitted as the project is not seeking approvals for resource extraction  land uses.    3.10 Comprehensive Plan Section III, Subsection 10, Urban Area of Influence    GOALS:   Ensure that development and overall land use policies occurring in the  County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing  zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality.     Establish an Intergovernmental Agreement between the county and the  communities.     Share Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission  members when issues cross county‐community boundaries.     Allow for comments on community impacts including cases which fall  outside the community’s sphere of influence.     Promote development in and around existing communities.     Grandfathering or time limiting early plan approvals.     Periodically hold Planning Commission meetings in the west end of the  county.     OBJECTIVES:   10.1 County land use policies will be consistent with local land use  policies and objectives.     10.2 Development that requires urban Services will be encouraged to  locate in areas where these services are available.     10.3 Development in an Urban Area of Influence will have street patterns  that are compatible with the affected municipality.     10.4 Preservation of airport area for commercial and industrial sites.     10.5 Retain rural character outside of community limits.     TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 53 10.6 Enough land area within community limits to accommodate growth  for the next twenty years without annexation.       RESPONSE: The Project is not located within an Urban Area of Influence. However, the Project is  located adjacent to or nearby residential developments of similar density. The Project will rely  on rural and District services and will not require municipal services.     It is anticipated that a majority of urban services will be provided by the El Jebel commercial  area. The Carbondale and Glenwood Springs areas will also provide many urban conveniences.  Additional conveniences are provided by Catherine’s Store, which serves as a neighborhood  commercial center.     The proposed open space adjacent to the Highway 82 corridor will help preserve the rural  qualities of the site (see Recreation and Open Space, Section 3.5).       TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 54 4 Conformance with County PUD Guidelines          Introduction  The following section demonstrates the project’s specific conformance with the PUD Guidelines  as set forth by the Garfield County Zoning Resolution.    Zoning Resolutions    4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTER/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN    RESPONSE: TCI Lane Ranch was granted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on  July 11, 2007 by the Garfield County Planning Commission via Resolution PC‐ 2007‐05, which provided a designation of Residential High Density for the  property.    4.06    INTERNAL COMPATIBILITY OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS    RESPONSE:  The Project contains housing, recreation, open space, and a  photovoltaic solar farm in a highly compatible format.    The TCI Lane Ranch site plan also takes into consideration adjacent land uses  through a design that respects existing development patterns and land uses.  Adjacent to Blue Creek Ranch, homesites have been designed to respect the  existing pattern of development. Open Space areas associated with the two  projects create a consistent visual buffer for travelers of Highway 82 for 3500  linear feet. Similarly on the east side of the project, the site plan respects  existing development patterns with a large Open Space area adjacent to the  Waldorf School building. On the south side of the site, a large proposed  conservation easement adjoins the adjacent public lands and recreational Rio  Grande Trail. Restricting development in this area protects the recreational  experiences for users of the Trail and the Roaring Fork River.    4.07  STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS    4.07.02  The number of off‐street parking spaces for each use in each PUD shall not be  less than the requirements for like uses in other zoning districts, except that  the County Commissioners may increase or decrease the required number of  off‐street parking spaces in consideration of the following factors:  (1) Estimated number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the PUD;  (2) Parking needs of non‐dwelling uses;  (3) Varying time periods of use whenever joint use of common parking areas is  proposed.    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 55 RESPONSE: Parking requirements will be met by providing all residential spaces  within driveways or garages (up to 506 spaces, depending on dwelling size and  bedrooms built). No on‐street parking will be provided. The community center  will provide 14 spaces, including 1 accessible space. A public river access parking  area will provide another 8 spaces.    4.07.03  The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can  demonstrate that one (1) or more of them is not applicable or that a practical  solution has been otherwise achieved:    (1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area,  with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized.    RESPONSE: The Project is compatible with surrounding land uses. Blue Creek  Ranch, to the west of the Project, is a residential community with a density of  one dwelling unit per 1.6 acres. Additionally, the two projects are very  compatible in terms of contiguous open space, public river access and trails, and  providing a visual buffer to Highway 82. Further west, the Aspen Equestrian  Estates has one dwelling unit per 1.2 acres. TCI Lane Ranch, as proposed, will  have a density of one dwelling unit per 1.13 acres.  Development on the Waldorf  School property, directly east of TCI Lane Ranch, is concentrated to an area  adjacent to Old Highway 82. Under the proposed plan, land immediately west of  the school would remain as open space.     (2) The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system  designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas,  convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided  that adequate access for police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle  traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes.    RESPONSE:  All roadways have been designed to minimize driving hazards. The  Project does not propose access points in excess of those needed to provide  adequate circulation and emergency service. The proposed road connection to  Blue Creek Ranch has been designed as an emergency and pedestrian access  only. Proposed trails within the development would connect to the Blue Creek  Ranch trail located on the south side of Old Highway 82 and provide direct non‐ motorized access to the RFTA transit facility. The project is also pursuing the  construction of a pedestrian bridge across the Roaring Fork River to connect  directly to the Rio Grande Trail which will facilitate easy bicycle travel to the  Town of Carbondale and points up valley. Bicycles may also use the street  system within the community.    (3) The PUD shall provide parking areas adequate in terms of location, area,  circulation, safety, convenience, separation and screening.    RESPONSE:  A public parking area is included in the southern portion of the site  to facilitate river access.  The central open space area will also include a parking  area to serve the Community Center, park, and community garden users.  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 56   (4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of location,  area and type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the uses permitted  in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for optimum preservation of the natural  features of the terrain.    RESPONSE:  The proposed PUD retains 68.4% of the site as permanent open  space. A majority of this open space will remain in a natural, undeveloped state.  There are three main open space areas within the project; an area adjacent to  the Roaring Fork River, a linear park associated with Blue Creek Ditch in the  middle of the site, and an area adjacent to Highway 82. There are also five  smaller open space areas which serve as neighborhood parks.     All of the open space adjacent to the Roaring Fork River will be open to the  public and provides river access. This open space provides a visual buffer to  users on the Rio Grande Trail, fishermen and boaters.     The central open space area contains Blue Creek Ditch, a community center and  a non‐programmed open park area. Blue Creek Ditch will be improved by  developing a more naturalistic stream course, planting native vegetation,  constructing a pedestrian trail and providing amenities such as benches and pet  stations. The entire length of Blue Creek Ditch within the property is located  within community open space. Near the center of the project, the linear park  widens to include a community center and park. The community center, park  and Blue Creek Ditch are accessible to all neighborhoods via the community trail  network.     A large open space pasture has been preserved adjacent to the Highway 82  corridor. This open space is intended to preserve the rural view corridor along  Highway 82. It is anticipated that ranching activities will continue on this parcel,  which will maintain the rural qualities of the property. This open space is  contiguous with a similar open space parcel on Blue Creek Ranch. These two  open space parcels provide a significant continuous visual buffer to  development as viewed from Highway 82.     The five neighborhood parks are designed to provide residents a convenient  place to participate in active or passive recreation. These small open spaces also  contribute to a more open and rural neighborhood feel.    (5) The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other  facilities and Common Open Space.    RESPONSE:  The Project provides lots ranging from less than ¼ acre to ½ acre,  helping to ensure that homesites will be attainable for a variety of income  levels. The neighborhoods have been designed such that affordable, duplex and  smaller units are distributed throughout the Project and not relegated to a  specific area.    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 57 The central open space area contains Blue Creek Ditch, a community center and  a non‐programmed open park area. The entire length of Blue Creek Ditch within  the property is located within community open space. Near the center of the  Project, the linear park widens to include a community center and park. The  community center will provide residents a place to hold community meetings  and events, and may also serve as a small recreation center. The park area will  contain a multi‐use field, children’s play area, community gardens and  naturalistic amenities. The community center, park and Blue Creek Ditch are  accessible to all neighborhoods via the community trail network.    (6) The PUD shall provide adequate privacy between dwelling units.    RESPONSE:  All building envelopes are set back a minimum of 15’ from lot lines,  creating a minimum 30’ buffer between adjacent building envelopes.    (7) The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways adequate in terms of safety,  separation, convenience, and access to points of destination and  attractiveness.    RESPONSE:  An extensive trail network connects the neighborhoods to the open  spaces and the river, and provides alternate pedestrian routes through the site.  Proposed trails within the development will connect to the Blue Creek Ranch  trail located on the south side of Old Highway 82 and provide direct non‐ motorized access to the transit facility. A pedestrian bridge across the Roaring  Fork River will connect directly to the Rio Grande Trail which will facilitate easy  bicycle travel to the Town of Carbondale or points up valley.    (8) If centralized water and/or wastewater facilities are proposed within the  PUD, they shall be provided for in a separate utility zone district that shall  contain its own performance standards. No land within any utility zone district  shall apply toward any category of open space calculation or requirement. The  PUD shall demonstrate how common water and wastewater facilities will be  controlled or governed by the future owners within the PUD. (A. 97‐109)    RESPONSE:  No centralized water or wastewater facilities are proposed within  the PUD.    (9) Any disturbance of slopes in excess of 40% shall be the minimum necessary  to meet the development needs, with a revegetation and geotechnical plan  submitted with the PUD application. (A. 97‐109)    RESPONSE:  The property does not contain any slopes in excess of 40%.    10) If community facilities are proposed to be contained or allowed in the  PUD, the application shall discuss who or what entity shall be responsible for  the provision of and payment for the proposed facilities. The facilities shall  also be included within the overall common infrastructure requirements of the  PUD, to include water, wastewater and parking requirements. (A. 97‐109)  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 58 RESPONSE:  Two community facilities are proposed within the PUD; a  community center with park, and a photovoltaic solar farm. The ownership and  management of these facilities will be conveyed to the Home Owners  Association (HOA) as detailed in the proposed Declaration of Covenants,  Conditions, and Restrictions, Appendix Z.    4.07.04  The maximum height of buildings may be increased above the maximum  permitted for like buildings in other zone districts in relation to the following  characteristics of the proposed building:  (1) It’s geographical location;  (2) The probable effect on surrounding slopes and mountainous terrain;  (3) Unreasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent sites or other areas in the  immediate vicinity;  (4) Potential problems for adjacent sites caused by shadows, loss of air  circulation or loss of view;  (5) Influence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme contrast, vistas  and open space; and  (6) Uses within the proposed building.  (7) Development supportive of mass transit operations in a TPUD. (added  2002‐12)    RESPONSE:  The PUD is not seeking an increase to the maximum allowable  building height.    4.07.05 The maximum lot areas and the minimum setback restrictions may be  decreased below and the maximum lot coverage may be increased above  those applicable to like buildings in other zone districts to accommodate  specific building types with unusual orientation on the lot or relationship  between buildings. The averaging of lot areas shall be permitted to provide  flexibility in design and to relate lot size to topography, but each lot shall  contain an acceptable building site. The clustering of development with  useable common open areas shall be permitted to encourage provision for,  and access to, common open areas and to save street and utility construction  and maintenance costs. Such clustering is also intended to accommodate  contemporary building types which are not spaced individually on their own  lots but share common side walls, combined service facilities or similar  architectural innovations, whether or not providing for separate ownership of  land and buildings. Architectural style of buildings shall not be a basis for  denying approval of a PUD application.    RESPONSE:  The PUD is not seeking exception to maximum lot areas or  minimum setback restrictions.    4.07.06  The overall residential density shall be no greater than two (2) dwelling units  per gross acre within the PUD; provided, however, that the County  Commissioners may allow an increase to a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling  units per gross acre in areas where public water and sewer systems, owned  and operated by a municipal government or special district (as defined by  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 59 Section 32‐1‐103(20), C.R.S.) are readily available and the prior zoning  classification allowed residential densities greater than two (2) dwelling units  per gross acre, such increased densities shall nevertheless comply with the  maximum lot coverage, minimum setback, maximum floor area ratio,  maximum building height and parking standards of such prior zoning  classification. The overall average residential density shall be calculated by  summing the number of residential dwelling units planned within the  boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area expressed in acres  within the boundary of the PUD. The density of dwelling units in any particular  area may be greater than the maximum permitted for a like use in other zone  districts. Averaging and transferring of densities within the PUD shall be  allowed upon a showing of conformance with the purposes of this section  through appropriate design features within the PUD that will achieve high  standards of design and livability. (A. 83‐93, A. 96‐87, A. 97‐109) (amended  2002‐12) Where the application is a TPUD, and showing of conformance with  the purposes of this section is deemed appropriate by the board, limitations  set on previously zoned density of under two dwelling units per gross acre  may be removed and the applicant may propose higher overall densities and  exceed standard building height limitations otherwise specified herein,  provided only that standards specified in 4.07.04 are considered. Special  attention shall be given to fire protection and equipment needs triggered by  such a proposal. Any proposal requesting a density above 5 dwelling units per  gross acre within 2000 feet of a proposed or developed mass transit station or  terminal shall provide 10% additional affordable housing units (In Study Area  One, a total of 20%) with those units being within 2000 feet of the proposed  station or terminal, even though previous zoning did not allow that level of  density for those developments within 2000 feet. The intent of this section of  the Resolution is to permit both the PUD allowance of increased density  provided that 10% of the proposed units are affordable units, and an  additional increased density, where increased density is proximate to and  supports a transit station or terminal, and that higher density within 2000 feet  of the transit station or terminal. The applicant must show a concentration of  affordable units equaling 20% of the proposed housing stock where density  exceeds five units per acre in Study Area One. (A. 83‐93, A. 96‐97, A. 97‐109)  (amended 2002‐12)     RESPONSE:  The PUD proposes 89 Units on 100.52 acres which establishes a  gross density of only 1.13 dwelling units per acre.    4.07.07  The minimum number of acres that may comprise a PUD is two (2) acres.    RESPONSE:  The proposed PUD comprises 100.52 acres.    4.07.08  All uses, which are permitted in the underlying zone district or consistent with  the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan, or approved as an  amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, may be permitted in PUDs. (A. 95‐ 043, A. 97‐109) The uses, which shall be permitted in any particular PUD shall  be those permitted by the resolution zoning the particular area PUD.  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 60   RESPONSE:  Single family dwelling, agricultural, farm, garden, and ranch land  uses are uses by right in the A/R/RD Zone District. Community buildings and  water impoundments are Conditional Uses in this Zone. Two‐family dwellings  (duplexes) and utility substations (solar farm) are Special Uses in this Zone.    4.07.09  Twenty‐five percent (25%) of the total area within the boundary of any PUD  shall be devoted to Common Open Space. Not more than twenty‐five percent  (25%) of the Common Open Space shall be an area of water classified as  commercial open space. Of the 25% open space requirement within PUDs, no  more than 40% of the 25% total required, shall be limited use open space,  with the balance being retained as one or more of the remaining open space  categories, listed above. Provided, however, that the County Commissioners  may reduce such requirement if they find that such decrease is warranted by  the design of, and the amenities and features incorporated into the Plan, and  that the needs of the occupants of the PUD for Common Open Space can be  met in the proposed PUD. (A. 97‐109)     RESPONSE:  The proposed PUD retains 68.4% of the property as open space. The  proposed Conservation Easement comprises 32% of the PUD, while Common  Open Space comprises 36% of the PUD.    4.07.11  Findings of the Planned Unit Development Regulations Section: (2001‐44) It is  essential and necessary for the preservation and for the maintenance of the  health, welfare, safety, and quality of life in Garfield County to ensure the  provision of affordable housing, which mitigates the impact of new  development. Recognizing that new development generates additional  employment needs, and being consistent with a desire to have new  development mitigate impacts attributable to such development, the County  finds it necessary to require new development to provide affordable housing.  Housing must be affordable to the local labor force in order for the local  economy to remain stable and to grow in a healthy manner. (amended 2002‐ 12)     RESPONSE:  Fourteen (14) of the eighty‐nine (89) total units within the PUD will  be deed‐restricted affordable units. This is an affordable housing rate of 16%.    4.07.15.01  For Lands Designated High Density Residential:  (1) Planned Unit Developments ‐ All Planned Unit Development proposals, and  Planned Unit Development Amendment requests which results in an increase  in density, must provide that at least 10% of the housing mix are affordable  housing units. Providing 10% affordable housing units will not, by itself, be  sufficient to fulfill the PUD requirement for a variety of housing types and  densities [Section 4.07.03(5)].    RESPONSE:  The PUD includes 16% of the housing mix as affordable housing  units. This equates to 14 total deed‐restricted affordable units.    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 61 (2) Off‐site ‐ Given that these lands have been planned for two or less acres  per dwelling unit, these are the locations most suited for affordable housing.  Off‐site proposals will only be approved by the County Commissioners if the  applicant can demonstrate circumstances that would justify an off‐site option.  In any event, the applicant must show that affordable housing units meet the  requirements of these regulations and the Garfield County Affordable Housing  Guidelines, and that these housing units will actually be built in Study Area 1.  No cash‐in‐lieu payment will be accepted.    RESPONSE:  Off‐site housing mitigation is not proposed.    4.07.15.03  Computation of Required Affordable Housing Units and Mix of Housing Units:  (1) Determination of Number of Units ‐ To comply with the requirement to  provide the above percentages of affordable housing units, the applicant shall  multiply the number of affordable units required by 2.6 (the average number  of persons in a household) and divide the result by 1.5 (the U. S. Department  of Housing and Urban Development criteria of persons per bedroom). The  figure derived from this formula shall be the minimum number of bedrooms,  which the applicant must build, in affordable housing units. The mix of  housing types will be decided by the applicant. Any proposal for a unit with  more than 3 bedrooms may be approved, but only after a special review to  determine a need.    RESPONSE: Based on the required computation of affordable housing units, at  least sixteen (16) bedrooms will be provided in the nine (9) required affordable  housing units, with a minimum of one (1) bedroom per unit.    (2) Determination of the Mix of Units ‐ The mix of affordable housing units for  purchase shall average a price affordable to households at 80% of the Area  Median Income (AMI), as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and  Urban Development (HUD) and published annually. The affordable price will  be calculated based on principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and homeowner  association dues not to exceed 33% of gross household income. The  calculation will assume a 95% loan‐to‐value, 30‐year mortgage at prevailing  interest rates. The average may be achieved by providing units affordable to  households between 81% and 120% of the AMI in combination with units  affordable to households between 60% and 80% of the AMI.    RESPONSE: The PUD will provide affordable housing for sale in compliance with  the above regulations, with pricing to be determined by the Area Median  Income requirements at the time of sale.    (3) Affordable Housing for Rent ‐ The mix of affordable housing types may be  satisfied by affordable housing for rent if the entity managing the property has  an interest in the property. The affordable housing for rent shall have gross  rents (rents plus utilities) not to exceed 30% of gross household income. The  total affordable housing units provided must average a rent affordable to  households at 80% of the AMI as determined by the department of HUD and  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 62 published annually. The average may be achieved by providing units  affordable to households between 81% and 100% of the AMI in combination  with units affordable to households below 80% of the AMI. (added 2002‐12)  Any fractional affordable housing units created by the above formulas will be  rounded up to the next highest number. The applicant, at the time of  submittal, must present for review the proposed location of the affordable  housing units, the proposed mix to satisfy the above formulas, all documents  necessary to comply with this regulation, the Garfield County Affordable  Housing Guidelines, and a proposed schedule of when the affordable housing  units will be constructed and completed in relation to the entire project. It is  the intent of these regulations that affordable housing units for sale and for  rent are built and available for sale or rent at the same time that the other  houses are available for sale or rent. The county shall require of the applicant  security in a reasonable amount to insure that the affordable units are  constructed, or some other requirement such as issuing building permits for  ten free‐market houses only after the issuance of a building permit for one  affordable housing unit. The applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate that  she/he understands and will comply with these regulations and the Garfield  County Affordable Housing Guidelines.      RESPONSE: The PUD request does not include affordable rental units.      4.08    PUD PROCESSING    4.08.01 The approval of a PUD constitutes a Zone District Amendment. An application  for subdivision Preliminary Plan may be considered simultaneously with the  PUD application; however, the PUD zoning decision shall be made prior to the  subdivision Preliminary Plan decision. A PUD is established by rezoning an  area in an existing zone district to PUD, pursuant to the provisions of this  Zoning Resolution and may include an application to subdivide the property,  consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 30, Article 28 and Title 24,  Article 67, C.R.S. and Section 3:00 of the Garfield County Subdivision  Regulations of 1984, as amended. The County Commissioners are hereby  declared to be the board authorized to review PUD applications pursuant to  Section 24‐67‐104 (1)(c), C.R.S. Each PUD application shall be reviewed and  approved, disapproved or conditionally approved by the County  Commissioners within one hundred twenty (120) days of its determination of  technical compliance by the Planning Department. The approved PUD zoning  and the approved PUD Plan are inseparable and a PUD shall not be established  without the approval of the related PUD Plan. The approved   zoning and the  approved PUD Plan together establish the uses permitted in lieu of the zone  district regulations which were theretofore applicable. If PUD and Subdivision  Preliminary Plan are considered simultaneously, the approved Preliminary  Plan must include the entire PUD. Subsequent final plats may be phased, in  accordance with the approved phasing plan. (A. 97‐ 109) The above‐ referenced one hundred twenty (120) day period shall commence when the  Planning Department determines the PUD application to be in technical  compliance with all information required by applicable rules and regulations.  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 63 The Planning Department shall review the PUD application for technical  compliance with all information required by applicable rules and regulations  within thirty (30) working days of submittal.  If, due to the scope of the application, the workload imposed by other pending  applications or for any other reasonable cause the Planning Department is  unable to complete the review within the time stated above, the Planning  Department may request an extension of time from the Board of County  Commissioners for such review not to exceed an additional thirty (30) working  days.  If the Planning Department determines the application is not in technical  compliance, the Planning Department shall notify the applicant in writing of  any additional information needed for technical compliance and the  application shall be suspended in the review process until such information is  provided.  Following receipt of a noncompliance letter, an applicant may request a  conference with the Planning Department to review the identified  deficiencies. Such conference shall be scheduled at a reasonable time  following the date of the noncompliance letter but in any event not later than  ten (10) working days after such receipt, unless an extension of time is  mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Planning Department.  Following the receipt of a noncompliance letter, an applicant may furnish  additional information to remedy any identified deficiency. Based on such  additional information, the Planning Department then shall determine  whether the deficiency in question has been remedied or not.  A written notice of such a determination shall be sent to the applicant not  later than ten (10) working days after receipt of the additional information,  unless an extension of time is mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the  Planning Department.  An applicant may appeal to the Garfield County Zoning Board of Adjustment  for a determination of technical compliance at any time in accordance with  Sections 9.0401 and 9.04.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution.  An applicant shall have six (6) months after the date of the noncompliance  letter to remedy any deficiency and, if not provided within such time, the  application will be considered terminated.  A determination of technical compliance by the Planning Department shall not  be deemed a recommendation of approval, a finding of adequacy of the  application or a finding of general compliance with any goal or objective of  this resolution.   The express intention of this section is to process only PUD applications in  technical compliance with all information required by applicable rules and  regulations; however, the Planning Department reserves the right to request  additional, pertinent information throughout the PUD review process.  If an amendment to the Master/Comprehensive Plan is proposed as a part of  the PUD application, then the Planning Commission shall take action on the  proposed amendment to the Master/Comprehensive Plan prior to the PUD  application. The Planning Commission's action on an amendment to the  Master/Comprehensive Plan shall be after a public hearing, with at least  fifteen (15) days notice, in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 64 County, and may be considered at the same meeting that the PUD application  is considered. (A. 97‐109 & A. 2000‐68)     RESPONSE: The Preliminary Plan subject area and PUD subject area are one and  the same.    4.08.02  An applicant may process their application for PUD zoning under this Zoning  Resolution separate from and in advance of their application or applications  for subdivision platting under the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.     RESPONSE: This application is for both PUD and Subdivision platting (Preliminary  Plan). The applicant requests that these items to be processed simultaneously in  the County land use review.    4.08.03  The plan shall show where within the PUD each type of use will be located and  shall indicate the total acreage which will be devoted to each use, where no  subdivision of the property is proposed as a part of the PUD. The precise  location of each use and the location of lots, blocks or other parcels within  each area devoted to each use shall be shown as that area is subdivided and  platted in accordance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. (A.  79‐132, A. 97‐ 109)     RESPONSE: The proposed PUD Preliminary Plat includes this required  information and is located in Appendix C.    4.08.04  The uses by right, conditional uses, minimum lot area, maximum lot coverage,  minimum setbacks, maximum height of buildings, and all other use and  occupancy restrictions applicable to any area zoned as PUD shall be those  which are approved by the County Commissioners at the time such area is so  zoned.     RESPONSE: All areas within the proposed PUD are designated as Zone Districts  within the PUD Guide, Section 5, which details the above requirements and land  uses.    4.08.05  Where a Preliminary Plan application is included with a PUD application the  Subdivision Regulation requirements will supersede the following PUD  requirements where the same information or more detailed information is  required as a part of a subdivision application. The applicant shall include with  the written request for PUD zoning which does not include a subdivision  Preliminary Plan application the following information:  (1) A statement of the ownership interest in the property to be included in the  PUD and the written consent of all of the owners;  (2) A PUD Plan indicating the broad concept of the proposed development.  Such Plan shall clearly indicate:  (a) The maximum number of dwelling units proposed within the  overall area;  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 65 (b) The minimum acreage which will be dedicated to Common Open  Space;  (c) The type of uses proposed and the acreage devoted to each use;  (d) Major internal circulation systems;  (e) The acreage, which will be dedicated for school, sites;  (f) The general nature and location of commercial and industrial uses,  if any, to be located in the PUD;  (g) Provision for water, sewer, telephone, electricity, gas and cable  television, if applicable; and  (h) Other restrictions proposed by the applicant such as building  setbacks, height limits, access requirements and grade or slope  restrictions to be applied to particular areas, written in the form of a  zone district text the same as, or in similar form to, the Garfield  County Zoning Resolution; and  (i) If more than one phase is proposed, a phasing plan shall be  included in the application that delineates the proposed phasing of  the development. (A. 97‐109)  (3) A regional location map showing the relationship of the site to connecting  roadways, public facilities, commercial and cultural facilities and surrounding  land uses;  (4) A site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and the  existing zoning;  (5) A site topographic map showing at least five‐foot contour intervals, major  vegetation elements, streams, rivers, ditches and areas subject to 100 Year  flooding;  (6) A legal description of the area that the applicant wishes to include in the  PUD;  (7) A written statement containing the following information:  (a) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD;  (b) A development schedule indicating the approximate dates when  construction of the various stages of the PUD can be expected to begin  and be completed;  (c) Copies of any special covenants, conditions and restrictions, which  will govern the use or occupancy of the PUD; provided, however, that  the applicant may impose additional covenants, conditions and  restrictions on any particular area in connection with the platting of  such area;  (d) A list of the owners of properties located within two hundred (200)  feet of the boundaries of the PUD and their addresses;  (e) A statement by a licensed engineer, with supporting calculations  and  documentation, which shall provide evidence of the following: (A. 97‐ 109)  (i) The proposed water source legally & physically adequate to  service the PUD;  (ii) The proposed method of sewage treatment legally and  physically adequate to service the PUD. If the PUD application  proposes to utilize existing, central facilities, the application  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 66 shall contain a letter from the district or provider that  adequate excess capacity currently exists and will be devoted  to accommodating the development, or that the capacity will  be expanded to adequately accommodate the development;  (A. 97‐109)  (iii) The proposed method in which storm drainage will be  handled, demonstrating that adjoining property owners would  not be damaged by the development; and (A97‐109)  (iv) The proposed method in which provision will be made for  any potential natural hazards in the area such as avalanche  areas, landslide areas, flood plain areas, and unstable soils,  and the extent and mitigation of such hazard(s); (A. 97‐109)  (f) Easements showing vested legal access for ingress and egress from  a public road to the PUD and/or documentation demonstrating access  shall be acquired across a public right‐of‐way or easement within two  (2) years of any PUD approval and said access shall be vested prior to  final platting of any property subject to the easement across the right‐ of‐way; (A. 97‐109) and  (g) Evidence that the PUD has been designed with consideration of the  natural environment of the site and the surrounding area and does not  unreasonably destroy or displace wildlife, natural vegetation or  unique natural or historical features.    RESPONSE: This Preliminary Plan/ PUD application includes all of the required  materials as specified above. These materials are located either in the main  body of the application, the appendices, or in the separately bound set of  drawing sheets accompanying this binder.    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 67 5 TCI Lane Ranch PUD Guide      TCI Lane Ranch Planned Unit Development   Proposed Zone District Designations      PURPOSE  The purpose of this Development Guide is to define the zone districts within the TCI Lane Ranch  PUD. The zone districts contained herein shall serve as the governing land use regulations within  the PUD.      The Guide replaces the current applicable zoning provisions of Garfield County with project  specific regulations that are more appropriate to the goals and objectives of the TCI Lane Ranch  PUD.  The zone districts contained in this PUD Guide establish a comprehensive framework for  the development of TCI Lane Ranch, including residential, open space, trails and access, and  special utility uses.    ENFORCEMENT  The provisions of this Guide are enforceable by the authority and powers of Garfield County as  defined by law.       EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ‐‐ AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL/RURAL DENSITY:  A. Uses by Right:  Agricultural including farms, garden, greenhouse, nursery, orchard,  ranch, small animal farm for production of poultry, fish, fur‐bearing or other small  animals and customary accessory uses including buildings for shelter or enclosure of  persons, animals or property employed in any of the above uses, retail establishment  for sale of goods    Guiding and outfitting, and park;    Single‐family dwelling and customary accessory uses. (A. 86‐09)    Accessory dwelling unit approved as a part of a public hearing or meeting on a  subdivision or subdivision exemption or guesthouse special use approved after 7/95 and  meeting the standards in Section 5.03.02.    B. Uses, conditional: Aircraft landing strip, church, community buildings, day nursery and  school; group home for the elderly. (A. 97‐60)    Pipeline (Subject to review and approval per procedure and requirements of Section  9.07)  (Added 2005‐53)    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 68 Boarding or rooming houses, studio for conduct of arts and crafts, home occupation,  water impoundments. (A. 86‐09;87‐108)    C. Uses, special: Airport utility, feedlot as principal use of the lot, crematorium, agriculture  related business, resorts, kennel, riding stable, and veterinary clinic, shooting range  facility(A.98‐108);    Two‐family dwelling, camper park, ski lift and trails; broadcasting studio, communication  facility, corrections facility, storage, storage of heavy equipment, golf course driving  range, golf practice range and accessory facilities, commercial recreation  facility/park;(A. 97‐60; 97‐112) Mass Transit Facility (added 2002‐12)    Public gatherings; storage of oil and gas drilling equipment; Site for extraction,  processing, storage or material handling of natural resources; utility lines, utility  substations; recreational support facilities and guest house. (A. 79‐132; 80‐64; 80‐180;  80‐313, 81‐145;  81‐263; 84‐78; 86‐9; 86‐84; 86‐106; 87‐73; 99‐025)    Accessory dwelling unit meeting the standards in Section 5.03.02 for any lot not created  after a public hearing or meeting after 7/95.    Kennel    Group Residential Facility for Children & Youth (Add 2004‐62)    D. Minimum Lot Area:  Two (2) acres; except as otherwise approved in a Cluster Option.  E. Maximum Lot Coverage:  Fifteen percent (15%).  F. Minimum Setback:  1. Front yard:   a. Arterial streets:   i. Seventy‐five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot  line, whichever is greater.   b. Local streets:   i. Fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty‐five (25) feet from front lot  line, whichever is greater.  2. Rear yard:  Twenty‐five (25) feet from rear lot line.  3. Side yard:  Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one‐half (1/2) the height of the  principal building, whichever is greater.  G. Maximum Height of Buildings:  Twenty‐five (25) feet.  H. Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5  (Supplementary Regulations).    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 69 TCI Lane Ranch PUD LAND USE       OVERALL LAND USE BREAKDOWN   Total Land Area............................................................................................................100.52  acres +/‐  Total Developed Area (Zones)  Single Family Residential; Duplex Residential; Community Utility ...........................31.74 acres +/‐  Total Open Space Area (Zones)  Community Center; Common Open Space; Conservation Easement........................68.78 acres +/‐  Total Number of Residential Lots......................................................................................................89   Total Number of Dwelling Units........................................................................................................89    Total Area of Proposed Non‐Residential Floor Space (existing buildings)      Community Center (1,450 sf); Ranch Cabin (650 sf); Log Shed (250 sf)...............................2,350 sf  Total Number of Proposed Off‐Street Parking Spaces (1 space per BR, min.).......................200 ‐ 506  Total Proposed Density .................................................................................1.13  acres/dwelling unit        RESIDENTIAL LOT BREAKDOWN  Unit Type / Max. Sq. Ft.Max. Sq. Ft.Quantity Half‐Duplex 1900 sf 10  Half‐Duplex Affordable 1900 sf 8  Single Family 2600 sf 10  Single Family Affordable 2600 sf 6  Single Family 3800 sf 38  Single Family 5500 sf 17  TOTAL UNITS 89          PUD ZONE DISTRICTS  Zone District Gross Acres +/‐  Single Family Residential 26.730  Duplex Residential  4.034  Community Utility 0.978  Community Center 3.092  Private Common Open Space 33.297  Conservation Easement 32.391  TOTAL ACRES 100.52 +/‐      TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 70 DEFINITIONS    A. Maximum Allowable Floor Area: The total net square footage permitted to be built  on a Lot. The net square footage calculation shall include: heated living space,  mechanical, stairways, and other traditionally non‐habitable space, as measured from  the exterior walls. Garages or accessory building(s), heated or non‐heated, attached or  detached, up to a combined total of 650 square feet shall be exempt from the maximum  allowable floor area calculation. Any floor area of these elements in excess of the  exempt 650 square feet shall be included in the maximum allowable floor area  calculation. Patios, decks, balconies, porches and exterior stairways shall not count  towards the maximum allowable floor area unless the total square footage of these  features is greater than 20% of the net square footage, in which case the excess of the  20% shall be counted towards the maximum allowable floor area. Landscaped terraces,  trellises, and pergolas shall not be counted towards the maximum allowable floor area.     TCI Lane Ranch PUD ZONE DISTRICTS A. Single Family Residential Zone District (Lots 1, 4 ‐ 9, 12, 13, 16 ‐ 23, 26, 29, 30,  33 ‐ 35, 38 – 82, 85, 88, 89)  1. Uses by Right:  Detached, single‐family dwelling and customary accessory uses   2. Development Standards  a. Setbacks: All structures shall be located within building envelopes as  identified on the Final Plat.   1) Building foundations shall be fully contained with the platted  building envelope.   2) Roof overhangs shall be permitted to extend a maximum of  three (3) feet beyond the platted building envelope.   3) Up to 350 square feet of covered porch may extend ten (10’)  beyond the platted building envelope when said porch fronts  the street from which the lot is accessed.     b. Maximum Height of Structures:  Twenty‐five (25) feet  c. Minimum Lot Area:  As defined on Final Plat.  d. Maximum Allowable Floor Area:      1) Lots 1, 4, 12, 17, 18, 35, 38, 52, 66, 67, 71, 73, 80, 81, 82, 89: 2600 Square  Feet    2) Lots 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 39, 40, 43, 44, 47,  48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 56, 59, 62, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 85, 88: 3800  Square Feet    3) Lots 6, 20, 41, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 75, 76: 5500  Square Feet    e. Off‐Street Parking: One (1) space per bedroom, minimum two (2) spaces  required per lot. Garage, carport and driveway parking shall count toward  off‐street parking requirement.   TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 71   B. Duplex Residential Zone District (Lots 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32,  36, 37, 83, 84, 86, 87)  1. Uses by Right: Attached, single family dwelling and customary accessory uses   2. Development Standards  a. Setbacks: All structures shall be located within building envelopes as  identified on the Final Plat.   1) Building foundations shall be fully contained with the platted building  envelope.   2) Roof overhangs shall be permitted to extend a maximum of three (3)  feet beyond the platted building envelope.  3) Up to 350 square feet of covered porch may extend ten (10’) beyond  the platted building envelope when said porch fronts the street from  which the lot is accessed.   b. Maximum Height of Structures:  Twenty‐five (25) feet  c. Minimum Lot Area:  As defined on Final Plat.  d. Maximum Allowable Floor Area:  1900 square feet   e. Off‐Street Parking: One (1) space per bedroom, minimum two (2) spaces  required per lot. Garage, carport and driveway parking shall count toward  off‐street parking requirement.   C. Community Utility Zone (Tract A – 0.938 Acres +/‐, Tract G – 0.021 Acres +/‐,  Tract H – 0.019 Acres +/‐)    1. Uses by Right  a. The construction, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of  community utilities and related facilities and structures.  b. To provide centralized utility facilities to benefit members of the TCI Lane  Ranch Homeowners Association and other parties to whom the Association  may decide to provide such service or conduct business with.  c. Installation and maintenance of photovoltaic panels, arrays, or other solar  power generating systems or equipment.  d. Wastewater lift station(s).  e. Landscaping and irrigation.  f. Vegetation management necessary to facilitate construction and  maintenance of community utilities.  g. Fencing.  2. Development Standards  a. Minimum Lot Area: 0.15 Acres +/‐  b. Minimum Setbacks:  1) From Easements: Five (5) feet  2) From Lot Lines: Five (5) feet, except as noted below  3) From Residential Lots: Fifteen (15) feet  c. Maximum Height of Structures:  Twenty‐five (25) feet.  d. Per Garfield County Supplementary Regulations 5.03, Conditional and  Special Uses, 5.03.17 Solar Power Generating Systems, all proposed solar  structures shall demonstrate the following :    TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 72 1) No impact to wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of  hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade  of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions.  2) Separated by sufficient distances, such use from abutting property  which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed  use(s).  3) Comply with the volume of sound standards set forth in the Colorado  Revised Statutes.   4) The facility shall be operated that the ground vibration inherently and  recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any  point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located.  5) The proposed facility will be operated so that it does not emit heat,  glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing  use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or  hazard.  6) Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment  that will generate noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries  will be conducted within a building or outdoors during the hours of 8  a.m. to 6 p.m.   7) Any lighting of the facility shall be pointed downward and inward to the  property center and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent  property.     D. Conservation Easement (Tract B – 32.391 Acres +/‐)  1. Uses by Right  a. Private trails for the benefit of the Association, their assigns and guests.   b. Public trails, as signed for said access, being paved or unpaved  c. Bridges for pedestrian and bicycle use  d. Interpretive signing, displays and installations  e. Actions intended to benefit wildlife and/or native species, such as habitat  restoration, vegetation management and seasonal closures.   f. Agriculture, the keeping of livestock and accessory uses and structures  related to said uses.  g. Drainage improvements  h. Fencing    2. Development Standards  a. Paved trails shall not exceed ten feet (10’) in width  b. Paths constructed with a aggregate surface, such as crusher fines, shall be a  maximum of six feet (6’) wide  c. Natural surfaced trails shall be a maximum of two feet (2’) wide  d. Fencing shall be “wildlife friendly”, according to standards developed by the  Colorado Division of Wildlife      TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 73 E. Private Common Open Space (Tract C – 31.747 Acres +/‐, Tract D – 0.493 Acres  +/‐, Tract E – 1.057 Acres +/‐)   1. Uses by Right  a. Agriculture, the keeping of livestock and accessory uses and structures  related to said uses.  b. Non‐organized recreation  c. Pedestrian and bicycle trails  d. Public parking for the purposes of access to public fishing trails  e. Bridges crossing ditches and drainage improvements  f. Limited public access (restricted to designated trails/routes only)  g. Community entry features/monumentation/ signage  h. Preservation/restoration/maintenance of existing log shed structure and  ranch cabin  i. Ponds and irrigation ditches  j. Wetlands; maintenance and enhancements to existing wetlands and  creation of new wetlands  k. Landscaping and irrigation  l. Mail box facilities for the purposes of  centralized mail drop‐off and  collection   m. Picnic shelter or gazebo   n. Barbecue  o. Drainage improvements  p. Utilities  2. Development Standards  a. Minimum Lot Area: as depicted on Final Plat  b. Minimum Setbacks: Ten (10) feet from adjoining tracts, lots, and easements  c. Maximum Height of Structures: Eighteen (18) feet    F. Community Center Zone (Tract F – 3.092 Acres +/‐)  1. Uses by Right  a. Building and/or buildings, including the following uses:  1) Meeting/gathering space  2) Office space for use by the Association  3) Recreational/fitness equipment, workout space and locker rooms  4) Swimming pool (indoor or outdoor)  5) Kitchen facilities  6) Restroom facilities  b. Sports fields/open turf areas  c. Facilities for other outdoor sports, such as volleyball, par course, running  trail, etc.  d. Facilities for tennis or other court‐based sports  e. Community gardens and accessory uses and structures  f. Storage and maintenance of equipment and materials used during, or to  maintain, recreational and community garden uses; nonresidential  structures for persons and equipment engaged in said activities  g. Playground/play equipment   h. Landscaping and irrigation  i. Ponds and irrigation ditches  TCI Lane Ranch – Preliminary Plan / PUD December 2008 74 j. Wetlands; maintenance and enhancements to existing wetlands and  creation of new wetlands  k. Pedestrian pathways  l. Parking  m. Drainage and utility improvements  n. Footbridges over irrigation ditches  o. Fencing  2. Development Standards  a. Building Setbacks  1) From Access Easements: twenty five (25) feet  2) From Residential Lot Lines: twenty five (25) feet  b. Maximum Height of Structures:  Twenty‐five (25) feet  c. Minimum Lot Area:  as depicted on Final Plat  d. Maximum Allowable Floor Area: None  e. Minimum Off‐Street Parking: fourteen (14) spaces, including one (1)  accessible space  f. Additional Off‐Street Parking: future community facilities, or expansion of  existing facilities, if any, shall provide a minimum of one (1) space per five  hundred (500) square feet additional net floor area                    APPENDICES    A through FF                    A. Vicinity Maps, Current Zoning Map, Adjacent Land Uses Map,  Adjacent Parcels Map                    B. Site Inventory and Proposed Site Plan                    C. Preliminary Plat                    D. Garfield County Visual Corridor Map, Slope Hazard Profile  Map, Soil Hazard Profile Map, USDA Soil Designations Map                    E. Deed of Trust                    F. Statement of Authority and Title Commitment  TITLE COMMITMENT                   G. Deed for Water Rights                    H. Mineral Rights Documentation                    I. Garfield County Resolution PC‐2007‐05: Comprehensive Plan  Amendment  1111~IIII·~'I ~~i,',r-Ij~It~'It~'Il-lfl~r.~~~l~I~~UII",'~I~1IIII Reception#:739330 , 12/14/2007 01 :27:16 PM Jean Rlberico 1 of 1 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0,00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO RESOLUTION NO.2007-PC-_Pc.~;)007 -0 S RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE GARFIELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, STUDY AREA I,BY THE GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. (parcel No.239131100033) WHEREAS,Garfield County is a legal and political subdivision of the State of Colorado,for which the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to act;and WHEREAS,pursuant to law,the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County has appointed the Garfield County Planning Commission;and WHEREAS,Colorado Statutes at Section 30-28-106,CR.S.,as amended,authorize and require the Garfield County Planning Commission to adopt a comprehensive master plan for the unincorporated area of Garfield County,Colorado;and WHEREAS,on November,2000,the Garfield County Planning Commission adopted the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan,Study Areas I;and WHEREAS,TCI Lane Ranch,LLC,requested that the Planning Commission amend the Proposed Land Use Districts Map for Study Area I from Residential Low Density to Residential High Density for land legally described on Exhibit A,attached hereto;and WHEREAS,the Garfield County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on July 11th,2007 upon the question of whether the proposed amendments to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan,Study Area I should be adopted,modified,or whether any action should be taken on this matter;and NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the Garfield County Planning Commission, that the Proposed Land Use Districts Map for Study Area I,is amended,by a vote of 5 to 0,to designate properties described in Exhibit A,attached hereto,as Residential High Density.As such, the property described more fully in Exhibit A,shall be designated as Residential High Density on the Land Use Districts Map for Study Areas I of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Garfield County Planning Commission on the July 11th,2007.(~'.0~\\,,St."''-\,-)~~Philip Vaughan,Chairman Garfie d County Planrung Commission                   J. Meeting Minutes from Garfield County Planning Commission  Hearing July 11, 2007 regarding TCI Lane Ranch Sketch Plan  review  1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 11, 2007 PC Members Present S t a f f P r e s e n t Phil Vaughan Fred Jarman, B&P Director Cheryl Chandler David Pesnichak, Planner Steve Reynolds Craig Richardson, Planner Sean Martin Michael Howard, Assistant Terry Ostrom County Attorney Roll call was taken and the following members are absent tonight: Jock Jacober, Bob Fullerton and Shirley Brewer. All members present tonight are considered regular voting members. Sean Martin made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 14, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting as written and Steve Reynolds seconded the motion. A vote was taken and all approved motion. A request was made to move item #7 on the agenda to item #4. No objection was made from the Commission. Item #7 Public Hearing for Lexie Meadows Estates Subdivision will be presented next. Request is to review a Preliminary Plan Application for Lexie Meadows Estates. The property is located on Miller Lane (CR 227) across from Antonelli Lane (CR 216). The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 76.19 acres into 37 lots. The applicant is Jim Bob Ventures, LLC. The applicants representative, Davis Farrar has submitted a letter dated 7/3/2007 requesting this application be continued to the September 26, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. (Exhibit Q) Phil Vaughan reviewed the process we will follow on this item. We will open the public hearing, swear everyone in and review the public notice requirements for tonight’s hearing. Michael Howard will review the noticing with Davis Farrar who is here tonight representing Jim Bob Ventures and he will answer questions related to the noticing. Davis Farrar is the Applicants Planner. Davis used the County Assessor records on 5/15/07 to obtain the owner names within 200’ of this property. Identified public, private and mineral owners. Mailed notice certified return receipt to all names on the list provided. Mailing was done on May 23rd and return receipts were started to be returned on May 24th. Notice was published in the Glenwood Post Independent on May 22, 2007. Proof of publication was provided. Property was posted with gold card provided by the Planning Department on May 16th and was posted facing Miller Lane within County right-of-way. Have not been by the property lately to see if notice sign is still in place or 2 not. Michael Howard reviewed the documents and stated that notice appears to be accurate and it is okay to proceed tonight. Phil Vaughan swore in all speakers. Phil Vaughan read letter of July 3, 2007 from the applicant’s representative into the record. Applicant is requesting a continuance to the September 26, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Applicant will need to waive any deadlines and follow up with a letter to the Planning Department. Michael Howard stated you may want to re-notice the hearing with the new date since it will be a couple of months away. Terry Ostrom made a motion to continue this Preliminary Plan Application to the September 26, 2007 Planning Commission meeting with a new notice. Cheryl Chandler seconded the motion. Davis Farrar clarified the motion that it included re-noticing in paper, mailing and posting. Phil Vaughan said that is correct. A vote was taken and all approved unanimously. The next item of discussion on the agenda is a public meeting request to review an application for a Zone District Amendment from Agricultural Residential Rural Density (A/R/RD) to Light Industrial (L/I). The property is located on CR 352, west of the Garfield County Airport and is known as Parcel A of the Amaya/Madrid Exemption. The Applicant is Eye-Seventy, LLC. Stephen Carter is the Attorney here tonight representing the Applicant. Also present is Richard Swane (? Couldn’t understand name or title on recording) Michael Howard will review the noticing requirements and Mr. Carter will respond to his questions. There is no public notice required. This is a public meeting and no notice is required. Craig Richardson is the County Planner and he will present the project information and staff comments. This property is surrounded by three properties that have already been re-zoned. Two parcels were rezoned from A/R/RD to L/I and the other is part of the Airport Industrial Park which is zoned PUD. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Outlying Residential. Two criteria must be looked at in order to approve since rezoning request is not incompliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The first is that an error was made in establishing the current zoning, or that second there has been a change in the condition of the neighborhood that supports the requested zone change. It is staffs opinion that there was no error in zoning when the zoning was established. The Applicant believes the conditions of the area have changed and the existing uses found on adjacent properties are more industrial in nature. If approved to rezone, the applicant will need to obtain an SUP for the existing residence if this is approved for Light Industrial (L/I) zoning. Staff finds that adjacent uses constitute a change in the conditions of the neighborhood. This change supports the request for a change in zoning on the subject property owned by Eye-Seventy, LLC and staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation of approval to rezone this parcel from A/R/RD to L/I to the BOCC. 3 Terry Ostrom asked how we handle the existing house. Craig Richardson stated that the Applicants will need to apply for a Special Use Permit for the residence and that will be a condition of approval on this application. Cheryl Chandler asked, do they have height restrictions in the L/I zone district? Fred Jarman responded that the building height limit is 35’. Stephen Carter spoke next. There were four parcels that were created to make up the Amaya/Madrid Exemption. There are industrial operations in the airport area. Other parcels in this exemption are already rezoned to L/I. This is the last remaining parcel and should be rezoned to L/I. The desirability of the A/R/RD zone district is not there any more. Cheryl Chandler asked how tall the beige ones that are out there now are. Richard Swane said those are Frac Tanks and he doesn’t know the height of those. Cheryl thinks they are about 48’ tall. Richard said he would look into height. Moved out to the public for comments next and none were received so that portion of hearing is closed. Steve Reynolds made a motion to accept the staff recommendations to approve the rezoning request from A/R/RD to L/I. Cheryl Chandler seconded the motion. A vote was taken and all approved. The next item on the agenda is a public meeting request to review an application to amend the Text of the West bank Ranch Filing 4 PUD, Residential/Multi-Family Fourplex District. Applicant is KN Energy, Inc. (Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company) Present for the Applicant is Chris Stryker, Littleton, CO. David Pesnichak is the County Planner on this proposal and he will present the project information and staff comments. An application was submitted for an amendment to the text of the West bank Ranch PUD filing 4. KN Energy currently operates a gas distribution facility on the property described as Lot 63 of the West bank Ranch PUD filing 4. The parcel is zoned residential/multi-family, fourplex district (R/M.F.4). Lot 63 is the only lot with this zoning in West bank Ranch PUD filing 4. The applicant proposes to amend the text under Paragraph A & G of Section III R/M.F.4 in order to allow for the installation of a multi user Telecommunication Facility. This parcel sits on CR 109. A zoning map of the PUD was shown. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Subdivision. The applicant has discussed this request with the HOA and they have revised the covenants to allow. The proposed location of this facility would be on the northern portion of the lot. Slides of the property and surrounding area were also shown. 4 The staff recommendations and suggested findings were read into the record. (page 4 & 5 of staff report) Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to text of the Residential/Multi-family, Fourplex District (R/M,F,4) zone district within the West bank Ranch Filing 4 PUD to the BOCC with an alteration to include “that the text be changed to allow a communication facility as a Use by Right within the R/M,F,4 zone district of the West bank Ranch Filing 4 PUD” and to request approval of the requested building height as well. Moved out to the applicant’s representative Chris Stryker for his comments. He has done research for about two years on this request. Kinder Morgan expressed interest to lease some of this lot for the use being requested. Had to get approval from the HOA to amend their covenants and to amend the PUD. Moved out to the public for comments next and none were received so that portion of hearing is closed. Terry Ostrom made a motion to approve the requested text amendment with the staff conditions and clarification. Sean Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and all approved. BEGIN TCI LANE RANCH REVIEW: The next item of discussion on the agenda is a public hearing request to review an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 for Study Area 1 on property located South of the Town of Carbondale along State Highway 82 from Residential Low Density to Residential High Density and a Public Meeting to review a Sketch Plan Application for this 100.52 acre parcel to subdivide into 80 lots. The Applicant is TCI Lane Ranch, LLC. Present for the Applicant are Jon Fredricks and Louis Wilsher of Noble Design Studio. Michael Howard will review the noticing requirements and Jon Fredricks will respond. Jon Fredricks is the Manager for Noble Design Studio and he has the authority to represent owners of this property. Notice to amend the comprehensive plan was published in the Glenwood Post Independent on June 25, 2007. Michael said notice appears to be proper and it is okay to proceed. Phil Vaughan swore in all speakers for this item. Craig Richardson is the County Planner for this proposal and he will present the project information and staff comments. Craig Richardson entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit A listed is not required for this item. Exhibit B: Proof of Publication Exhibit C: Garfield County Zoning Resolution 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 5 Exhibit G: Application for Preliminary Plan Exhibit H: Memo from Garfield County Road & Bridge Department, dated May 30, 2007 Exhibit I: Letter from Carbondale Fire Protection District, dated July 3, 2007 New Exhibit submitted tonight: Exhibit J: Letter from Paul Anderson, dated July 10, 2007 Exhibits A – J are accepted into the record. Craig Richardson will talk about Comprehensive Plan request first. The applicant is seeking approval from the Planning Commission for land use approvals to develop a property into a residential development. The property is situated in Study Area 1 of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 and is identified as Low Density Residential. The applicant is requesting that the Land Use Designation Map for this area be changed to High Density Residential. The ultimate goal of the Applicant is to submit a PUD for approval. A PUD must generally conform to the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has identified a proposed Sketch Plan which demonstrates general conformity with most of the polices identified in the Comprehensive Plan. • Protecting Visual Corridors: The proposed design includes preservation of resources and open space protecting the identified visual corridor. • Affordable Housing: Applicant is proposing 16 affordable housing units when only 9 are required. • Open Space: 60% open space is proposed. • Public transportation: This is next to a Park & Ride on Highway 82. Constraints on property: • Septic constraints. High water table. • Residential development will not encroach the identified 100-year floodplain. Some development will occur with flood fringe. Floodplain mitigation can occur. • Methodology. The Comprehensive Plan Matrix identifies development constraints and land use considerations. Staff finds that the subject property can conform to the methodology used to determine land use designations within Study Area 1. Staff finds the property can be mitigated to determine high density residential. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 changing the designation of the subject property on the Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Area 1 Map from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. Moved to the applicant for their presentation next. Also present for the applicant tonight are Dave Marrs, Yancy Nichols and Tom Zancanella. Jon Fredericks will speak first. The proposed land use designation map was shown. This proposal is compatible with other subdivisions in the area. Blue Creek Ranch was developed by the same developers as the TCI Lane Ranch. Applicant pointed out other subdivisions in the area that have been approved. Land use considerations were made when Blue Creek Ranch was 6 developed for future expansion and development of the TCI Lane Ranch. Applicant is proposing an emergency access use of 50’. There is an easement in place for Blue Creek Ranch. Moved out to the public for comments next. The first speaker is John Blatz and he lives at 11 Pinon Lane in the Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision. Mr. Blatz has spoke to Noble Design about commercial landscaping business they want to have on the TCI Lane Ranch. We as neighbors in Blue Creek, this will not help in the value of their property at all. There will be dust and additional noise with this business and Mr. Blatz would like to know what’s going on with that. Ann Bickley lives at 30 Pinon Lane in Blue Creek Ranch and she will speak next. Mr. Lane did a great job in developing Blue Creek ranch. She is concerned with the location of the commercial parcel in TCI Lane Ranch. Owner/developer has plans to work with school and training and that is reason it is close to residence. Her house is one house away from this project. Why can’t they move commercial activity farther away? Mrs. Blatz, 11 Pinon Lane would like to speak next. Have met with developer and applicant has not followed through. Hours of operation are a concern. Move commercial closer to the Waldorf School. Nobody in Blue Creek Ranch wants an access road. Emergency access needs to be clearly marked and possibly gated. David Evans of 45 Pinon Lane will speak next. Compounding trouble at intersection. Already tough situation at intersection at Catherine’s Store Road. Paul Anderson lives at 201 Ponderosa Pass in the Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision. Landscaping aspect is incompatible with residential and PUD. So much of this land is in a floodplain. Think using Aspen Equestrian Estates as a comparison is a mistake. A lot of this property really isn’t build able. Service road, having a commercial operation on that road is the wrong way to go. Judy Evans lives at 45 Pinon Lane and she will speak next. Promises were made at meeting with developer. Unusable wetlands on property. Doesn’t seem that a tree farm is residential. She rides the bus and parks at the Park & Ride at this intersection and the lot is full everyday. Intersection is already dangerous and miserable. Unacceptable to add in that much more traffic. Joe Enzer, President of the HOA for Blue Creek ranch spoke next. Not here to deny development. Ace Lane is a good developer and Blue Creek Ranch is proof of that. Not the case in this situation for TCI Lane Ranch. None of the objections or concerns that were discussed with the developer showed up in this plan. Comprehensive Plan of 2000 matrix determines density. One of those is road conditions. Work has not been completed nor a time schedule has been produced to complete those items. Road system cannot handle high density on this parcel. Sewer and water are other key issues. Tree farm is incompatible with residential PUD. 7 Ms. Colby of 33 Gamble Oak Way spoke next and one of her concerns with the project is the tree farm and not being compatible to residential use. Commercial business would need a lot more water. Water will encourage other growth. Keep residential use only in this area. Traffic issues also a concern. No further public comments were made so that portion of hearing is closed. Phil Vaughan restated some of the questions from the public. There were questions about the commercial operation and placement. Jon Fredericks responded that this is not a tree farm it is a tree nursery and that trees are brought in. Jon said they did hold an open house for neighbors to discuss this development. Did take some of those comments into consideration. Moved some building envelopes back. Adequate amount of room for privacy. Did examine moving nursery to east towards Waldorf School. Would go into the visual corridor if they did move. This location is closest to RFTA bus top. Would put berm around nursery to screen. They will water trees 2-3 times a day and that will keep the dust down. A traffic analysis will be done at the Preliminary Plan stage. Another reason for not locating the nursery by the Waldorf School is that their operating hours and the nursery operating hours would be one in the same so its kind of a non- compatible use. Sean Martin asked if Mr. Lane is moving tree nursery from El Jebel to this property. Jon Fredericks said yes. Steve Reynolds asked what the status on water agreement is. Jon Fredericks responded they have a letter from the district to serve. Sean Martin asked where metro district line ends. Tom Zancanella said to Cerise Ranch across the road. Terry Ostrom asked if the issue with nursery was a Sketch Plan item. Phil Vaughan said we are talking about density only at this time. Sean Martin thinks the density is done right and this goes along with the Blue Creek Ranch development. Goes with the flow to increase the density. Steve Reynolds made a motion to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 Study Area 1 changing the designation of the subject property on the Proposed Land Use District Map from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. Terry Ostrom seconded the motion. Phil Vaughan commented with adjacent parcels this makes sense with development in this area and having water and sewer availability. Growth is happening all over the county. A vote was taken and all approved motion unanimously. 8 Phil Vaughan reviewed the process we would follow on the Sketch Plan Application review. Craig Richardson is also the County Planner on this portion of application. Sketch Plan comments are good for one year from tonight’s meeting date. (7/11/2008) Applicants are requesting 80 residential lots and 1 commercial lot for the nursery. Single-family and multi-family (duplex units) are proposed. Slides were shown of the proposed site plan. The applicant has chosen to develop the property utilizing the cluster design. A central water system may be utilized to serve the proposed development. The subject property currently has four existing wells on site. Property has been conditionally approved by the Mid Valley Metro District to provide water and sewer for up to 90 dwelling units on the subject property. Three access points are proposed. The primary access will be from Old Highway 82, west of the existing entrance. A Colorado Department of Transportation Access Permit may be required. An internal road system will be constructed and design must comply with standards identified in Section 9:00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. ADT figured at 790 trips per day. The southern portion of the subject property is located within an identified 100-year flood plain. The applicant has not proposed any residential construction within the flood plain. A number of recommended plat notes are included in the staff report. Sketch Plan comments are good for one year from tonight’s meeting date. No questions were asked of staff at this time so we moved out to the applicant for their presentation next. Louis Wilsher spoke first. A site plan of the existing conditions was shown. A variety of slides were also shown of the property and the surrounding area. 50’ setback will be maintained from both sides of the ditch. Large meadows exist on the property. Will try to keep some agricultural area on the property for horses or cattle. Louis reviewed their design philosophy. • Conserve Open Space • Exceed Affordable Housing Requirements • Visual Corridor • Cluster Development • Nursery Area • Five Residential Areas • 200’-900’ Setbacks from river for residences • Preserve Wildlife Habitat • Provide for a variety of housing types • Connect to trail network For the commercial parcel, they are proposing five employee housing units on site. Nursery will have its own dedicated access point. Proposing a lot of trails, a number of amenities are proposed such as open space, playing fields, and trail system with river access. 9 Dave Marrs spoke next in regards to the nursery. Thinks trees in nursery have benefits. Will remove some of the emission from Highway 82 traffic. Buffers homes in Blue Creek Ranch & TCI Ranch. Valley needs trees. Will re-establish some of the Ponderosa’s. Louis Wilsher mentioned nursery is only 9 acres and not a lot of open space on that lot. Will do some berming and screening from residential area. They would not propose a nursery on the property if they did not feel it was compatible. Moved back to the Planning Commission for questions. This is a Sketch Plan application and only comments are made tonight. No decisions or vote taken tonight. Steve Reynolds wants a clarification. Nursery is a right to farm correct? Craig Richardson responded that a nursery is a use by right in the A/R/RD zone district. Steve Reynolds said he lived in this area before Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision was even there. Jon Fredericks said when the traffic study is done a lot will come out. Will need to address the intersection at Highway 82 and CR 100. That intersection is at a nexus of several jurisdictions. Phil Vaughan stated that the traffic study will be submitted to CDOT and he’s sure nothing will be missed when they do their review. Cheryl Chandler told applicant she likes the way they laid out the houses. Craig Richardson sated that the applicant did a great job incorporating affordable housing within the neighborhood. Craig read request about road design into the record. Developer is trying to abide by required regulations. Terry Ostrom asked about number of affordable housing units. Employee housing not included in affordable housing requirements. Development requires 9 affordable housing units and applicant is proposing 11. Sean Martin said development is happening in the area and this is a good laid out proposal. Concerning nursery, work with Blue Creek Subdivision and he doesn’t think noise or dust will be an issue. Steve Reynolds asked what estimated truck traffic is. Jon Fredericks said that no estimate has been made yet but may be 20-30. Dave Marrs responded that the trucks get loaded in the morning and then head out to make their deliveries. Moved out to the public for comments next. The first speaker is Paul Anderson and he lives at 301 Ponderosa Pass. He asked is the applicant guaranteed the tree nursery. Phil Vaughan responded that this is a Sketch Plan application and it is only for comments at this time. Applicant will need to come back with a PUD Application and a Preliminary 10 Plan Application for future development. Mr. Anderson finds it ironic that nursery has to be moved next to the residences to avoid the Waldorf School. Don’t think you can mitigate nursery, noise, and dust. Truck traffic is also a problem. Nursery is totally incompatible with residential. The next speaker Ann Bickley was told nursery would not be retail operation. She heard that the Tree Nursery has to move from El Jebel location. Hours of operation are mostly morning and afternoon. How does that impact school more than residence? Joe Enzer, President of Blue Creek Ranch HOA spoke next in regards to tree operation. Small trucks take trees out and large semi’s bringing them in. Traffic at Highway 82 is a big issue. Mr. Evans lives at 45 Pinon Lane and he says this is a bad situation already and this will only make it worst. Don’t think we should just have to take it. Judy Evans lives at 45 Pinon Lane and she thinks this is premature. We don’t know what is going to happen at Highway 82 intersection and CR 100. 800 vehicle trips a day. Tree farm is not consistent with residential. This looks like light industry to me. Phil Vaughan reiterated that we are only commenting tonight and no approval or denial will be made tonight. Mrs. Blatz lives at 11 Pinon Lane and she stated traffic is traffic and noise is noise, and dust is dust. Hours of operation would affect home owners during the day. Not everyone in Blue Creek Ranch wants foot traffic on path. No noise study has been done. Houses next to tree farm will be priced lower than others in subdivision. No further public comments were made so that portion of hearing is closed. Terry Ostrom said he encourages applicant to relocate the tree farm. Great job with plan except the tree farm. Phil Vaughan said Blue Creek Ranch is a beautiful subdivision. This development can be well done too based on what he sees now. Emergency access through Blue Creek Ranch needs to be worked out. Connectivity of trails is excellent. Not sure if tree nursery is appropriate here. Would rather see some neighborhood commercial instead of a nursery. Mitigation will be up to you all to bring back to the Planning Commission. CDOT will take your traffic study and make applicant come up with improvements that are necessary. Fisherman’s easement is excellent. Terry Ostrom understands that trees are sold to landscapers only but his interpretation is that homeowners could buy a tree from them. Applicant wouldn’t advertise. Jon Fredericks stated operation as it exists now is not set up for retail. No other comments were made so that hearing is closed. END TCI LANE RANCH REVIEW: 11 Concerning other business, a motion was made by Cheryl Chandler to sign the Resolution of approval for parcel number 2179-101-00-018 concerning Comprehensive Plan Map Land Use Designation in Study Area II & III and Sean Martin seconded the motion to allow the Chairman to sign. All approved motion. The next scheduled code re-write work session is July 16, 2007 at 6:30 p.m.                   K. Sketch Plan Extension Letters  19351 HWY 82 - CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 - 970.963.7027 June 16, 2008 Craig Richardson, Senior Planner Garfield County 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: TCI Lane Ranch Preliminary Plan/ PUD Application Dear Mr. Richardson, As you are aware, we are currently in the completion process of our Preliminary Plan/ PUD Application submittal for TCI Lane Ranch. As we prepare to submit our plan, we are also nearing the one-year anniversary of the Planning Commission’s Sketch Plan comments from July 11th, 2007. The Garfield County Subdivision Regulations applicable to this situation state: 3:25 The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission within this period, the applicant shall submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Department for review and comparison with the original application. In representation of TCI Lane Ranch, LLC., we are requesting that you review our Sketch Plan as compared with our current Preliminary Plan to determine whether you will require us to re-submit another Sketch Plan application per the above language. We believe that our Preliminary Plan is very consistent with the overriding design goals and intent of the original Sketch Plan, and is also substantially improved. Additionally, we have considered and executed the vast majority of the comments received by both the Planning Commission and the public at the July 11th 2007 hearing. The major item receiving negative comment at the Sketch Plan hearing was the inclusion and location of a commercial tree nursery in the project. We have eliminated this commercial operation entirely and replaced it with an additional residential neighborhood, with only a minor increase in overall density. 19351 HWY 82 - CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 - 970.963.7027 The following table provides a land use comparison of the two plans. Land Use Comparison SKETCH PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAN Total Residential Units 84 (1.2 AC per unit density) 89 (1.1 AC per unit density) Employee Rental Units 5 0 Affordable S.F. Units 5 6 Affordable Duplex Units 6 8 Duplex Units 12 10 Small-Sized S.F. Units 19 10 Medium-Sized S.F. Units 22 38 Large-Sized S.F. Units 15 17 Affordable Housing 13% (11 units) 16% (14 units) Commercial Nursery Acreage 9 0 Commercial Nursery SF 10500 0 Community Center Building SF 2000 2000 Total Open Space Acreage 61 66 Please refer to the attached Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan maps for additional comparison. At this time, we are anticipating that we will be fully prepared to submit the TCI Lane Ranch Preliminary Plan/ PUD application in July. We would like to request documentation of the County’s willingness to allow us to continue with submittal of our Preliminary Plan/ PUD application. Please provide us with a response at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Noble Design Studio/ TCI Lane Ranch, LLC Jon Fredericks, ASLA Director of Land Planning Enc. 2007 Sketch Plan Graphic, 2008 Preliminary Plan Graphic Cc: Fred Jarman, Garfield County                   L. Mid Valley Metropolitan District: Commitment to Serve  Letter, February 14, 2007                    M. Mid Valley Metropolitan District: County Approvals for  Expansion of Service  From: Keith Montag [mailto:Keith.Montag@eaglecounty.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:17 AM To: Loyal E. Leavenworth Cc: Ray Merry; Bob Narracci Subject: RE: Potential Garfield County Service Plan Lee, Upon review of the letter dated February 15, 2008 regarding Mid Valley service of a property in Garfield County, Eagle County is in agreement that a 1041 Permit will not be necessary nor will a service plan amendment be required so long as you don’t pump directly from a lift station to the sewer plant necessitating “… a small stretch of the force main located in Eagle County” as described in your letter. Our interpretation is based on the following: x All property to be served by the proposed lift station is located in Garfield County that will pump to either or both the Dakota lift station or the Cerise Ranch lift station, both of which are in Garfield County. x No new water and sewer infrastructure would be required in Eagle County that has not already been approved in the existing Mid Valley 1041 permit and approved service plan. If you have further questions, don’t hesitate to contact Ray Merry at 970-328-8757 ray.merry@eaglecounty.us or myself. Sincerely, Keith P. Montag, AICP Community Development Director Eagle County Government P.O. Box 179, 500 Broadway Eagle, CO 81631 970.328.8733 p keith.montag@eaglecounty.us 1 JULY 21, 2008 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO The regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners began at 8:00 A.M. on Monday, July 21, 2008 with Chairman John Martin and Commissioners Tresi Houpt and Larry McCown present. Also present were County Manager Ed Green, County Attorney Don DeFord and Jean Alberico, Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. CALLTOORDER Chairman Martin called the meeting to order at 8:00 A.M. NOTE TO REVIEWER: THIS RECORD HAS BEEN FORESHORTENED TO DISPLAY ONLY THOSE ITEMS PERTAINING TO TCI LANE RANCH. COUNTY ATTORNEY UPDATE: DON DEFORD EXECUTIVE SESSION – LITIGATION UPDATE AND LEGAL ADVICE Don would like to make inquiry of the Board; he does not have a particular need to have executive session or to provide legal advice on this issue. Everything is already in your public discussion packet. If the Board or any members of the Board wish to have legal advice on the issue concerning the expansion of Mid Valley Metropolitan District; then we will do that first. Otherwise begin the discussion, which is what the Board did. DISCUSSION/DIRECTION RE: 6/24/08 LETTER FROM MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT’S ATTORNEY LEE LEAVENWORTH AND BILL REYNOLDS Don DeFord reported that in preparation for your meeting with Lee Leavenworth, counsel for the Mid Valley Metropolitan District today, he had reviewed the files of the Clerk & Recorder, the County Attorney’s Office and selected documents from the Building and Planning Department concerning previous requests to expand Mid Valley Metropolitan District into Garfield County. I have attached documents to this transmittal letter that appear to bear directly on the question of “material modification of the service plan”. I have not included all documents obtained from each department. These documents are submitted to assist the Board in its consideration of Mid Valley Metropolitan District’s request, to allow expansion to service TCI Lane Ranch, without the need for a full public hearing and formal approval by the BOCC for such expansion. The substance of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District request is set forth in the June 24, 2008 correspondence of Mr. Leavenworth to Mr. Jarman, a copy of which is also attached to this letter for your reference. The initial document in this packet relates to a 1994 request to expand service to “Arnold Meadows”. In that correspondence, Mr. Leavenworth specifically represents that the decision on “material modification” will not be binding on the BOCC regarding future additional expansions and further, at the time of that request, the District Board of Directors had no intent to extend boundaries in Garfield County beyond “Arnold Meadows”. Subsequent correspondence was received in 1997, relating to a more substantial expansion. In his May 1, 1997 letter, Mr. Leavenworth specifically references the “Dakota property” in which a finding of no material modification was rendered by both Eagle and Garfield County. However, Mr. Leavenworth also notes that both counties indicated any further expansion would be considered a material modification. Attached to Mr. Leavenworth’s correspondence is a very useful map showing the then current boundaries of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District, as well as Dakota and Cerise Ranches which were subsequently served by the District. The map and correspondence indicates that the Metropolitan District was seeking a position from Garfield County concerning expansion into the entire area between El Jebel and Carbondale. Ultimately, this larger expansion issue came before the Board at a noticed public hearing on July 7, 1999. From the Clerk’s office, I am providing a copy of the minutes of that meeting, together with the exhibits still maintained in that office and provided to the County Attorney. You will note from the minutes and the Resolution that the requested expansion was unanimously denied by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. The basis for that position is set forth in the minutes. Finally, in 2003, Mr. Leavenworth submitted another request for a smaller incremental expansion of Mid Valley Metropolitan District into Garfield County. That request related to Cerise Ranch. The basis for avoiding a public hearing and a finding of no material modification of the service plan appears to be based on the need for a quick decision to provide central sewer as opposed to individual sewage treatment systems to that subdivision. The subdivision had already been approved with ISDS systems. Mr. Leavenworth’s office represented that there was insufficient time for the Board to conduct a public hearing to fully consider the issue of material modification (see page 3 correspondence of Nicole Garrimone). In summary, through numerous requests, three (3) times the Board of County Commissioners has approved incremental expansion of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District based on representations that no further expansion would take place 2 and that such approval set no precedent for subsequent expansion requests. On the one (1) occasion in which an overall plan was considered for the general area between Carbondale and El Jebel, expansion was rejected. The current request would be the fourth (4th) incremental request to expand the District along the Highway 82 corridor. Lee – Spoke about when the district was formed in 1982 by the approval of a service plan by the Board of County Commissioners in Eagle County. The plan contemplated that the district would provide centralized water and sewer service in the Mid Valley area. They have recently received approval to expand the plant to 1 million gallons a day and, as the Board is aware, at one point they came to the Board and said; we have the Dakota Subdivision partly in Eagle County, partly in Garfield County; is it okay if we serve them and the Board agreed. They also agreed at that time that a service plan amendment was not required. Similarly, Cerise ranch was approved following an effort by the district to build a regional plant down valley and serve the entire valley floor, which turned into a disaster. As a result Cerise Ranch was approved on ISDS; they came to us and said we really would rather have service from you and the Board agreed we could provide the service. We agreed each time; any further service in Garfield County would require your approval. We have received a request from TCI Lane to provide service to them. We are here to ask whether you agree with me that this is not a material modification of our service plan, requiring a service plan amendment. He feels there are three (3) options; one (1), let us provide that service with the express understanding that no further service would be provided in Garfield County without us coming back to you again; two (2) you could require us to do a service plan amendment, which would involve us preparing a service plan amendment and holding a public hearing on that amendment. Three (3) you could tell us no and they could do a package plant like Blue Creek Ranch did. We are willing to provide service down there; we have the capacity and it would involve a lift station and pump back to our current plant. Don stated from the prospective of his office; most of Lees comments, Don agrees with those statements. Slight difference on the last point, he doesn’t know if this Board today could not say you can’t expand. Your options today; to say this does not require a public hearing and is not a material modification, and accept the representation that any future expansions would be given the opportunity as Lee explained. Or to require they file a service plan amendment and conduct a full public hearing. You have the history in your packets and I do not know if there is a hard and fast answer as to whether or not this is a material modification. This has come in front of the Board several times, not just with Mid Valley; but with others and the statute is not real clear on what happens when the boundaries are expanded. It is clear in that the boundary expansion itself is not a material modification; but if that expansion entails the construction of capital facilities and expenditure of district funds, then he thinks it is an open question and the Board could require a hearing. Commissioner Houpt stated she would like to hear from Fred. Fred Jarman asked them to look at a map in the packet, showing where the district boundaries appear showing, at least in this exhibit, it encompasses Dakota. The lightening rod issue is one of the reasons that we have contemplated in the planning office, on the extension of a service well into the lower Roaring Fork Valley floor down to Catherine’s Store ultimately. Lee is correct; you do have a private package plant with Blue Creek; there is a catch 22 going on here because, the County in one sense has approved by way of the comprehensive plan changes, higher densities that could accommodate or be better served by Central Services. TCI Ranch being one of those; the planning commission has now approved the high designation on them. The question is; if you build it will they come by extending Central Services down that whole corridor. The question he has as he is looking at this; the boundaries themselves, by extending the boundaries, are you providing service to Cerise outside of your boundary or has the boundary been amended to include Cerise. Would you do the same thing if you went to TCI, how would you draw that map? Lee stated they would be required to file a petition for inclusion; just like Cerise Ranch did. He wanted to make one (1) thing very clear; if you allow us to serve TCI, we would size lift the station solely for that project. It would obviously be expandable to serve other areas; but it makes no economic sense to serve with Central Sewer. My board has no interest in becoming a land use lightening rod again, and frankly we probably would not file a service plan if we are required to do so. Bill stated they do see a lot of value in providing centralized water and sewer and protecting the water. Commissioner Houpt stated this is a very difficult discussion, because the point Fred raised, about making sure we are not having a district drive, the development instead of the comprehensive plan she things is very important. We have hit a point in this County where we really need to update the comprehensive plan and make sure that we know where we want to go with the rest of the valley floor. If you look through this stack of documents and the history of how the district has grown, it’s been in a piecemeal way and that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan; but that’s where you are because of what you are referring to as a lightening rod discussion. Lee stated we are in a catch 22. We are in the business of providing water and sewage and we are prepared to do that for this subdivision. Commissioner Houpt stated; and this is a subdivision that has come in front of the planning commission…and we don’t even know today whether that is going to be a reality or not. That is not even part of the discussion today; the discussion is how do you as a district move forward. Not with a specific application, but if you want to move through this valley are we going to do that in a manner that has more planning attached to it, so that we know that you fit into the grand scheme of things. 3 Lee stated; what you are asking for today is a determination of whether it is us providing service to TCI constitutes a material modification in our service plan. That is all we are asking. If you want us to do a service plan; we probably won’t and we will probably never provide service farther into Garfield County. Commissioner Houpt stated to Lee that is a very definite answer; you’re not saying they would never do that. What if we went through another comprehensive plan and you fit well into that because you were at the table. Lee said they would consider coming back at that point; but we are not going to do a service plan in advance of your revising the comprehensive plan. We can’t do a service plan that makes any sense given your current comp plan densities. Commissioner Houpt said she was uncomfortable making a determination of whether one (1) application is required or not for a land use application that hasn’t even been in front of this Board. She doesn’t know the density, doesn’t know if she would agree with the density, she doesn’t know if she would find that it would be material to the discussion, and require a formal application. How can she answer those questions when she doesn’t have that in front of her? Commissioner McCown stated; the one thing you have to answer is, without adequate water or sewer, they could not come before this Board. By that single fact; you are disapproving that. Commissioner Houpt stated on the flip side what am I approving by saying, sure you can just keep rolling on down. Commissioner McCown stated they would have access to this service. There is no guarantee to approval, if approved they would have access to the service. Commissioner Martin stated it has to go through the public hearing process. These folks are just saying we can serve, we will serve, but it will have a capital cost to us. Commissioner Houpt stated we don’t have details on what infrastructure this would have to be placed in. Commissioner Martin stated that is Larry’s point; this is a letter they can and will serve if necessary, if it is approved. Commissioner Houpt said she thinks the question is; how much infrastructure do you allow to be placed before it actually becomes, by default, a plan for the entire valley floor. You have so many infrastructures in place, you really could provide for high density throughout the valley. If they are putting a new lift station in, does that drive the comprehensive plan? Lee stated there was another development that came in for an amendment that was denied. We were willing to serve them, if you approve it, you did not. The capitol infrastructure that would be constructed is part of this project; it will come before you as part of their submittal. You will be able to see exactly what we will be building; dedicated to the district. Bill stated the capital improvements we are talking about are not astronomical. We are not talking about expanding our waste water treatment plant to service this particular project. Don stated that Lee is looking for a determination that the proposal in front of you is not material modification of the service plan. You (the Board) need to take action one way or the other on that request. Commissioner McCown – I make a motion we accept the offer of service from Mid Valley Metro District and not be deemed as a material modification of the service plan, given the testimony today, it is solely for this one land use activity and any further service that would be granted would require further hearing and/or an amendment to the service plan. Commissioner Houpt – Second. Commissioner Houpt is having a problem with this because she does not agree with how they have rolled through this without really having a great plan for the valley floor. She doesn’t believe it was it was the districts fault. Yet they are in a difficult position, because we don’t have an updated comprehensive plan and she hopes when the process is started they will be at the table. Lee stated they will not come further down valley until the comprehensive plan is done. In favor: Houpt – aye McCown – aye Martin – aye                   N. Mid Valley Metropolitan District: Proposed Infrastructure  Improvements, December 11, 2008  glenwood springs 118 w. 6th, suite 200 glenwood springs, co 81601 970-945-1004 fx: 970-945-5948 aspen p.o. box 2155 aspen, co 81612 970-925-6727 fx: 970-925-4157 crested butte p.o. box 3088 crested butte, co 81224 970-349-5355 fx: 970-349-5358 I:\1981\01501\C\177 - TCI Lane Ranch\Correspondance\L 20081211 Tom Zancanella.doc December 11, 2008 Via E-mail: tzancanella@za-engineering.com Mr. Tom Zancanella Zancanella and Associates RE: MVMD – TCI Lane Ranch – Offsite Infrastructure Dear Tom, SGM is the engineer of record for the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. We received your letter dated December 11, 2008 regarding offsite District owned infrastructure that will provide sanitary sewer and domestic water service to the TCI Lane Ranch project. We have reviewed the letter and associated drawings on behalf of the District and the proposed infrastructure appears to meet the intent of the District’s rules and regulations. Please let this letter serve as approval of the offsite water and sewer infrastructure required to serve the TCI Lane Ranch project. Before construction can be approved the following items need to be completed: 1. The development needs to petition and be included in the District’s service area 2. A line extension agreement with the District needs to be signed 3. Construction drawings will need to be submitted, reviewed and approved If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Chris Lehrman, E.I. Cc e-mail: Jon Fredericks, TCI Lane Ranch MVMD Staff                   O. Mid Valley Metropolitan District: Utility Easements and  Permits, December 29, 2008                    P. Mid Valley Metropolitan District: Water Supply  Documentation, December 29, 2008