Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Supplemental DocumentsDATE: /O /'g TIME: FIT.F,: • RECORD OF CONVERSATION OUTGOING: INCOMING: CONTACT: • FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED: • • Garfield County Dept of Dev. 109 Eighth St. Glenwood Springs Colo. Re; Application for PUD on Parcel B Phase 11 Ranch at Roaring Fork Gentlemen Pursuant to your request of September 8 we hereby submit the following documents. 1. A letter from John Wix approving the PUD submission. 2. The list of property owners within three hundred feet of the subject property. 3. A revised copy of the Plan of Development showing the two foot contour lines. 4. A copy of the agreement between the subject property's owners and The Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association guaranteeing sewer and water service to this parcel. We would request that this document serve in lieu of a statement from a Civil Engineer that those services are available. As this agreement will confirm both sewer and water will be made available from the homeowners association if present capacity permits and if the present capacity is insufficient then expansion of the system will be undertaken. Since determining the present capacity is difficult and would be a costly matter. possibly requiring the services of an arbitration committee as delineated in the Agreement, it would be preferable to have the county approve our PUD prior to making these determinations. Should you require further clarification of this matter or have any other questions please contact me as soon as possible. If the time limits allow we would like to see this put before the board at their October meeting. Thank You Keit 0. Blinkinsoph 1 ti PLANNED UNIT D_;Vr;LCr :' i • For Commercial Development of Parcel 3 (2.9864 acres) at Ranch At Roaring Fork Lot 2, Section 36, T.7 S, A. 88, W. of the 6th PM We are herein requesting that you process and approve our request for a Planned Unit Development on the attached plan of development. 1. The prope,' y is owned by Stagecoach Associates Ltd. Approval for PUD is by the general partner, John Wix. 2. The plan is for a 40 unit motel, manager's unit, and convenience store. b. Approximately 65 of the property shall remain as open space. c. See attached plan d. See attached plan e. No part of this property has been dedicated for school sites. f. See attached plan g. Sewer and water service have been nontractuBelly committed by The Ranch At Roaring Fork Homeowners Association. Electrical service is available from Holy Cross Electric. Telephone is available from Mountain Bell. Natural gas is not currently available. h. Building setbacks vary, see attached plan. Maximun height of the two story motel structure is 34 feet. The site is flat and will require no unusual measures in respect to grading, paving, or drainage. All existing sewer and water easements have been avoided and will not require any disruption or relocation. The development of this property in accordance with this PUD appears to provide a reasonable solution to the concerns of both the owners of this property and the surrounding property owners. -The legitimate visual concerns of the property owners to the west should be largely mitigated by the landscaping screen to be installed along that boundary. This plan incorporates a large percentage of open spare and a minimal impact on the environment. Due to the design of the access the traffic impact on Highway 82 and on surrounding properties should be neglible. No flood control problems or natural hazards should be a factor. If approved, this development shall begin in hte Spring of 1988 and will be completed within a twelve month period. No special covenants or regr.irements are proposed or needed. All recorded easements affecting this property have been shown on the attached plan of development. 993G Ogg", PUD Farre B P.anrh At ?caT Fork Page 2 All reasonable precautions have been to%en in the design of this plan, and w=_11 be continued through the construction period to preserve the ^atural areas of this property and the adjoining recreational rrcperty. This property owne- acknowledges the beauty and intrinsic recreational value of the surrounding area, and intends to omplement rather than disrupt the natural beauty of this area as much as is possible within the mope of this development. REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT September 10, 1987 Department of Planning Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado • W3E3 IV1:110 3Fta ICY 10 30 -AL 'r BOX X 303/927-3161 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 Re: Parcel B, Phase II, Ranch at Roaring Fork This is to advise you that the Planned Unit Development Plan proposed for captioned property has the full support and approval of Stagecoach Limited, the general partner of Stagecoach Associates, Ltd., the owner of said land. Thank you for your attention. Sincerel John Wix, President Stagecoach Limited, a Colorado corporation 1 • August 18, 1987 Colorado Country Box X Basalt, CO 81621 .CcnrArfe of Contract. STEWART TITLE OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS Attn: John Wix Order #11369 TI 805 Colorado Avenue P.O. Box 430 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-5434 We have searched the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County and found the following owner ither 200 feet;of the subject property which is attached hereto. ---- Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association Address unknown Colorado Department of Highways 202 Centennial Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 R.F.R. Partners c/o Neligh C. Coates 720 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 J. Richard Hunt Shirley M. Hunt 14913 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Jean M. Blue Dee Blue 0406 Road 104 Carbondale, CO 81623 Eugene E. Reich Doris F. Reich 19285 Highway 7 ,�'✓�f Vinehill, Excelsior55331 Gordon E. Price 6 Elm Ave. Colorado Springs, CO 80900 • • Page 2 James T. Jesse P. 0. Box 599 Carbondale, CO 81623 Dale A. Ellis 0084 Stagecoach Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Dale A. Ellis, Jr. Jane F. Ellis Rox 1979 Aspen, CO 81612 Franklin B. Hallowell, Jr. 0101 Stagecoach Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Adrian Selgren Anderson Barbara Timmons Anderson Box 1357 Aspen, CO 81612 Oklahoma Roaring Fork Ltd. Box 684 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74076 Dale Eubank 731 E. Durant Ave. Apt. 7A Aspen, CO 81611 W. A. Mooney, Inc. Bob N. Nichols 7720 E. Bellview Englewood, CO 80110 Ralph E. Snelson Dianne W. Snelson 300 Muirwood Warren, Ohio 44484 James P. Ransford Barbara R. Ransford 16116 Anoka Drive Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 • • Page 3 Stephen D. Tebo P. 0. Box T Boulder, CO 80302 Ralph G. Maccaro 14913 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 NOTE: The addresses provided are taken from the documents of record. Certified to this 14th day of August 1987 at 8:00 A.M. Truly, R. L. Hays RLH/km • • A Part of Lot 2 in Section 36, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the Northeast corner of said Section 36 bears N. 76°15'33" E. 1883.81 feet; thence S. 56°40' W. 249.78 feet; thence N. 44°25' W. 100 feet; thence S. 55°45' W. 150 feet; thence N. 47°50'07" W. 119.52 feet; thence N 38°51'53" W. 218.33 feet; thence N. 67°11'43" W. 45.46 feet; thence N. 202.43 feet to a point on the Southerly right of way line of Colorado State Highway No. 82; thence S. 80°10'E. along said right of way line 671.23 feet; thence S. 27°20'41" W. 34.36 feet; thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 85.31 feet (the long chord of which bears S. 9°21'19" E. 101.97 feet) an arc distance of 109.29 feet; thence S. 46°03'19" E. 43 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING a Tract conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Garfield, State of Colorado by Warranty Deed recorded February 28, 1983 in Book 621 at Page 113 as Reception No. 338774. EXCEPTING a Tract conveyed to the State Department of Highways Division of Highways, State of Colorado by Special Warranty Deed recorded April 22, 1983 in Book 625 at Page 720 as Reception No. 341244. EXCEPTING a Tract of land as conveyed to The Board of County Commissioners by Document recorded July 18, 1983 in Book 630 at Page 790 as Reception No. 343905. • • WATER AND SEWER SERVICE AGREEMENT (Commercia Parce - Ranch at Roaring Fork) This Agreement is in effect as of the first day of January, 1981, between RANCH AT ROARING FORK HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., a Colorado Not -for -Profit Corporation ("Association"), whose address is 14913 State Highway 82, Carbondale, Colorado 81623, and STAGECOACH ASSOCIATES, a Colorado Limited Partnership, ("Commercial Parcel Owner"), whose address is Box X, Basalt, Colorado 81621. I. GENERAL. 1.1 Purpose of Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to clarify in part the terms and conditions under which the Association shall provide water and sewer service for the Commercial Parcel, as hereinafter defined, at the Ranch at Roaring Fork, and to set forth the basis for payments to the Association for such water and sewer service. A further purpose of this Agreement is to resolve certain controversies which have arisen in the past between the parties hereto or their predecessors in interest and to provide for certain payments by the Comuercial Parcel Owner to the Association for water and sewer service heretofore furnished by the Association for the Commercial Parcel. 1.2 Relevant Prior Documents. This Agreement is entered into subject and pursuant to, and to implement the provisions of, the Water Deed and the Amended Declaration, as each is hereinafter defined. The Water Deed conveyed certain water rights and water facilities to the Association subject to an obligation to provide water and sewer service to the Commercial Parcel. The obligation of the Association under the Water Deed was to be further defined by the terms of the Amended Declaration. The Amended Declaration, in Article X, sets forth certain basic provisions for the provision of water and sewer service to the Commercial Parcel. 1.3 Prior Agreement Superceded. This agreement supercedes all prior oral agreements and understandings between the parties hereto or their predecessors in interest, and the Water -Sewer Service Contract, dated September 21, 1977, between the Association and Jay Kee Jacobson as the then owner of the Commercial Parcel. II. CERTAIN DEFINITIONS. 2.1 Water Deed. "Water Deed" shall mean the Deed, dated July 3, 1973, by The Ranch at Roaring Fork Inc., the original developer of the Ranch at Roaring Fork Project, to the Association, recorded July 12, 1973 in Book 447 at page 140 of Garfield County Records. 2.2 Amended Declaration. "Amended Declaration" shall mean the Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Limitations, Restrictions, Reservations, Liens and Charges for Ranch at Roaring Fork, dated October 26, 1977, and re- corded October 26, 1977, in Book 502 at Page 82 of Garfield County, Colorado records, as amended by the First Amendment to Amended Declaration for Ranch at Roaring Fork, dated June 7, 1980, and recorded July 8, 1980, in Book 551 at Page 429 of Garfield County, Colorado records. 2.3 Garfield County Records. "Garfield County Records" shall mean the records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado. • • 2.4 Ranch. "Ranch" or "Ranch at Roaring Fork" shall mean the real property located in Garfield County, Colorado, containing approximately 464 acres, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached to the Amended Declaration. 2.5 Project. "Project" or "Ranch at Roaring Fork Project" shall mean those portions of the Ranch which are now or, under the terms of the Amended Declaration, may hereafter be made subject to the Amended Declaration. The Project does or may consist of (a) Condominium Parcel No. 1, containing 60 condominium units; (b) Detached Housing Parcel Nos. 1 through 4, containing 92 single family lots; (c) the Common Recreation Reserve; and (d) a Remaining Annexable Parcel which could, under the Amended Declaration, be developed for up to 40 units. 2.6 Other Ranch Parcels. "Other Ranch Parcels" shall mean the Commercial Parcel and the Homestead Parcel, as hereinafter defined. The Other Ranch Parcels are within the boundaries of the Ranch but are not formally part of the Project. 2.7 Commercial Parcel. "Commercial Parcel" shall mean the real property containing approximately 4.73 acres, which is more particularly described in Exhibit B attached to the Amended Declaration. The Commercial Parcel is within the boundaries of the Ranch but is not formally part of the Project. 2.8 Homestead or Reserve Parcel. "Homestead Par- cel" or "Reserve Parcel" shall mean the real property more particularly described in the Declaration of Protective Cove- nants for the Reserve Parcel by Ranch at Roaring Fork, Inc., dated July 3, 1973, and recorded September 12, 1973, in Book 449 at Page 353 of Garfield County records. The Homestead Parcel or Reserve Parcel is within the boundaries of the Ranch but is not formally part of the Project. III. WATER SERVICE. 3.1 Association to Supply Water. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Association shall provide potable water for the Commercial Parcel from and through the present water sources and facilities of the Association con- sistent with the Amended Declaration. The Association shall not be required to provide an amount of water exceeding the amount of water reserved for the Commercial Parcel under the Water Deed and shall not be required to provide water in excess of the capacity of the Association's water service facilities. The Association shall make reasonable efforts to furnish a continuous supply of potable water from the Association's water service system at the point of connection between the Assdci- ation's facilities and the facilities serving the Commercial Parcel. No promise or guaranty of water quantity, quality or pressure is made by the Association or is to be implied from anything contained herein, provided that curtailment of service shall be in accordance with Article X of said amended Declara- tion. 3.2 Payment for Water. The Commercial Parcel Owner shall pay for the water furnished hereunder in each calendar year, the "Commercial Parcel's Water Share" of "Water Operating Costs" of the Association as the foregoing terms are hereinafter defined. 3.3 Commercial Parcel's water Share. "Commercial Parcel's Water Share" shall mean a fraction the numerator of -2- which is the amoue of water delivered by Association to the Commercial Parcel during a calendar ye and the denomi- nator of which is the amount of water delivered by the Asso- ciation to all users on the Association's water system during that calendar year. 3.4 Water Operating Costs. "Water Operating Costs" shall mean the operating and ordinary maintenance and repair costs and expenses of the Association in providing water in a calendar year to the Commercial Parcel and to other users on the Association water system, including ordi- nary repairs and maintenance, labor, chemicals, pumping and treatment costs, electricity and power costs, etc. Water Operating Costs shall not include major or extraordinary capital expenditures. IV. SEWER SERVICE. 4.1 Association to Provide Sewage Treatment. Sub- ject to the provisions of this Agreement, Association shall take and treat sanitary sewage from the Commercial Parcel through and by means of the present sewer lines and facilities of the Association, but not in excess of the amount of sewage effluent which is normal in relation to the amount of water furnished by the Associaton to the Couuuercial Parcel and not in excess of the capacity of the Association's sewer lines and sewage treatment facilities. The Association shall use its best efforts to keep and maintain its lines and treatment facilities in good operating condition, capable of handling and treating the sewage effluent from the Coulmercial Parcel and other users of the Association's system but there shall be no promise or guaranty by the Association or implied from anything contained in this agreement that the Association shall, at all times, be able and capable of collecting and treating all such sewage effluent If at any time the Commercial Parcel owner desires to expand and the sewer system is at capacity, then the system may be enlarged at Commercial Parcel owner's election and expense. Expansion design shall be mutually agreed upon. 4.2 Payment for Sewer Service. The Commercial Parcel Owner shall pay for sewer treatment service in each calendar year, the "Commercial Parcel's Sewer Share" of "Sewer Operating Costs" of the Association as the foregoing terms are hereinafter defined. 4.3 Commercial Parcel's Sewer Share. "Commercial Parcel's Sewer Share" shall mean a fraction the numerator of which is the amount of water delivered by the Association to the Commercial Parcel during the Non -Irrigation Season and the denominator of which is the amount of water delivered by the Association to all users on the Association's water system during the same Non -Irrigation Season, except in each case, any raw or non -potable water drawn directly from non - potable sources. 4.4 Non -Irrigation Season. "Non -Irrigation Season" shall mean the 5 month period from November 1 of any year through March 31 of the following year. The Non -Irrigation Season ending on March 31 of a calendar year shall be used for determining the Commercial Parcel's Sewer Share for that calendar year. Non -Irrigation Season water usage is used in this Agreement to determine the Commercial Parcel's share of sewage operating costs since, during the irrigating season, water use includes substantial quantities of water used for lawn and other irrigation which is not returned through the Association's sewer system for sewage treatment. 4.5 Sewer Operating Costs. "Sewer Operating Costs" shall mean the operating and ordinary maintenance and repair costs of the Association in providing sewage treatment in a calendar year to the Commercial Parcel and to other -3- • 1 users on the Association sewage system, including ordinary repairs and maintenance, labor, chemicals, pumping and treat- ment costs, electricity and power costs, etc. Sewer Operating Costs shall not include major or extraordinary capital expen- ditures. V. METERING WATER USAGE. 5.1 Commercial Parcel Water Meter. Consistent with the Amended Declaration, the Commercial Parcel Owner shall install and maintain, at the expense of the Commercial Parcel Owner, a meter to measure the amount of water furnished to the Commercial Parcel by the Association. The meter shall be kept and maintained at the point of connection between the water lines of the Association and the water lines for the Commercial Parcel. The Amended Declaration requires that any service contract with the Owner of the Commercial Parcel shall'require the Owner to bear the cost of installing the facilities required for such service. 5.2 Association's Water Meter. The Association shall install and maintain at all times a water meter or water meters which shall be sufficient to adequately measure the amount of potable water provided by the Association to all users on the Association's water system, including the water supply to the Commercial Parcel. Such water meter or meters may be installed at the well or spring from which the water is derived or from the outlet of any water treatment facility. The costs of installation or replacement of any such water meters shall be a part of Common Capital Costs, a portion of which shall be paid by the Commercial Parcel Owner, and the costs of operation and ordinary maintenance of any such water meters shall be included in Water Operating Costs to be shared by the Commercial Parcel Owner. 5.3 Inspection of Meters. Either party shall have the richt, from time to time, to inspect the meters installed and maintained by the other party to insure that they are in good operating order and properly recording the amount of water passing through the meters. If any water meter or flow -measuring device is found to be improperly recording the amount of water, the meter or device shall be repaired or re- placed by the party required to install and maintain the meter and appropriate adjustments shall be made in the records of water previously delivered to adjust for any errors in re- cording of water delivered through the meters or flow -measuring devices. VI. CAPITAL COSTS. 6.1 Capital Costs. "Capital Costs" shall mean costs and expenses of installing or replacing water or sewer facilities and major or extraordinary expenditures for repair and maintenance of water and sewer facilities. 6.2 Commercial Parcel Capital Costs. The Commer- cial Parcel Owner shall pay or bear all Capital Costs relating to facilities designed or used solely or chiefly for service to the Commercial Parcel, including meters or flow -measuring devices for the Commercial Parcel and connection of facilities on the Commercial Parcel to the Association facilities. 6.3 Common Capital Costs. Commercial Parcel Owner shall pay to the Association the Commercial Parcel Proportionate Share of Common Capital Costs. "Common Capital Costs" shall mean capital costs relating to facilities which are not designed solely or chiefly for service to any one parcel or user. The "Commercial Parcel Proportionate Share" with respect to Capital Costs for water facilities shall be the Commercial Parcel's Water Share as hereinabove defined and -4- • • the "Commercial Parcel's Proportionate Share" of Captal Costs relating to sewer facilites shall be the Commercial Parcel's Sewer Share as hereinabove defined. 6.4 Other Capital Costs. Commercial Parcel Owner shall not be required to bear or share Capital Costs relating to facilities designed or used solely or chiefly for particu- lar parcels other than the Commercial Parcel, such as the Remaining Annexable Parcel or any other parcel within or outside the Ranch for which the Association may provide water or sewer service. With respect to Capital Costs for any such facilities, the Association shall be obligated to recover any Capital Costs from the owner or owners of the parcels served. VII. PAYMENTS. 7.1 MonthlyPayments for Operating Costs. Commer- cial Parcel Owner shal make payments monthly in advance to the Association for Water Operating Costs and Sewer Operating Costs. During 1981, the monthly amount payable shall be $53.00 per month. During 1982, and each subsequent calendar year, the monthly amount payable shall be 1/12th of the pre- ceding year's total actual amount finally determined to have been payable by Commercial Parcel Owner for Water Operating Costs and Sewer Operating Costs of the preceding calendar year. 7.2 Year -End Adjustments of Payments. As soon as practicable after the end of calendar year 1981 and after each calendar year thereafter, Association shall determine the actual Water Operating Costs and actual Sewer Operating Costs for the preceding calendar year and shall determine the actual Commercial Parcel's Water Share for the preceding calendar year based on water delivered in the calendar year and shall determine the actual Commercial Parcel's Sewer Share for the preceding calendar year based on water deliv- ered during the Non -Irrigation Season ending in the preceding calendar year. The Association, based on such determinations, shall advise Commercial Parcel Owner in writing of the total amount actually payable by Commercial Parcel Owner for Water Operating Costs and Sewer Operating Costs of the preceding calendar year. If the amounts paid by Commercial Parcel Owner during the preceding calendar year were less than the amounts actually payable, Commercial Parcel Owner shall promptly pay the Association any balance due., If the amounts paid by the Commercial Parcel Owner during the preceding calendar year were more than the amount actually payable, Association shall promptly pay the Commercial Parcel Owner any balance due. All calculations and figures used in determining the amount due shall be open to inspection, review and reasonable approval of Commercial Property Owner. 7.3 Payment of Capital Costs. Commercial Parcel Owner shall make any required payments with respect to Capital Costs, from time to time, as they are incurred promptly after receipt of any billing for the same. Subject to the provi- sions of the following section, the share of Common Capital Costs to be paid by the Commercial Parcel Owner, shall be based on the Commercial Parcel's Water Share or Sewer Share, as the case may be, for the most recently completed calendar year subject, however, to adjustment after the end of the calendar year based on the actual Commercial Parcel's Water share or Sewer Share, as the case may be, for the calendar year in which the Capital Costs were incurred and are payable. 7.4 Adjustments for Capital Costs Upon Expansion on Commercial Parcel. It is recognized that there may be further development on the Commercial Parcel with expansion of uses and that the further development may benefit from Common Capital Costs previously incurred for which Commercial Parcel Owner made payments based only on previously existing water or sewer use on the Commercial Parcel. Therefore, it • • is agreed that, in the event of any further development of the Commercial Parcel resulting in expanded water or sewer use, a payment shall be made by Commercial Parcel Owner to the Association of an inclusive tap fee ( water -sewer ) of $2500.00 being the equivalent of a 3/4 inch residential tap. The fee for the other uses shall be adjusted from said base fee according to the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 7.5 Payments for 1979 and 1980. Commercial Parcel Owner shall pay Association, promptly after execution hereof, the following amounts for water and sewer service and Capital Costs for Prior Years: (a) $318.00 ($26.50 x 12) for 1979 water and sewer service, less any amounts previously paid by Commercial Parcel Owner for such year; (b) $636.00 ($53.00 x 12) for 1980 water and sewer service, less any amounts previously paid by Commercial Parcel Owner for such year; (c) $527.62 for 1979 Common Capital Costs; and (d) $2,127.92 for 1980 Common Capital Costs. The amounts set forth in (b), (c), and (d) shall be adjusted after December 31, 1981, based on, as the case may be, the Commercial Parcel's Water Share estab- lished for calendar year 1981 and the Commercial Parcel's Sewer Share established for that portion of the Non -Irrigation Season from January 1, 1981, through March 31, 1981. 7.6 Additional Water or Sewer Users. The Asso- ciation shall add no additional water or sewer users nor shall it agree to expend any major capital outlay without first giving >60, clays notice of the details of same to Commercial Parcel Owner and allowing it an opportunity to be heard in the deliberations preceding such action. XIII. MISCELLANEOUS. 8.1 Installation of Degreaser. On or before execution of this Agreement, Commercial Parcel Owner shall install and shall thereafter maintain a grease -trap or de- greaser for the existing Stagecoach Restaurant, located on the Commercial Parcel. The grease -trap or degreaser shall be of a type and size recommended for use in connection with restaurants and shall be installed and maintained so as to eliminate or minimize the amount of grease and other similar materials entering the sewage lines from the Commercial Parcel. 8.2 Rules and Regulations. The Association shall have the right to adopt and enforce rules and regulations relating to water and sewer service furnished by the Associa- tion to the Commercial Parcel and to any other parcels or users. Such rules and regulations shall be reasonable and, uniformally applied. Rules and regulations may be adopted to restrict'water usage in times of shortage, consistent with the provisions of the Amended Declaration, to assure fair and equal service to all users and parcels and to further the effective and efficient operation of the Association's water and sewer system. 8.3 Unanticipated Changes in Circumstaces. It is recognized that this Agreement is a long-term agreement and that changes in circumstances may occur in the future which cannot now be fully or adequately anticipated. Examples of changes which may occur are the possible installation of a lawn irrigation system for Condominium Parcel No. 1 which would utilize raw water from existing lakes or ponds on the Ranch for irrigation purposes rather than the existing water system of the Association and the possible agreement by the -6- • • Association, pursuant to requests from state or local health authorities, to provide sewage treatment for one or more development projects in the vicinity of the Ranch. In the event any changes in circumstances occur and, in the opinion of either party, make any of the provisions of this Agreement unfair or unworkable, the parties hereby agree that they shall use their best efforts to appropriately amend or modify the terms of this Agreement and, the parties further agree that, if the parties cannot agree within a reasonable time on any necessary amendment or modification, the matter shall, at the option of either party, be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the arbitration provisions hereinafter set forth in this Agreement. 8.4 Arbitration. Any dispute or controversy under this Agreement and any matter specified in this Agreement as subject to arbitration shall be determined by arbitration in accordance with the following provisions. If either party desires arbitration, it shall give written notice to the other party and both parties shall promptly thereafter seek to agree upon a single arbitrator. If the parties cannot agree upon a single arbitrator within a reasonable time, either party may designate a competent and recognized arbi- trator by notice in writing to the other party and the other party shall, within 30 days thereafter, designate a competent and recognized arbitrator by notice in writing to the first party. Within 30 days after the designation of the second arbitrator, the two arbitrators so designated shall select a third competent and recognized arbitrator. As soon as prac- ticable after the designation of the single arbitrator or of the three arbitrators, the single arbitrator or the three arbitrators shall hear the matter and render a decision. Any decision rendered by the single arbitrator or by any two out of three arbitrators shall be binding upon both parties. The costs and expenses of the arbitration, including reasonable attorney's fees of the parties, shall be paid by the parties as may be specified in the arbitration decision or, to the extent not so specified, shall be paid equally by the parties. 8.5 Single Commercial Parcel Representative. Com- mercial Parcel Owner shall at all times designate a single person or entity as the Representative of all persons and parties who may be owners of or have interest in the Commer- cial Parcel and shall give notice to the Association of such Representative's name and address. Such Representative shall be fully authorized to act for and bind all persons or parties with interests in the Commercial Parcel and the Association shall, at all times, be entitled to deal with and rely solely on such designated Representative. Such Representative shall be deemed to have full power and authority to act for Commer- cial Parcel Owner including power and authority to amend or modify this Agreement, arbitrate disputes under this Agreement and receive notices on behalf of Commercial Parcel Owner. During any period that there is no person or entity designated by Commercial Parcel Owner as representative, the Association may designate any person or entity who is the owner of or has an interest in the Commercial Parcel as such Representative. The initial Representative of Commercial Parcel Owner shall be John Wix whose address is the address of Commercial Parcel Owner shown at the beginning of this Agreement. 8.6 Limitation on Association Liability. The Assocation, the Board of Directors of the Association and any member, agent or employee of the Association shall not be liable to Commercial Parcel Owner or any other party with respect to any matter arising in connection with this Agree- ment or the water and sewer service to be provided by the Association hereunder, except in the case of gross negligence, bad faith or malice. Commercial Parcel Owner hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Association, the Board of • Directors of the Association, and any member, agent or employee of the Association against any claim, loss, cost, damage or expense, including attorney's fees, incurred by any of the same as a result of any matter arising under this Agreement or in connection with water and sewer service furnished by the Association, except in the case of gross negligence, bad faith or malice. 8.7 No Public Utilities Status. Association shall not, by reason of this Agreement, be deemed to be serving nor holding itself out as serving or ready to serve members of the public. 8.8 Successors and Assigns. The terms "Association" and "Commercial Parcel Owner" as used herein shall include the respective heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. 8.9 Notices. All notices, consents or other instruments or communications provided for under this Agree- ment shall be in writing, signed by the party giving the same and shall be deemed properly given and received when actually given and received or three business days after mailed, if sent, postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth at the beginning of this Agreement or to such other address as such party may designate by written notice to the other party. 8.10 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the Water Deed and the Amended Declaration, constitutes the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and all prior agreements or under- standings shall be deemed merged herein. No representations, warranties or certifications, expressed or implied, shall exist as between the parties except as stated herein. 8.11 Modifications in Writing. No amendments, waivers or modifications hereof shall be made or deemed to have been made unless in writing executed by the party to be bound thereby. 8.12 Nonseverability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforce- ability of any other provision of this Agreement and there shall be substituted for the affected provision, a valid and enforceable provision as similar as possible to the affected provision. 8.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. None of the terms or provisions contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to be for the benefit of any person not a party hereto, and no such person shall be entitled to rely hereon in any manner. 8.14 Assignability. No party may assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement except in connection with a partial or total transfer of the Commercial Parcel by Commer- cial Parcel Owner or a partial or total transfer of the water and/or sewer rights and facilities by the Association. 8.15 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be bind- ingupon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their permitted successors and assigns. 8.16 Attorney's Fees. In the event either party institutes legal or arbitration proceedings with respect to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. -8- • • 8.17 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced according to the laws of the State of Colorado. 8.18 Captions for Convenience. All captions and headings used herein are for convenience only and are of no meaning in the interpretation or effect of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. RANCH AT ROARING FORK HOME- OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Colorado not-for-profit corporation By: President -9- "COMMERCIAL PARCEL OWNER" John Wix • r EXHIBIT A. Ranch at Roaring Fork water -sewer tap fee schedule: Base Tap Fee is $2500.00 for 1 Single Family Residence 1 Single Family Residence = 1 EQR Apartments 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Transient ( Motels & Lodges ) EQR 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 unit with cooking facilities 0.5 1 unit without cooking facilities 0.4 Office & Commercial For each toilet 0.5 Restaurants Up to 25 seats 1.0 Each additional 25 seats 0.6 • September 15, 1987 Legal Description Parcel B of the Redivision of Parcel 2, Phase 11, Town Center and "D" Units of Ranch at Roaring Fork. A parcel of land in part of Lot 2, Section 36, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the Northeast Corner of said Section 36 bears N. 76'15'33" E. 1883.81 feet; thence S. 56°40'00" W. 249.78 feet; thence N. 44°25'00" W. 100.00 feet; thence S. 55°45'00" W. 150.00 feet; thence N. 47°50'07" W. 119.52 feet; thence N. 38°51'53" W. 218.33 feet; thence N. 67°11'43" W. 12.91 feet; thence the following six courses along the easterly and southerly right-of-way of a Garfield County Road North 143.74 feet; theme along the arc of a curve to the right 52.26 feet, having a radius of 30.00 feet, a central angle of 99°50'00", a chord of N. 49 54'39" E. 45.90 feet; thence S. 80°10'00" E. 71.22 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right 37.98 feet; having a radius of 85.00 feet, a central angle of 25'35'52", a chord of S. 87°22'05" E. 37.66 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the left 102.75 feet, having a radius of 115.00 feet, a central angle of 51°11'41", a chord of S.80°10'00" E. 99.37 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right 37.98 feet, having a radius of 85.00 feet, a central angle of 25'35'52", a chord of N. 87°02'05" E. 37.66 feet; thence S. 09'50'00" W. 25.00 feet; thence the following six courses around Parcel A S. 19'54'59" W. 136.53 feet; thence S. 22'08'39" E. 62.08 feet; thence S. 57'33'36" E. 27.96 feet; thence S. 81°03'16" E. 54.66 feet; thence N. 69°20'02" E. 121.34 feet; thence N. 13°54'14" W. 147.63 feet to a point that intersects the southerly right -of -;-ray of the State Department of Highways, Project No. FC 082-1 (6); thence the following two courses along said right-of-way S. 55°43'30" E. 120.80 feet; thence S. 80°10'00" E. 81.59 feet; thence along the westerly right-of-way of Stage- coach Lane along the arc of a curve to the left 84.36 feet, having a radius of 85.306 feet, a central angle of 56°39'30", a chord of S. 17 43'51" E. 80.96 feet; thence S. 46°03'19" E. 43.00 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel of land oontains,2.9064 acres more or less. P.O. Box 883 • RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 (303) 625-3540 AT ROARING FORK September 30, 1987 Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Application for PUD on Parcel B, Phase II, Ranch at Roaring Fork Attached please find engineering reports of the dismal history of the Wastewater Treatment Plant at The Ranch at Roaring Fork. As far back as 1983, we knew something needed to be done to rehabilitate or replace the existing plant. Even if the plant was mechanically sound, which it isn't; it is estimated it would handle 130 homes or units. We now have 125 units and a restaurant on line. Mr. Blinkinsoph implied it would be difficult and costly to determine the present capacity. It will take less than 15 minutes to show any engineer the plant is not mechanically working and no more than 24 hours to determine our flow is above the capacity the plant was designed for. Attached is The Ranch at Roaring Fork water rights to our domestic water well, Skinner Well No. 1. We are allowed 80 acre feet per year. 80 acre ft./year x 43,560 sq. ft. (area of one acre) x 7.48 gal. (amount of water in one cubic foot) = 26,066,304 gallons. From January 1, 1987 through September 30, 1987 our water log shows we pumped 51,556,900 gallons of water. In order to try and remove ourselves from this violation of water use, lawn irrigation for the Condominiums was taken from the lakes this summer. As you can see we are still going to be in trouble with the Division of Water Resources and must make plans for irrigation of lawns for the homes. Each month I report the amount of water pumped from Skinner Well No. 1 to the Division of Water Resources and without any doubt, there will be a note in the mail very soon to do something different. The only thing the Water and Sewer Service Agreement between the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, Inc. and Stagecoach Associates confirms is the owner of the commercial parcel has a lot of expansion to do if they are planning to use our water and sewer plant. Without going into the other points that will cause a tremendous impact on our community, if the water and sewer service problems are not resolved before rezoning, this development will as in the past. create legal problems that continue to plague the Association. 14913 Highway 82 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (303) 963-3500 • • Garfield County Planning Department September 30, 1987 Page 2 If you have any question or need any further information on the mechanical condition of the plant, I will be more than happy to supply you with more detailed information. I am also available for discussion. Respectfully submitted, THE RANCH AT ROARING FORK EOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ohn C. Hochstedler Ranch Manager / SCHMUESER January 8, 1987 Mr. John Hochstedler Ranch at Roaring Fork 14913 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 N MEYER INC. RE: Wastewater Treatment Facilities Dear John: Alt12 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 enwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-1004 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/ This is to follow up our site visit and conversations before Christmas concerning what to do about wastewater treatment facility problems, both current and future. Subsequent to our meetings, I did some very, very brief cost estimates on various schemes for treatment facility modifications, reconstruction and total replacement, as well as having very beneficial conversations with representatives of the State Health Department. To briefly review our concerns, the existing treatment plant has now reached its original estimated useful life. It can be anticipated that the cost of maintenance and repair to the electrical and mechanical portions of the plant will significantly increase in the next several years. The plant's structural components are visibly starting to de- teriorate and will need major rehabilitation within the foreseeable future. In order to maintain the existing plant in a reasonable condi- tion, it would seem that a minimal expenditure of $20,000 to $30,000 over a three to five year period should be anticipated. Depending upon the extent of the repair to the exterior shell of the facility, expend- itures could be two to three times that much if major rebuild and/or temprorary treatment facilities need to be considered. We talked about the desirability of constructing new treatment facili- ties for the Ranch. The primary reasons to consider this option are the age and condition of the existing facilities, the fact that the existing facilility is obsolete with respect to current treatment re- quirements and treatment technologies and the possibility that flow equalization may be required in the near future by the State Health Department in order to continue to meet ever more strincaent stream standards. A new facility would be costly and could be preliminarily estimated to cost between $3.00 and $6.00 per gallon per day. The most reasonable alternatives would appear to be utilization of the existing facilities as flow equalization and the construction of mechanical facilities directly adjacent to the plant or construciton of an aerated lagoon system further downstream. In either case, we had talked about the desirability of using force account labor and expertise over an ex- tended period of time in order to make the facilities more cost effect- ive to the Ranch. Examples of force account labor would be concrete work and building construction for a mechanical facility and earthwork for an aerated lagoon facility. • �► January 8, 1987 Mr. John Hochstedler Ranch at Roaring Fork Page two The State Health Department was not very encouraging concerning such an approach. I talked at length with Mr. Dick Bowman about the "techni- cal" concerns of such long range planning. While he agreed that this would appear to be the most cost effective approach for the Ranch, he cautioned against anticipating future State Health Department require- ments. Briefly, he indicated that a site permit for construction of new facilities was only good for one year plus one year renewable. If we obtained a per;nit now for a facility that was not to be fully con- structed for five years, then the permit would lapse, and we could not be sure that a new permit would be issued allowing the same type of construction and/or discharge parameters. On the other hand, if we be- gan construction on a treatment facility now, the State would be under no obligation to issue us a site permit for such a facility to go on line in five years. For instance, in five years, they could decide that they would prefer us to hook to the Carbondale Sanitation Dist- rict's system rather than build our own facility, and we would have wasted the intervening force account work. It would be very disap- pointing to me to think that some reasonable solution couldn't be worked out between the Ranch and State Health Department to recoginize a good faith effort on your part to comply with Health regulations. Before any money is expended on any type of construction, I feel it is most important to begin a dialogue with the State Health Department to come to an agreed-upon procedure. I think it is important for the Board to, first of all, feel comfort- able about the status of the sewage treatment facilty and sewage treat-. ment requirement; in general and, secondly, to agree upon a course to pursue to deal wi—n that situation. I believe that the Health Depart- ment would be more than willing to begin a dialogue between the two parties. I think that the expenditure of funds on any engineering time or design is also premature until a definitive course of action is identified. As always, I will remain available to meet with either yourself or the Board at any time to further discuss the situation. Thank you for this opportunity to ire _t with you and briefly review the situation on a pre- liminary basis. i_ look forward to the possibility to working with the Ranch on the wastewater treatment situation. Respectfully sub1 .tted, SCHMUESER GORDON : ;YER, INC. - Dean.,W. rdon, P.E. .?re`s Iden- �170/G:lec/3265 • • ENAF?TECH Inc. Consulting Engineers and I lydroingists February 6, 1987 Mr. John Hochstedler Ranch at Roaring Fork 14913 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Re: Wastewater Treatment Facility Proposal for Engineering Services Dear John: Enartech, Inc. is please to submit this proposal to provide complete engineering services for the Ranch at Roaring Fork's proposed new wastewater treatment facility. The scope of services outlined in this proposal was developed based upon our recent meeting in which we discussed the project. The project would include the construction of a new wastewater treatment facility to replace the existing facility, extension of the existing sewer lines to the new facility, and elimination of the two existing lift stations or their replacement with a single lift station to be located at the new treatment facility. The proposed work to be performed by Enartech would be completed in the following four tasks. The work involved to complete each of these tasks is discussed below. (1) Preliminary Design (2) Permits (3) Engineering Design (4) Construction Administration and Inspection Task 1: Preliminary Design. This design includes the following: --Survey of existing facilities. --Determination of wastewater treatment requirements, including hydraulic loading, infiltration, organic loading, and effluent limitations. --Analysis of alternative wastewater treatment systems, including capital costs, operations costs, reliability and operational efficiency and flexibility. --Preliminary design and cost estimate of the proposed facility. 302 Eighth Sheet, Suite 325 P. 0. Drawer 160 Glenwood Springs. Colorado 61(02 (303) 035-3236 • • Mr. John Hochstedler February 6, 1987 Page Two Task 2: Permits. The construction of a new wastewater treatment facility will require the following permits from County, State and Federal agencies. (a) Garfield County Special Use Permit. This permit is required because the proposed wastewater treatment facility would be located within the 100 -year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River. I have enclosed a copy of the floodplain map for your reference and have also enclosed a topographic map of the area with the approximate delineation of the floodway drawn in. As you can see, both the existing wastewater treatment facility and the location of the proposed new facility are within the floodway of the river. The floodway is the portion of the floodplain that must be kept open to convey the 100 -year floodwaters, and Garfield County prohibits any development within the floodway that would result in any increase in the 100 -year flood level. The Garfield County flood plain regulations will make it difficult to construct the new facility within the floodway. However, I feel that the new wastewater treatment facility can be designed to meet the County's requirements. It will be necessary to provide technical evidence that the proposed development will not have any impacts on the flood level. This evidence would be provided by altering the original floodplain analysis to reflect the proposed changes. This type of floodplain analysis is done with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's HEC -2 computer program. We have the HEC -2 program on our in-house computer system, and I have requested a copy of the original HEC -2 floodplain analysis from Garfield County so that it can be altered. (b) Colorado Department of Health Site Application. This permit is required for the construction or expansion of any domestic wastewater treatment facility with a design capacity of more that two thousand gallons per day. The procedures for the application require a completed application form and a detailed engineering report. This information must be reviewed by the appropriate agencies, including Garfield County, the Regional Planning Agency, and the State Geologist prior to the submission to the State Health Department. The review process will include a number of public hearings. • • Mr. John Hochstedler February 6, 1987 Page Three (c) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit. A permit application will be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit. The construction of the proposed new wastewater treatment facility and the extension of the existing sewer lines to the new plant will probably involve construction across wetland areas or construction below the ordinary high water mark of the Roaring Fork River, which will require a permit. The permit application will be sent to interested agencies for their comments. Two agencies that will closely review the permit application will be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. A permit application to the Colorado Department of Health for Water Quality Certification (404 Permit) may also be required. This permit would outline the methods to be used during construction to minimize the potential effect on the water quality of the Roaring Fork River. Task 3: Engineering Design. The engineering design would include preparation of detailed plans and specifications for the construction of the new wastewater treatment plant and the extension of the sewer lines. Approval for construction must be obtained from the State Health Department through a review of the plans and specifications. Task 4: Construction Administration and Inspection. If you wish, Enartech would prepare the necessary construction contract documents to put the project out to bid, and would assist you with the bidding process. However, it would probably be more cost-effective if you acted as the general contractor for the construction project, with only certain portions of the work done by sub -contractors, as we have previously discussed. In either case, it would be necessary for Enartech to inspect the construction in order to certify that the treatment facilities were constructed according to the plans and specifications approved by the State Health Department. This construction inspection would not be required on a full-time basis. ESTIMATE OF FEES Enartech proposes to provide the services outlined above on a time and material basis in accordance with our professional fee schedule, a copy of which is attached. The majority of the work would be performed by Peter Belau, Professional Engineer -Series I, at the rate of $42.00 per hour. The estimated fees to complete the services in each of the tasks outlined above are listed below. Any additional service performed would also be billed in accordance with our professional fee schedule. • Mr. John Hochstedler February 6, 1987 Page Four (1) Preliminary Design $ 3,400 (2) Permits 4,800 (3) Engineering Design 6,700 (4) Construction Administration and Inspection 2,900 Total $17,800 If the terms and scope of services outlined in this letter meet your requirements and you would like us to proceed with the work, please provide an authorized signature on the space below and return a copy to our office. If you wish, we can proceed with the preliminary design up to the point where we can provide you with an estimate of the total construction cost of the proposed project, so you can determine if the project is economically feasible before proceeding further. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and hope to be working with you on this project in the future. I would be happy to attend any of your board meetings to discuss the project in more detail. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, ENARTECH, INC. Peter J. Belau, P.E. PJB/np Encl. I hereby acknowledge the general terms and conditions of the services outlined in this letter, and authorized Enartech, Inc. to proceed. Signature Date Title ENARTECH, INC. PROFESSIONAL FEE SCHEDULE POSITION HOURLY RATE Principal Hydrologist Hydrologist - Series I Hydrologist - Series II Principal Engineer $54.00 45.00 39.00 48.00 Professional Engineer - Series I 42.00 Professional Engineer - Series II 39.00 Computer Programmer 42.00 Technician 25.00 Draftsman 25.00 Secretary 20.00 2 -Man Survey Crew (subcontracted) 55.00 EXPENSES RATE Computer Run Time - Technical Programs Mileage - 2 Wheel 4 Wheel $25.00/hour . 28/mile . 35/mile Copies .20/copy OTHER EXPENSES ARE BILLED AT ENARTECH'S ACTUAL COSTS PLUS 10% TERMS OF PAYMENT All accounts will be billed on a monthly basis and payment is due thirty (30) days after date of bill. Overdue accounts will be assessed interest at a rate of 1.5% per month (18% A.P.R.). If account is placed with an attorney for collection, client agrees to pay court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. • • ENARTECH Inc. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists March 25, 1987 Ranch at Roaring Fork 14913 Hwy. 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 ATTN: Mr. John Hochstedler RE; Wastewater Treatment Facility Dear John and Members of the Board: At your direction, I have completed a conceptual design and construction cost estimate for a new wastewater treatment facility to serve the Ranch at Roaring Fork. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the cost of constructing a new wastewater treatment facility to replace the Ranch's existing wastewater plant. The type of wastewater treatment facility considered in the investigation was an aerated lagoon system. The location of the proposed aerated lagoons is approximately 900 feet east of the existing wastewater plant, as illustrated in the attached figure. The proposed facilities would include two aerated lagoons, a polishing pond, a chlorination system and a lift station. The existing wastewater treatment plant and the two existing lift stations would be abandoned. The aerated lagoon facility was designed for a capacity of 100,000 gallons per day (gpd). The estimated cost for the aerated lagoon facility is outlined in the attached table. The total project cost is estimated to be $272,100, including all materials, equipment and labor. If the Ranch were to act as the general contractor for the project and provide the equipment and labor for the earthwork and pipeline installation, the total project cost would be reduced to an estimated $214,000. I discussed some alternative options with Mr. Kearby Cotter of Case/Cotter, Inc., which is the manufacturer of your existing wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Cotter indicated that your existing plant can probably be "modernized", and he suggested that you have one of Case/Cotter's engineers inspect the plant to provide some recommendations. Mr. Cotter also estimated that the cost of replacing the plant with a new 80,000 gpd extended aeration mechanical plant would be in the range of $150,000 to $200,000. 302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 P.O. Drawer 160 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (303) 945-2236 • • Mr. John Hochstedler March 25, 1987 Page 2 I also talked with Bruce Matherly, who is the operator for the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District and is the part-time operator for the Sopris Village Subdivisions' wastewater plant. The Sopris Village wastewater plant is a mechanical "package" plant that can be operated in either an extended aeration or contact stabilization mode. This plant is manufactured by Can -Tex and is very similar to the Ranch's plant. Sopris Village recently drained their plant to inspect its condition; the wastewater was drained into their exfiltration ponds. The inspection included ultrasonic testing by the Independent Testing Company to determine the extent of corrosion in the tank and to determine the thickness of the tank's protective coating. The results of their testing indicated light surface corrosion around the water line of the plant. They removed the scale with wire brushes re -coated the tank at the water line and placed the wastewater plant back into service. As we discussed during our recent meeting, the primary difficulty with maintaining or upgrading the Ranch's existing wastewater plant is draining the plant and properly disposing of the wastewater. The alternative discussed during our meeting was to haul the wastewater to the Carbondale plant with pumper trucks. Another alternative would be to install some additional piping in the plant so that it could be drained chamber by chamber, if possible. A third alternative would be to construct a lagoon near the plant to hold and treat the wastewater while the plant is down for repairs. This lagoon could also be used as a polishing pond for the wastewater effluent when the mechanical plant is operating. Such a lagoon would improve the operational flexibility and the effluent quality of the Ranch's wastewater treatment system. Please review the attached information, and if you have any questions or if I can offer any additional assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, ENARTECH, Inc. Peter Belau, P.E. Civil and Environmental Engineer PB/rs #169-01 Enc. 20 MA CTYP 6194.2 X 36.9 X rn JO P 0 SCALE I' • 200' C- 6198.1 RANCH AT ROARING FORK AERATED LAGOON WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN • • RANCH AT ROARING FORK AERATED LAGOON WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE March 25, 1987 Estimated Unit Total Item/Description Quantity Cost Cost Sewer Lines 1,400 ft. 12.00 16,800 Manholes 4 ea. 1,500.00 6,000 Earthwork 9,000 cu.yd. 2.50 22,500 Flow Measuring Devices 2 ea. 3,000.00 6,000 Lift Station 1 ea. 20,000.00 20,000 Lining for Lagoons 90,000 sq.ft. .60 54,000 Floating Aerators 8 ea. 3,500.00 28,000 Piping and Level Control Lump Sum 24,000.00 24,000 Fencing 1,600 ft. 9.00 14,400 Chlorine Contact Tank 1 ea. 10,000.00 10,000 Chlorination Equipment & Bldg. Lump Sum 12,000.00 12,000 Outfall Pipe 620 ft. 12.00 7,440 Engineering and Permits Administrative and Contingency (15%) Sub -total $221,140 17,800 33,160 TOTAL $272,100 • • September 8, 1987 Mr. John Hochstedler Ranch at the Roaring Fork 14913 Highway 82 Carbondale, Co. 81623 Ref: Rehabilitation .:f Wastewater Treatment Plant Dear John: As you know, our company was tile .manufacturer of your wastewater treatment plant. When it was con:;tructed it was rated as a 65,000 gallon per day extended aeration plant. That really meant that it could handle the waste from 650 people. Based upon 4 persons per home, we could handle 160 homes. Since the plant was constructed the effluent standards of the State of Colorado have become more stringent and the degree of treatment required is greater. Based upon the above, it would be our estimate that the present plant may be able to handle the sewage generated from 130 homes. With the proposed additions and corrections to your present plant it should be capable of handling the flow from 180 units. Yours very truly, CASE/C9TTER, INC. S /C014 Kearby KC/gh Coso/±tp r nc1 6625 East 49th Avenue . Commerc, City, Colorado 80022 . (303) 288-1511 • • September 8, 1987 Mr. John Hochstedler Ranch at the Roaring Fork 14913 Highway 82 Carbondale, Co. 81623 Ref: Contract to Rehabilitate the Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant at the Ranch at the Rearing Fork Dear John: Thank you for taking me around at the plant and I enjoyed myself getting reacquainted with the plant. As I told the Board, the plant is in pretty good shape but needs to be upgraded and rehabilitated before too long. To confirm the quotation that I gave the Board we are pleased to quote as follows: We propose to do the following work. 1. Construct a new effluent polishing pond with 2 days detention. 2. Install a new mechanical aerator along with electrical controls, mooring cable, support posts, and electrical cables. 3. Construct a new polishing pond for the plant. Pond to have 1 day detention. 4. Install new piping for ponds and the effluent from the plant. 5. Replace raw sewage pumps with non—clog pumps. 6. Repair and replace comminutor. 7. Replace rake arms and squeegees. 8. Replace skimmer neoprene. 9. Replace expanded metal grating. CaseCotter, 6625 East 49th Avenue . Commerce City, Colorado 80022 . (303) 288-1511 • • 10. Drain down plant. 11. Haul sludge away for dispc;s,, : . 12. Sandblast all walls and equipment. 13. Repaint all the walls anc: csuipment inside and out with primer and finish coat. 14. Repaint the wood on the 1uiJding. 15. Install OSHA approved drive cover. 16. Replace the weir plate on clarifier with fiberglass plate. 17. Replace the decant air lift pump. 18. Repair the sludge return air lift pumps. 19. Repipe aerator piping as _-ec .red. 20. Make new operation and maintenance manuals. 21. Prepare drawings and submittal for Colorado Department of Water Pollution Control review. YOUR COST, for all of the above $60,475.00 Terms: Fifteen (15) percent upon acceptance. Monthly progress payments with ten (10) percent retainage until completion. Yours very truly, CASE/COTTER, / Kearby Coff,/ter Accepted 1987 By Title — 2 — •CEIVEO Mr Q 1983 IN THE DISTRIC"' OURT IN AND FOR WATER D1';__ -ION NO. 5 STATE OF LORADO Application No. 81CW407 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATIO., FOR WATER RIGHTS OF ) RULING' RANCH AT ROARING FORK I-IOMEOWNER:. ASSOCIATION INC.) OF IN TI-iE ROARING FORK RIVER ) REFEREE IN GARFIELD COUNTY The above entitled applicrItion was filed on December 24, 1981, was amended on October 14, 1982, and was referred to the under- signed as Water Referee for Water Division No. 5, State of Colo- rado, by the Water Judge of said Court on the 14th day of January, 1982, and again, after amendment, on November 15, 1982, in accor- dance with Article 92 of Chapte: 37, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, known as The Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969. And the undersigned Referee having made such investigations as are necessary to determine whether or not the statements in the amended application are true and having become fully advised with respect to the subject mat's. of the amended application does hereby make the following determination and ruling as the Referee in this matter, to -wit: 1. The statements in the amended application are true. 2. The name of the structure is Skinner Well No. 1. 3. The name of the claimant and address is: Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, Inc.; 14913 Highway 82; Carbondale, Colorado. • r;L".: IN ;1:7.1"....:1_:T FE V 2 8 1983 (:LL:;ci: 4. The source of the water is a well having a depth of 34 feet, and being tributary to the Roaring Fork River. 5. The well is located in the SE4NE4 of Section 36, T. 7 S., R. 88 W. of the 6th P.M. at a point 1,850 feet South of the North line and 200 feet West of the East line of said Section 36. 6. The use of the water is domestic and municipal. 7. The date of initiation of appropriation is May 5, 1980. 8. The amount of water claimed is 0.616 cubic foot of water per second of time, absolute. 1. 81CW407 • • 9. On November 26, 1979, Permit No. 24488-F was issued by the Office of the State Engineer, subject to the following "condi- tions of approval": This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or pre- clude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 1) A DECREE FOR THIS APPROPRIATION MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5, STATE OF COLORADO. • THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF SAID DECREE. 2) a. THE PUMPING RATE OF THIS WELL SMALL BE LIMITED TO 400 GPM OR THE ACTUAL YIELD OF ,THE AQUIFER, WHICHEVER IS LESS. b. AN AQUIFER TEST OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH SHALL BE RUN TO DETERMINE THIS PUMPING RATE AND THE RESULTS SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. 3) a. TIIE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER TO BE APPROPRIATED FROM THIS WELL SHALL BE LIMIT- ED TO 80 ACRE-FEET PER YEAR. 4) A TOTALIZING FLOW METER MUST BE INSTALLED ON THE WELL DISCHARGE WHEN THIS WATER IS PUT TO BENEFICIAL USE. DIVERSION RECORDS SHALL BE SUBMITTED, UPON REQUEST, TO THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. 5) THE WATER SUPPLY FROM THE EXISTING SPRING SHALL BE ALLOWED TO FLOW TO THE NATURAL WATER- WAYS UNLESS DECREED FOR USE WITHIN THE SUBDIVI- SION. IF DECREED, THE CASE NUMBER SHALL BE FORWARDED TO TH-IE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. 10. The well was completed and the water was first diverted and applied to beneficial use on May 5, 1981. The Referee does therefore conclude that the above entitled application should be granted and that 0.616 cubic foot of water per second of time is hereby awarded to Skinner Well No. 1, for domestic and municipal uses, with appropriation date of the 5th day of May, 1980, absolutely and unconditionally; subject, however, to all earlier priority rights of others and to the integration and tabulation by the Division Engineer of such priorities and changes of rights in accordance with law, and further subject to the "conditions of approval" of the drilling permit as set forth in paragraph 9 above. It is accordingly ORDERED that this ruling shall be filed with the Water Clerk and shall become effective upon such filing, subject to Judicial review pursuant to Section 37-92-304 CRS 1973. It is further ORDERED that a copy of this ruling shall be filed with the appropriate Division Engineer and the State Engineer. 2. 81CW407 day o Done at the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado,this 2:2774 Eelg an y • 19 .5 • 3. 13Y THE REFEREE: er Referee ater Division No. 5 State of Colorado i December 29, 1983 Mr. John Hochstedler Ranch at Roaring Fork 14913 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 RE: Appraisal of Wastewater Treatment Facilities Dear John: E•NEERS & CONSTRUCTORS Please find enclosed herein one original and two copies of the apprais- al of the wastewater treatment facilities at the Ranch at Roaring Fork. In order to make the appraisal as complete as possible, I have delayed transmitting it to you until I could discuss with the State Health Department the procedures they would require us to follow in bypassing the treatment plant during the major recommended maintenance activity, that being cleaning and inspection of the entire facility. They have basically agreed to allow us to bypass the plant by constructing a tem- porary aerated lagoon system adjacent to the facility and providing minimal treatment before discharge to the Roaring Fork. The details of that procedure would have to be worked out with them at the time the cleaning procedure was initiated. I trust that the appraisal contains all of the information which you require and is consistent with the requests that were given to me by the Hoard. I will remain available to supplement the information in the appraisal or to answer any questions concerning the appraisal which you might have. I would like to thank both yourself and the Board for the opportunity to prepare this appraisal for you. I would also like to thank you for your time and consideration given to me and for the information which you provided. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES Dean W. Princi D /jj enc: n ineer SCHMUESER &';;a.3OCIATES, INC. 1512 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 210 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • (303) 945-5468 • • APPRAISAL OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES RANCH AT ROARING Ft Introduction The Board of Directors of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, at their November meeting, authorized Schmueser & Associates to proceed with an appraisal of the wastewater treatment facility. The purpose of this appraisal is to determine the physical integrity of the treatment facility itself as well as to analyze the hydraulic and organic capacity of the system. This appraisal will also comment on the expected life of the facility as it now exists, on its ability to accept additional wastewater load- ings from its service area and on the expected costs of operation and maintenance of the facility in the future. A summary is presented at the end of this report to highlight the ap- praisal contents. The body of the report is written so that it may be used by the Board to prioritize capital expenditures at the facility, to update ongoing operation and maintenance plans and to determine mod- ification requirements for proposed future expansions. SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. w • • Background of the Treatment Facility The existing facility was placed into operation in 1973. The treatment facility at the time was a state of the art treatment concept which was being employed in many small, isolated locations throughout the State of Colorado. The plant is known by the general term "package plant", and is able to be operated in variations of the activated sludge process. These facilities were desi7ned to minimize the amount of electrical and mechanical equipment incorporated into the plant and thought to have been conservative enough in the design approach to min- imize the possibility of organic or hydraulic upset and the need for operator attention. The installation of this facility preceeded detailed design criteria from the Colorado Department of Health (CDH). Since the initial con- struction the CDH has issued a number of design parameters for such facilities, which have in the aggregate decreased the allowable hy- draulic and organic loadings on the facility in the eyes of the regula- tory agencies. The operating history of package plants has not been good. It has been found that certain components of the facility were in fact underdesigned, and the process has proved to be operator inten- sive. It has also been found that, because of the plants tend to be located at sites which either have unqualified operating personnel or budgets that are not adequate to support proper operation, the package plants frequently operate far below theoretical efficiency. As a SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sit result the State has legislated conservative design parameters which in effect have derated the facility at the Ranch. Any modifications to the plant requiring State approval need to take into account the change in rating criteria. Physically, the facility is in adequate condition. A visual inspection shows that the exterior of the facility appears to be structurally sound, with no significant metal corrosion taking place. The steel super -structure above the water line within the top enclosure shows moderate to severe corrosion, a situation that is to be expected. The atmosphere above such a facility is extremely corrosive to metal and requires a continuous maintenance program to minimize ongoing active corrosion. It is not possible to visually inspect the interior metal surfaces below water line. It is anticipated that such an inspection would reveal areas where corrosion is actively taking place. These areas should be cleaned and recoated to prevent a serious corrosion problem resulting in spot failures in the structural steel plate shell. This however is a major expense to undertake; more discussion of this will occur in the following section. The expected life of the mechanical and electrical equipment has al- ready been exceeded. Mr. Hochstedler has indicated that he has had to replace some equipment to date. Again, this is to be expected; it can further be expected that all remaining equipment could possibly require significant maintenance and/or replacement during the next several years. There are two causes for such failures, the first relating to SCHMUESEI? & ASSOCIATES, INC.Ni 1 • • the corrosive environment in which the materials exist and the second due to the every day wear experienced by the equipment in the treatment process. Existing Treatment Facility The existing facility can be run either in the extended aeration mode or the contact stabilization mode. The extended aeration mode has a lower allowable wastewater flow rate for a given tank volume then the latter mode but has the advantage of rec- .ring less operator attention and is less subject to upset. The facil '.y is currently being operated in this mode. The contact stabilization mode on the other hand re- quires greater operator attention and is ' subject to upset, the advantage being a larger allowable wast^y-Ler flow to be handled. As originally designed, the treatment f cility had a rated capacity of approximately 60,000 qpd in the extender: aeration mode and 120,000 gpd in the contact stabilization mode. Tal -:le No. 1 summarizes the rated capacity of the various components of the treatment facility based on current Department of Health regulations. In its present configura- tion, we have rated the capacity at 43,7:00 gpd and 72,200 qpd in the extended aeration and contact stabilization mode respectfully. As can be seen in Table 1 use of the a flow equalization concept increases the rated capacity by about 25%. The concept and cost of flow equaliza- tion will be discussed in further detail. SCHMUESER 3SOCIATES, INC.Sit t TnBTE 1 RAS AT ROARING FORK RAS CAPACITIES O:' PACKAGE PLANT COMPCUENTS Component Type A. Extended Aeration Node 1. Without flow equalization 43,000 qpd 2. With flow equalization 53,800 gpd Flow Capacity B. Contact Stabilization 1. Without flow equalization 72,200 gpd 2. with flow equalization 96,000 qpd C. Chlorination 1. Without flow equalization 48,500 qpd 2. With flow equalization 145,500 gpd D. Digestor 105,000 gpd E. Pump Station 200 gpn + F. Pretreatment N/A SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Limiting Factor Clarifier (Hydraulic) Aeration Basin (Hydraulic) Clarifier (Hydraulic) Clarifier (Hydraulic) Hydraulic Hydraulic Hydraulic/Organic Hydraulic N/A • • The Ranch currently has a discharge permit issued by the CDH that is in effect for several more years. In that permit the facility is allowed to discharge to the Roaring Fork River at the rate of 80,000 gpd. The 80,000 gpd figure is the apparent rating which the Health Department has assigned to the present treatment facility. Referring to Table 1, it should be noted that our rating is slightly lower than the discharge permit rating. We have been unable to clarify this apparent discrep- ency; a strict interpretation of the design criteria issued by the CDH will not yield an allowable loading of 80,000 gpd. For purposes of this appraisal we will continue to use our rated capacity of 72,200 gpd, recognizing the fact that a discharge up to the 80,000 gpd level would be recognized as allowable by the CDH. When evaluating the mode of operation, the aeration basins and clari- fier are analyzed as a group rather than separately. As can be seen from Table 1, the clarifier is generally the limiting factor in the treatment process. The reason for the clarifier being the limiting factor relates to the CDH regulations enacted since the plant was con- structed. The State has significantly reduced the allowable hydraulic loading on the clarifier with their most recent set of regulations. In addition, the State also requires a safety factor be designed into a facility that services only a residential community, that is, a com- munity which has little or no flows associated with commercial, tourist Sri SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 or industrial type uses. The rationale behind this regulation is that the flow from a residential community occurs primarily over less than a 24 hour period and therefore effective flow to the treatment facility is greater than the daily average. Both these concepts have been con- sidered in the tabulation of Table 1 . 1. The other two significant portion- tion and the digestor. The diges' fore is not a consideration for r first glance, it would appear th- limiting factor. From a practical restraint associated with chlorin-:. flow equalization, easily and inexp the package plant are chlorina- has adequate capacity and there- er present or future flows. At 'llorination may be a significant ndpoint, however, the hydraulic t can be handled, even without 'rely. The pump station and pretreatment f '?ities are not actually part of the package plant, but an integral of the overall treatment pro- cess. The pump station consists of tyo sewage pumps which lift waste- water from ground level up into the treatment facility. The lift pumps have an apparent capacity of approximately 200 gpm, which is adequate for current and future pumping needs of the facility. The concern is not so much with the hydraulic capacity of the pumping units but of their expected life. It is essential that one of the pumps be in oper- ating condition at all times, in order to prevent wastewater from backing up into the sewage collection system and overflowing on to the ground creating a nuisance hazard as well as a public health hazard. SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC.Nk i • The pretreatment facilities, which ardesigned to provide a rag and debirs removal, grit removal and flow measurement, have not been rated for capacity. The facilities are set up to allow manual removal of rags and debris on a inclined metal bar screen. That bar screen should be kept in place and is a routine maintenance responsibility of the operator. The type of grit removal provided by the pretreatment facilities, is in our opinion, very ineffecient and essentially not functional. At this point in time, we would not view grit removal as a priority at this facility. The existing Parshall flume can be used as the primary device for a flow measurement system. Without a continuous reading recorder, the information gathered from a primary device standing alone is not indicative of the actual flow conditions at the plant and cannot be used for any detailed design or analysis purposes. Improveoents/Future Conditions Table 2 indicates the estimated wastewater flows that would be expected from the existing Ranch at Roaring Fork community as well as two possible significant additions to the service area. Those two additions have been referred to as the Wix Addition and the Coates Addition, representing respectively the multi -family area directly behind the restaurant and the property owned by Mr. Coates. SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC.Sit • • TABLE NO. 2 RANCH AT ROARING FORK ESTIMATED WASTEWATER FLOWS A. RANCH - RESIDENTIAL 1. Existing: 129 units @ 350 gpd. = 45,150 gpd 2. Future: 25 units @ 350 gpd. = 8,750 gpd B. RANCH - COMMERCIAL 1. Relay Station: 5,000 gpd C. WIX ADDITION 59,000 gpd 1. Future: 40 units @ 300 qpd = 12,000 qpd 71,000 gpd D. COATES ADDITION 1. Future: 40 units @ 300 gpd = 12,000 gpd TOTAL 83,000 gpd SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC.St 1 1 • N 1 1 1 1 1 This section of the appraisal deals with the anticipated major money expenditures required at the trertmcnt facility. The initial portions of the analysis deal with expenditures recommended whether or not fu- ture wastewater flow additions are experienced at the facility. The second portion of the analysis deals with those improvements required or the effects on the treatment f:ncility of major additions to the wastewater flow stream. Generally speaking, the facility is of sufficient physical size to handle the present buildout of t': aanch at Roaring Fork without the two major additions. Even thou;h the facility has been rated approximately 20% higher than the projected 59,000 gpd influent flow rate, it has been our experience with package plants that it is extremely difficult to get them to cperate at any sort of theoretical capacity. Therefore, from a p_... tical standpoint, we could not recommend any additional flows beyond the current Ranch at Roaring Fork ciununity be put into the facil .y without major capital improvements. We also feel that at a 59,000 c77 flow rate, that it will take a more significant effort from an oper_ `.ion standpoint to meet the legislated discharge criteria from the facility. Before itemizing recommended improvements a more detailed discussion of flow measurement is warranted. The CDH criteria are based on conservative parameters. The State will recognize modified design parameters from an existing facility if the operating entity can demonstrate that accurate records so warrant the modifications. In the SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. • • case of estimated per capita or p^r u: it wastewater flow generation, it has been our experience, that almost without exception, the assumptions made in the state design criteria aro at least 20% to 30% conservative. Therefore, if an accurate flow measrement program were initiated at this time, it is quite possible that it could be shown that the actual flow rates at the facility are 1- s than those estimated in Table 2 (which is based on CDH criteria), L',e practical consequences to the Ranch being that additions to the wastewater flow stream could be jus- tified without some of the major capital expenditures discussed below. On the other hand, accurate flow data may indicate that there is an in- filtration problem within the collecton system, which would indicate that the facility was hydraulically overloaded to a degree greater than might ordinarily be anticipated. Either situation is important to know from the Ranch's standpoint so that it may be effectively dealt with. Improvements recommended to be considered at the existing facility are as follows: 1. Plant inspection - We would recommend that the treatment fa- cility be completely drained for the purposes of cleaning in- organic and decomposed materials from the tank bottoms and for visual inspection of the metal surfaces below water level. To accomplish this the facility must be completely drained and bypassed. The State will not allow discharge of raw sewage directly to the Roaring Fork River and therefore this process is complicated by the need to provide some degree of treatment SCHMUES:R & ASSOCIATES, INC.NI If • • The cleaning procedure will reveal the amount of grit that has been accumulating in the system over the years and will dic- tate whether grit facilities may be required. The primary purpose of the cleaning however is to determine the extent of corrosion that has taken 7117:e and to take corrective measures as required to insure that the structural integrity of the facility is not jeopardized in any manner. 2. Flow measurement - For re....- s stated above, we feel it is es- sential that accurate Z ow measurement facilities be installed: A. The most cost effective means to provide flow measurement would be by installation of an elapsed time meter on each of the sewage lift pe .c . The meter should read in hours and tenths of hours. Dy accurately rating the pumping ca- pacity, the amount of wz:7;tewater pumped on a daily basis can be easily determined. B. The second alternative would be installation of cycle counters on each of the lift pumps. These meters would simply count the number c r times that the pumps came on in a given period of tim2. By calculating the volume of wastewater pumped during each cycle, the total volume of wastewater pumped could bdetermined. Because the amount SCH' 'JLS":I� & ASSOCIATES, INC. • • of wastewater flowing into the wet well during the pumping cycle cannot be accurately estimated using this procedure, this method of flow measurement will not be as accurate as the first alternative. C. The most accurate, yet most expensive method of flow measurement, could be the installation of a flow meter on the Parshall flume in the pretreatment channel. The flow recorder would measure the amount of flow directly, there- by eliminating the need for any manual calculations or readings on the part of the_ operator. 3. Pretreatment Facilities - If in the process of cleaning and inspecting the facility it is discovered that grit accumula- tion is a problem then it would be our recommendation that adequate grit removal facilitis be installed. These facili- ties would consist of mechanical grit removal equipment that would be operated on a continual basis. It would be our feel- ing that the grit accumulation problem would have to be very significant before additional grit removal facilities could be justified. Therefore, this inovement is viewed at a very low priority and probably need not be instituted. SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 4. Ongoing Equipment Replacement - As stated previously, the ex- pected life of mechanical equipment at a wastewater treatment facility is lower than most locations. Expected lives of five years are average. It would be our recommendation for the District to establish sinking fund to establish a source of monies for equipment replacement. Those pieces of equipment to be included in this catagory would be air blowers, raw wastewater lift pumps, clarifier drive and air diffusers. There are a number of modifications and improvements which we would recommend in the event that major additions to the service area of the treatment facility were made. Table 2 shows the incremental effect of both the Wix Addition and the Coates Addition onto the treatment facil- ity. It might be argued that the effect of these two additions would basically bring the facility up Lo its rated capacity and therefore no additional improvements would be required. As we have tried to stress in the discussion above, we would anticipate that this facility would be very difficult to operate at its theoretical rated capacity and re- main within its legislated discharge limitations. If the improvements which we will discuss below are not implemented at the time the addi- tions are made, then we would strongly recommend that the Ranch require an escrow account be set up to finance those improvements should oper- ating history with the additional wastewater flows so dictate. The SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 improvements which we would recoriunend would be as follows: 1. Piping Modifications - If the treatment system is to function at its theoretical maximum efficiency it will be necessary to provide raw wastewater influent piping such that the waste- water can be distributee: throughout the contact and aeration. This feature is sometimes referred to as "step aeration" but in practical terms simply allows the operator to distribute wastewater to better match the aeration percularities of a particular facility. We would also recommend that a separate sludge return pump be provided so that this function can be regulated independently from the rest of the process. 2. Operating Requirements - While not necessarily a capital ex- penditure, it is important to note that the time requirements for operation will be significantly greater as the plant is changed frau the extended aeration to the contact stabiliza- tion mode and the rated capacity of the facility is approach- ed. Most likely, the existing user fee structure will not be sufficient to support the increased expense of operation. An equitable means of distribution of these increased operations costs to the developers should be instituted. SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. SA 1 • • 3. Chlorination - Increased chlorination contact time could be required for any additions to the system. This can be best accomplished by the placement of precast concrete tanks be- tween the treatment facility and the actual discharge point at the river. 4. Flow Equalization - This improvement is the most expensive and most important to be considered. One of the primary reasons the treatment facility is unable to reach its theoretical ef- ficiency is the unequal distribution of influent flow through- out the day. The flow equalization basin allows the process to be loaded evenly throughout a 24 hour period. This not only increases the overall efficiency but also reduces the need for increased operator attention as has been discussed in a number of places above. The effect of flow equalization on the treatment process is significant enough that the cost sav- ings in operator expense may in a large part amortize the cost of the capital expenditure. 5. Standby Power - The CDH now requires standby power facilities to be installed at treatment facilities to insure treatment during electrical power outages. While this requirement can be waived, it is included here as a consideration for future expansions. S^HMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1t • • TABLE NO. 3 RANCH AT ROARING FORK StJ'VIARy OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF IMPROVEMEAAS Improvement/Modification Estimated Cost A. Existing Facility - Cleaning/Inspection $ 25,000 - $ 35,000 - Flow Measurement - Elapsed time meter $ 250 - Cycle counters 250 - Flow meter 2,500 - Grit Removal 15,000 - Ongoing Equipment Replacement 2,000/year B. Additions to Facilities - Piping Modifications $ 5,000 - Operating Requirements N/A - Chlorination 3,000 - Flow Equalization 50,000 - Standby Power 10,000 SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Syt • • Sunnary Generally, the wastewater treatment facility is operating satisfactor- ily at the present time. The effluent frau the facility is typical of a "healthy" treatment facility. It would appear, at least at the pre- sent time, that routine operation and maintenance chores are being per- formed satisfactorily. On the other hand, periodic/larger scope main- tenance activities have largely been neglected at the facility. Be- cause the facility has been operating well below capacity, the facility has been able to largely "operate itself", not requiring an extraordi- nary amount of operator time or attention. Along the same lines, cap- ital requirements for the facility have not been significatant. As the facility ages and as the flows increase towards the plant's capacity, these rather ideal operating conditions will change. Summary of key points of this appraisal are as follows: 1. Because of CDH regulations enacted between the time the waste- water treatment facility was constructed and the present time, the allowable hydraulic loadings on the plant have been de- creased significantly. The present maximum theoretical load- ing is sufficient to handle the existing Ranch at Roaring Fork community but is not sufficient to handle the two proposed housing additions. SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. SA 1 • • 2. The Ranch currently has a discharge permit allowing discharges of 80,000 qpd. 3. It is highly desirable to immediately install accurate flow measurement systems to generate information for any future plant modifications. 4. Improvements to be considered at the existing facility are: (1) plant inspection and cleaning, (2) flow measurement and equipment, (3) evaluation of pretreatment facilities and (4) sinking fund for ongoing equipment replacement. 5. Improvements to be considered for additional hydraulic loading would be (1) piping modifications, (2) additional operating expenses, (3) chlorination facilities, (4) flow equalization and (5) standby power. SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 17, 1987 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 7P-WW.1,77R' SEP 181987 k� GA HHELD COUNTY Re: Ranch at Roaring Fork, Parcel B, Commercial Development HCE Job Number 87018.001 Dear Mr. Bean: The following shall constitute a statement by a registered engineer as required under Section 4.08.05 (7) (e) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. The area under consideration is located at the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Parcel B, basically surrounding what is now called the Relay Station. 1. The source of water and method of sewage treatment proposed are based on the existing systems at the Ranch at Roaring Fork. A signed agreement exists between the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, and Stagecoach Associates which guarantees water and sewer service to Stagecoach Associates. It is intended that existing capacity be used, if possible. However, if there is not sufficient existing capacity, the system(s) would be upgraded/expanded at the expense of Stagecoach Associates. 2. The land slopes generally toward the river, and it is expected that storm drainage could be delivered to the river or to a drainage tributary to the river. At the present time, it is expected that this could be accomplished mainly using proper site grading and overland flow. 3. The only natural hazards that might be expected on the site would be related to the river floodplain, and possibly unstable soils. However, according to the latest flood plain study, the site lies above the 100 year flood zone, and therefore, no special precautions will be necessary. Suite 205, Village Plaza • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone 303-945-8676 • Garfield County Planning September 17, 1987 Page 2 As planning and design progresses, it is anticipated that a geotechnical engineer will be retained to evaluate the soils on the site. If this further investigation reveals potentially problem soils, foundation design and drainage and pavement design will be done by a registered engineer familiar with the mitigation of the potential hazards. Sincerely yours, HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. l - Tim •thy P. Beck, P.E. Col . Reg. Engr. 20630 TPB/soe SCHENK, KERST & DEWINTER ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SUITE 310, 302 EIGHTH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS. Cl/IA/RAI/0 81601 (303) 945-2447 JOHN R. SCHENK DAN KERST WILLIAM J. DEWINTER, III February 13, 1986 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planner Garfield County Courthouse 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Amended Final Condominium Plat of the Ranch at Roaring Fork Dear Mark: I herewith deliver to you the original mylar of the Amended Final Condominium Plat of the Ranch at Roaring Fork to be signed on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners and then recorded in the County records. I also enclose my trust account check in the sum of $50.00 in payment of the recording fee. Is there any provision for our obtaining a copy of the complete plat other than ordering the same from the Clerk & Recorder's office after recording? Thank you for your attention to matter. DK/rei Enc. xc Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association dr4.vE0 eon. Z/,e /k-?_-eie•oet9 //1 ' 01 9861 ti 833, Garfield County Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623 7PMFAT.R OCT 2 3 1987 ,1L (.iI f!UL. col wry The following undersigned petition the Planning & Zoning Department and the Garfield County Commissioners to deny rezoning of application for PUD on Parcel B Phase II (property owner Stagecoach Ltd. a Colorado Corp./John Wix General Partner). The Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association recognize the following points listed below as a tremendous impact to our community and original PUD, therefore all items below should be resolved before rezoning or new PUD is considered. Sewer & Water Service To date neither the water or sewer facilities have the capacity to service the original PUD of 192 units, without expansion of water and sewer treatment. Density 40 units can be built by the adjoining owner. If this PUD for an additional 40 units is allowed the impact of BO units within an approximate 5 acre area is unacceptable. Administrative Because of the appeal of our common grounds and wildlife preserve, tresspassing is hard to control. The guests from an additional 40 units would impact our common grounds and wildlife preserve further adding tremendous cost and manpower in controlling tresspassers. Building site The building site is too close to water easement. Because of the unstable soil any ditching over the water main will cause considerable cave ins and possible damage to building footers. Hurry -up development in the past created legal problems that still have not been resolved and continue to plague the Association. Let's do it right and resolve the above matters before not after rezoning. Signed, Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Name Address Phone Garfield County Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623 � vu,Ci /'/a4plis, The following undersigned petition the Planning & Zoning Department and the Garfield County Commissioners to deny rezoning of application for PUD on Parcel B Phase II (property owner Stagecoach Ltd. a Colorado Corp./John Wix General Partner). The Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association recognize the following points listed below as a tremendous impact to our community and original PUD, therefore all items below should be resolved before rezoning or new PUD is considered. Sewer & Water Service To date neither the water or sewer facilities have the capacity to service the original PUD of 192 units, without expansion of water and sewer treatment. Density 40 units can be built by the adjoining owner. If this PUD for an additional 40 units is allowed the impact of 80 units within an approximate 5 acre area is unacceptable. Administrative Because of the appeal of our common grounds and wildlife preserve, tresspassing is hard to control. The guests from an additional 40 units would impact our common grounds and wildlife preserve further adding tremendous cost and manpower in controlling tresspassers. Building site The building site is too close to water easement. Because of the unstable soil any ditching over the water main will cause considerable cave ins and possible damage to building footers. Hurry -up development in the past created legal problems that still have not been resolved and continue to plague the Association. Let's do it right and resolve the above matters before not after rezoning. Signed, Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Name /t/S 7 dam/ Address Phone j43 rt /Jo ESE J!! OCT 15 1987 GM*IELD COUNTY Garfield County Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623 Ag_ OCT 16 1987 GARFIELD COUNTY The following undersigned petition the Planning & Zoning Department and the Garfield County Commissioners to deny rezoning of application for PUD on Parcel B Phase II (property owner Stagecoach Ltd. a Colorado Corp./John Wix General Partner). The Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association recognize the following points listed below as a tremendous impact to our community and original PUD, therefore all items below should be resolved before rezoning or new PUD is considered. Sewer & Water Service To date neither the water or sewer facilities have the capacity to service the original PUD of 192 units, without expansion of water and sewer treatment. Density 40 units can be built by the adjoining owner. If this PUD for an additional 40 units is allowed the impact of 80 units within an approximate 5 acre area is unacceptable. Administrative Because of the appeal of our common grounds and wildlife preserve, tresspassing is hard to control. The guests from an additional 40 units would impact our common grounds and wildlife preserve further adding tremendous cost and manpower in controlling tresspassers. Building site The building site is too close to water easement. Because of the unstable soil any ditching over the water main will cause considerable cave ins and possible damage to building footers. Hurry -up development in the past created legal problems that still have not been resolved and continue to plague the Association. Let's do it right and resolve the above matters before not after rezoning. Signed, Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners game Robert B. Emerson Address s Phone ���VEIIo ,98 GARFELD COUNTY Garfield County Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623 The following undersigned petition the Planning & Zoning Department and the Garfield County Commissioners to deny rezoning of application for PUD on Parcel B Phase II (property owner Stagecoach Ltd. a Colorado Corp./John Wix General Partner). The Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association recognize the following points listed below as a tremendous impact to our community and original PUD, therefore all items below should be resolved before rezoning or new PUD is considered. Sewer & Water Service To date neither the water or sewer facilities have the capacity to service the original PUD of 192 units, without expansion of water and sewer treatment. Density 40 units can be built by the adjoining owner. If this PUD for an additional 40 units is allowed the impact of 80 units within an approximate 5 acre area is unacceptable. Administrative Because of the appeal of our common grounds and wildlife preserve, tresspassing is hard to control. The guests from an additional 40 units would impact our common grounds and wildlife preserve further adding tremendous cost and manpower in controlling tresspassers. Building site The building site is too close to water easement. Because of the unstable sail any ditching over the water main will cause considerable cave ins and possible damage to building footers. Hurry -up development in the past created legal problems that still have not been resolved and continue to plague the Association. Let's do it right and resolve the above matters before not after rezoning. Signed, Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Name Address o L k)y�,. Phone „1F R _-'-�_-� 1G j - 219 9 Garfield County Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623 LOCT 13198 E E VED GARFIELD COUNTY The following undersigned petition the Planning & Zoning Department and the Garfield County Commissioners to deny rezoning of application for PUD on Parcel B Phase II (property owner Stagecoach Ltd. a Colorado Corp./John Wix General Partner). The Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association recognize the following points listed below as a tremendous impact to our community and'original PUD, therefore all items below should be resolved before rezoning or new PUD is considered. Sewer & Water Service To date neither the water or sewer facilities have the capacity to service the original PUD of 192 units, without expansion of water and sewer treatment. Density 40 units can be built by the adjoining owner. If this PUD for an additional 40 units is allowed the impact of 80 units within an approximate 5 acre area is unacceptable. Administrative Because of the appeal of our common grounds and wildlife preserve, tresspassing is hard to control. The guests from an additional 40 units would impact our common grounds and wildlife preserve further adding tremendous cost and manpower in controlling tresspassers. Building site The building site is too close to water easement. Because of the unstable soil any ditching over the water main will cause considerable cave ins and possible damage to building footers. Hurry -up development in the past created legal problems that still have not been resolved and continue to plague the Association. Let's do it right and resolve the above matters before not after rezoning. Signed, Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Name ddress Phone 3c . p 7