Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.02 PUD Application… PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) … PUD Amendment (Check the Appropriate box above) GENERAL INFORMATION (Please print legibly) ¾ Name of Property Owner: ________________________________________________ ¾ Mailing Address: ____________________________ Telephone: (____)___________ ¾ City: ____________________ State: ___ Zip Code: ______ Cell: (____) __________ ¾ E-mail address:___________________________________ FAX: (___ ) __________ ¾ Name of Owner’s Representative, if any, (Attorney, Planner, Consultant, etc): ¾ ____________________________________________________________________ ¾ Mailing Address: ____________________________ Telephone: (____)___________ ¾ City: ____________________ State: ___ Zip Code: ______ Cell: (____)___________ ¾ E-mail address:___________________________________ FAX: (____)__________ ¾ Property Parcel ID ___________________________________________________ ¾ Existing Property Zone District: _________________________________________ ¾ Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation: ________________________________ ¾ Proposed Zone District: _______________________________________________ ¾ Purpose for the proposed rezoning to Planned Unit Development: ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470 www.garfield-county.com GARFIELD COUNTY Last Revised 12/12/08 I. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS This Application applies to owners of real property in Garfield County who desire to rezone their property as shown on the Official Garfield County Zone District Map to Planned Unit Development. As a minimum, specifically respond to all the following items below and attach any additional information to be submitted with this application: 1. Submit a cover letter containing a detailed narrative describing the purpose of the proposed Planned Unit Development. 2. Submit a copy of the deed and legal description of the real property, owned by the Applicant in Garfield County, which will be affected by such change. 3. Submit a copy of the appropriate portion of a Garfield County Assessor’s Map showing the subject property and all public and private landowners adjacent to your property (which should be delineated). In addition, submit a list of all property owners, private and public, and their addresses adjacent to or within 200 ft. of the site. This information can be obtained from the County Assessor’s Office. You will also need the names (if applicable) of all mineral interest owners of the subject property, identified in the County Clerk and Recorder’s records in accordance with §24-65.5-101, et seq. (That information may be found in your title policy under Exceptions to Title). 4. If you are acting as an agent for the property owner, you must attach an acknowledgement from the property owner that you may act in his/her behalf. If the property is owned by a corporate entity (such as an LLC, LLLP, etc.) Please submit a copy of a recorded “Statement of Authority” demonstrating that the person signing the application has the authority to act in that capacity for the entity.” 5. Vicinity map: An 8 ½ x 11 vicinity map locating the parcel in the County. The vicinity map shall clearly show the boundaries of the subject property and all property within a 3-mile radius of the subject property. The map shall be at a minimum scale of 1”=2000’ showing the general topographic and geographic relation of the proposed land use change to the surrounding area for which a copy of U.S.G.S. quadrangle map may be used. 6. A copy of the Pre-Application Conference form from the original Pre- Application Conference. 7. Submit payment of the $500.00 base fee and a signed “Agreement for Payment” form with this application. 8. Please provide a response that demonstrates that the request meets the following PUD Standards as more fully detailed in Article VI, Section 6-203 of the Unified Land Use Regulations of 2008. 9. Please provide the general PUD submittal requirements as more fully detailed in Article VI, Section 6-203 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2006. 10. Submit 3 copies of this completed application form and all the required submittal materials to the Building and Planning Department. Staff will request additional copies once the application has been deemed technically complete. II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS The following outlines the process for a Planned Unit Development in Garfield County which is also codified in Article VI, Division 2, Section 201 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008. A. Pre-application Conference. A Pre-Application Conference shall be held in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-103 A, Pre-Application Conference of Article IV. 1. Concept Narrative. The applicant shall present a Concept Narrative of the proposed PUD in sufficient detail to accurately convey the general concept of the proposal. Detail shall include: a) Concept Description. Location of property; existing zoning, use and density; proposed zoning, use, densities and lot sizes; existing zoning and use of surrounding property, including densities; existing and proposed access; existing and proposed source of water; existing and proposed wastewater treatment system; phasing if entire project is not being done at one time; unique features on the site which might enhance the site and proposed use; a discussion of the anticipated impacts and proposed mitigation. b) Additional Information Required. At the request of the Director, the applicant shall provide any reasonable additional conceptual information as needed to help clarify the proposal being made. B. Rezoning. The process for Rezoning is set forth in Section 4-201, of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures. C. Subdivision Review (if division of land is proposed within PUD). The process for subdivision review is set forth in Section 5-406 of Article V, Divisions of Land. Where a Preliminary Plan application is included with a PUD application, the subdivision regulations requirements will supersede the PUD requirements where the same information or more detailed information is required as part of a subdivision application. D. Preliminary PUD Plan Review. The following procedures shall apply to the Preliminary PUD Plan Review. The Director may allow combined review of the Preliminary PUD Plan and the Final PUD Plan. a) Application. The application materials required for Preliminary PUD Plan Review are set forth in Section 6-202 D. b) Determination of Completeness. The Director shall review the application for determination of completeness in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-103 C, Determination of Completeness of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures. c) Schedule Public Hearing. Upon a determination of completeness, the Director shall schedule the Preliminary PUD Plan for consideration by the Planning Commission. 1) Public hearing by the Planning Commission shall be held within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of determination of completeness. 2) Public notice of the hearing shall be made pursuant to Section 4- 103 F, Notice of Public Hearing of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures. 4. Evaluation by Director/Staff Review. Upon determination of completeness, the Director shall review the application for compliance with the applicable standards set forth in Section 6-303, PUD Approval Standards, and prepare a staff report pursuant to Section 4-103 E of Article IV. a) Review by Referral Agencies. The Director’s evaluation of the application shall include comment by referral agencies received under Section 4-103 D, Review by Referral Agency of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures. 5. Review and Recommendation by the Planning Commission. An application for Preliminary PUD Plan shall be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, after proper notice, conducted pursuant to Section 4-103 G, Conduct of Public Hearing of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures. a) Recommendation by Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial of the application based upon compliance with the standards set forth in Section 6-203, PUD Approval Standards. 1) Recommendation of Approval. If the application satisfies all of the applicable standards, the Planning Commission shall recommend that the application be approved. The Commission may recommend approval with conditions determined necessary for compliance with applicable standards. 2) Recommendation of Denial. If the application fails to satisfy all of the applicable standards the Planning Commission shall recommend that the application be denied. 6. Schedule Public Hearing. The Director shall schedule the application for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. a) Public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners shall be held within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission recommendation. b) Public notice of the hearing shall be made pursuant to Section 4-103 F, Notice of Public Hearing of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures. 7. Review and Action by the Board of County Commissioners. The final decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for Preliminary PUD Plan shall be made by the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing. a) Decision by Board. Following a public hearing conducted pursuant to Section 4-103 G, Conduct of Public Hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application based upon compliance with the standards set forth in Section 6-203, PUD Approval Standards. 1) Approval of Application. If the application satisfies all of the applicable standards, the application shall be approved. The Board may approve the application with conditions determined necessary for compliance with applicable standards. 2) Denial of Application. If the application fails to satisfy any one of the applicable standards, the application shall be denied. E. Final PUD Plan Review. The following review procedures shall apply to Final PUD Plan Review. 1. Application. The application materials required for PUD Final Plan Review are set forth in Section 6-202 E. 2. Determination of Completeness. The Director shall review the application for determination of completeness in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-103 C, Determination of Completeness of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures. 3. Schedule Public Hearing. Upon a determination of completeness, the Director shall schedule the Final PUD Plan for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. a) Public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners shall be held within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of determination of completeness. b) Public notice of the hearing shall be made pursuant to Section 4-103 F, Notice of Public Hearing of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures. 4. Evaluation by Director/Staff Review. Upon determination of completeness, the Director shall review the application for compliance with the applicable standards set forth in Section 6-203, PUD Approval Standards, and prepare a staff report pursuant to Section 4-103 E of Article IV. 5. Review and Action by the Board of County Commissioners. The final decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for Final PUD Plan shall be made by the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing. a) Decision by Board. Following a public hearing conducted pursuant to Section 4-103 G, Conduct of Public Hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application based upon compliance with the standards set forth in Section 6-203, PUD Approval Standards. 1) Approval of Application. If the application satisfies all of the applicable standards, the application shall be approved. The Board may approve the application with conditions determined necessary for compliance with applicable standards 2) Denial of Application. If the application fails to satisfy any one of the applicable standards, the application shall be denied. 6. Revisions to Zoning District Maps. Approval of a PUD Final Plan shall be recorded on the Official Zoning Maps filed in the Planning Department as soon as practicable after the PUD becomes effective. 7. Expiration of Approval. Unless otherwise stated in action by the Board of County Commissioners, the Board’s decision to approve or conditionally approve the PUD plan shall be effective for a period of one year. The applicant may request an extension of one year. 8. Extension of Approval. A request for extension of approval shall be considered by the Board of County Commissioners at a regularly scheduled public meeting. a) The request for extension shall include the following information. 1) The reasons for the applicant’s inability to comply with the specified deadlines. 2) Changes in the character of the neighborhood or changes in the Land Use Code or Comprehensive Plan which have occurred since approval of the preliminary plan, and the effect of such changes on the proposed development. b) The Board may grant an extension based upon the following criteria. 1) The applicant has applied for an extension prior to the date of expiration of approval. 2) There has been no change or proposed change in the Code, the Comprehensive Plan, or the surrounding neighborhood which would substantially affect the proposed development. F. Recordation. 1. Completion of Conditions of Approval. The applicant must complete all conditions of Final PUD Plan approval prior to recording the Final PUD Plan and associated documents. 2. Approval of PUD Development Guide. The Final PUD Plan may not be filed for recording until the Board has approved a PUD Development Guide. 3. Effective Upon Recording. The Final PUD Plan does not become effective until it is properly filed for recording with the County Clerk and Recorder. 4. Public Sale of Lots. A PUD becomes complete and eligible for public sale of lots and development only after the Final PUD Plan and associated documents are recorded. III. Process for Amendments to Existing Planned Unit Developments This section only applies to property owners wishing to amend an Existing Planned Unit Development. All amendments to an approved PUD shall be processed as a Rezoning as set forth in Section 4-201, of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures. A. Pre-Application Conference. A Pre-Application Conference shall be held in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-103 A, Pre-Application Conference. B. Application. The application materials required for a PUD approval are set forth in Section 6-301. Within thirty (30) working days of the date of the Pre-Application Conference, the Director shall make a determination as to whether the proposed change(s) constitutes a substantial modification to the approved PUD or conditions of approval contained in the Resolution of Approval. Garfield County defines Substantial Modification as a Substantial Change which is defined as a change to and existing approved land use resulting in one or more of the following. 1. A change in land use category; 2. A change in site design which increases a) The number of dwelling units. b) The maximum square footage of structures less than 10,000 sq. ft. over 100% and structures over 10,000 sq. ft. by 10%, if a maximum has been specified in a permit or approval. c) Projected traffic such that a highway access permit or an amendment to a highway access permit is required as a result of the change. d) The size of the land which is the subject of the permit or approval 3. A change in land use which creates or increases the incompatibility of the use. 1) No Substantial Modification. If the Director determines that the change does not constitute a substantial modification to the approved PUD, the Director shall determine the applicable submittal materials. 2) Substantial Modification. If the Director determines that the change constitutes a substantial modification, the PUD amendment shall be considered a new application and submit the required materials identified in Section 6-301. C. Written Notice of Decision. The Director shall inform the applicant of the determination in writing within five (5) working days of the date of decision. Notice of the Director’s decision shall also be provided to the Board of County Commissioners. D. Request by Applicant for Reconsideration of Decision. An applicant may request review of the Director’s decision by the Board of County Commissioners by filing a written request within ten (10) calendar days of the date of receipt of written notice of the decision by the Director. 1) Schedule Public Hearing. The Director shall schedule the request for review by the Board of County Commissioners. a) Public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners shall be held within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of receipt of the request for review. b) Public notice of the hearing shall be made pursuant to Section 4-103 F, Notice of Public Hearing. 2) Decision by Board. Following a public hearing conducted pursuant to Section 4­ 103 G, Conduct of Public Hearing, the Board of County Commissioners may uphold the Director's decision, modify the decision, or reverse the decision. I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. 1:c J (Signature of Property Owner) Date Rockwood Shepard. Owner Representative Attachment A River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development and River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan PUD Written Description March 29, 2011 The following information is drawn from the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report dated January 18, 2011 (Binder 1, Tab 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application. Carbondale Investments, LLC, a Texas limited liability company registered to do business in Colorado ("CI"), proposes to develop approximately 160 acres generally located along State Highway 82 ("SH 82") between the City of Glenwood Springs and the Town of Carbondale near the junction of County Road 110/113 ("CR 113") and SH 82 (the "Property"). The Property is located almost entirely to the west of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority ("RFTA") right-of-way (the "RFTA ROW") and east of the Roaring Fork River and Roaring Fork Conservancy ("RFC") Conservation Easement. The Property straddles Cattle Creek, which also is located within the RFC Conservation Easement. A vicinity map showing the Property is provided in Binder 1, Tab 1, Item g. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application. 1. Names and addresses of owner, applicant and representative. CI is the owner of the Property and Rockwood Shepard is the appointed owner-representative for purposes of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application, as indicated on the Statement of Authority provided in Tab 1, Item f. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application. The address of the owner is 5121 Park Lane. Dallas, TX 75220. The address of the representative is 7999 Highway 82, Carbondale. CO 81623. 2. General project concept and purpose of the request. CI contemplates developing the Property into a walkable clustered-form of residential development with 366 residential units of various sizes and types, including 55 affordable homes, passive and recreational open space, and a neighborhood center (collectively, the "Project"). The neighborhood center will serve as a central gathering place for residents, and will offer opportunities for several neighborhood amenities, such as, meeting rooms, offices, a fitness room, a community kitchen, restrooms, other indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and limited community service uses. Community service uses may include not-for-profit or for- profit uses that may be operated for the benefit of residents of the community only within designated spaces of the neighborhood center. Community service uses shall be operated by a tenant or concessionaire of the property owners' association (the "POA") to be established for the Project and may include, without limitation, a day care facility, a sandwich/coffee shop, and/or a health club. Park areas, which will be provided internal to the Project (and away from the RFC Conservation Easement), will offer opportunities for informal recreational opportunities, such as, tot lots, dog parks, playfields, and a trail system. In addition, in keeping with the Property's agricultural River Edge Colorado PUD Written Description Attachment A 3 heritage and rural character, CI anticipates that areas designated on the River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development ("PUD") for "Garden/Orchard" use may be used, at the residents' election, as communal vegetable gardens and/or orchards. Subject to any rules and regulations of the POA, it is anticipated that these Garden/Orchard tracts will consist of individual plots, multiple caretaker areas, sitting areas, small-scale children's play areas, other ancillary horticultural related uses, and for community festivals and celebrations. The amenities to be provided within the neighborhood center, garden and orchard tracts, and park areas ultimately will be decided by the residents of the Project. It is also anticipated that certain agricultural uses will continue to be allowed within portions of the Property not under development, as specified in the River Edge Colorado PUD Guide provided in Tab 3, Item b. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application. 3. Relationship of the proposed PUD development to the existing land uses and adjacent property land uses. A map identifying all the abutting and adjacent property owners within 200 feet of the Project Site excluding rights-of-way, the land subject to the RFC Conservation Easement, and adjacent lands previously owned by CI is provided as Exhibit 1 in Appendix C of the Impact Analysis (Binder 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application). A list of owner's names and mailing addresses is also provided as Exhibit 2 in Appendix C of the Impact Analysis. The property boundaries, distances, and ownership information were drawn from the records of the Garfield County Assessor. Maps depicting adjacent land uses and adjacent zoning are provided as Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 in Appendix C of the Impact Analysis. The adjacent land use and zoning information is drawn from the records of the Garfield County Assessor and Garfield County Geographic Information System ("GIS") and includes all properties within 1500 feet of the exterior boundary of the Project Site as required by Section 4-502.E.2 of the ULUR. The Project Site generally abuts fallow agricultural land to the north (land under contract from CI to new buyer) which is flanked to the north by moderate to high density single family residential and commercial uses; right-of-way [i.e., RFTA and Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT")] bounding the Project Site to the east with commercial uses lying immediately to the east and northeast of the rights-of-way and residential uses immediately east of the highway fronting commercial uses; conservation areas lie immediate to the south along the Roaring Fork River which are flanked to the south by agricultural, open space, utility [i.e., Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District ("RFWSD") Wastewater Treatment Plant ("WWTP") and industrial (i.e., sand and gravel mining) uses; and conservation areas along the Roaring Fork River bound the Project Site immediate to the west which are flanked further to the west by open space and recreational lands and backed further by moderate density residential uses. Several tracts within the immediate vicinity are vacant and one public land tract (i.e., BLM resource land) is located immediately to the southeast of the Project Site. The surrounding area is generally zoned for residential or commercial development in either conventional zoning districts or as Planned Unit Developments ("PUD" or "PD"). Many of the River Edge Colorado PUD Written Description Attachment A 4 adjacent parcels zoned PUD/PD are zoned for use as some form of open space or recreational use as part of larger residential developments similar in nature to what is proposed at REC. The adjacent RFC Conservation Easement was originally zoned PUD as part of the previously proposed and approved Sanders Ranch PUD and retained as PUD under a form of open space/conservation use as approved in the original PUD action when the Garfield Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC") rezoned the remainder of the Sanders Ranch PUD to Residential Suburban in 2008 pursuant to BoCC Resolution No. 2008-112. As noted above the immediately adjacent uses include conservation, RFTA recreation trail and rail right-of-way, SH- 82, and agricultural uses. These adjacent uses are discussed in detail below along with the residential and commercial uses flanking these uses within 1500 feet of the Project. The Project is generally similar in nature, scale, and density of nearby uses and has in no adverse impacts on nearby or adjacent properties or uses as detailed in Section III.A of the Impact Report. 4. The staging and timing for the proposed development. The Project is proposed in several stages or filings. There are 6 filings and 5 subfilings. The Project will be constructed over a period of 5-10 years. The development stage of the Project is preceded by a pre-development reclamation phase described in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U of the Impact Analysis, Binder 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application). The development staging and construction is detailed on Drawing No. CP01.01 of the PUD (Rezoning) and Subdivision (Preliminary Plan) Drawing Package submitted as part of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application. 5. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. River Edge Colorado fully conforms to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 as detailed in Section I.4 of the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report submitted as part of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application (Binder 1, Tab 2). Rather than reproducing the entirety of the text here, the reader is referred to this citation for a more comprehensive analysis. 6. Source of and legal right to water. Written confirmation of service availability from a water and sanitation district if the property lies within the district boundaries. CI has adequate water resources available to supply the maximum water demand required by the PUD for both potable and irrigation water supplies which meet the requirements of Section 7- 105 of the ULUR. As determined by CI's Water Resource Consultant, Michael Erion of Resource Engineering, Inc., the maximum potable water demand for the Project would be 163 acre feet per year to satisfy the demand of 375 EQRs and up to 42 acres of irrigation based on 350 gallons per day per EQR. This water will be obtained through surface diversions from the Roaring Fork River and/or through groundwater withdrawals from the well fields of the Roaring Fork District. These surface and ground water supplies are dependable physical sources of supply for the Project, which can and will be treated to meet drinking water quality standards adopted by CDPHE. River Edge Colorado PUD Written Description Attachment A 5 The water rights decree entered in Case No. 01CW187, as amended by the pending application in Case No. 08CW198, authorizes the diversion of a potable water supply to serve 349.55 EQRs, together with three acres of irrigation, within the Project. Another water rights application pending in Case No. 07CW164 authorizes the provision of a water supply to serve up to 1,200 EQRs, and a total of seven acres of irrigation. These water rights cases are close to being resolved and decrees entered. To offset out-of-priority depletions resulting from the exercise of these water rights, CI holds rights in Allotment Contract No. 381b with the Basalt Water Conservancy District for 74.9 acre feet per year, more than enough to offset anticipated out of priority depletions for up to 1,200 EQRs and seven acres of irrigation. CI also holds reliable irrigation water rights in the Glenwood Ditch (12.23 c.f.s.), represented by 367 shares of capital stock in the Thompson Glen Irrigation Company, and in the Staton Ditch (4.69 c.f.s.). As decreed in Case No. W-2206, these rights have historically be used to irrigate 260 acres on the Project (formerly the Sanders Ranch). These rights will be used for the open space and lawn and garden irrigation within the PUD, less the maximum of seven acres that are irrigated with the potable water system. Because the Project is located within historically irrigated areas under these ditches, these irrigation rights are currently available and adequate to meet the outdoor irrigation needs of the Project. A “can and will serve” letter from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District is included as Appendix C in the Water Supply Plan (Binder 3, Tab 1, Item F of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application). 7. Method of wastewater treatment and disposal. Wastewater treatment and disposal for the PUD will be provided through a centralized sewer system owned either by the POA or the Roaring Fork District. The Roaring Fork District's current wastewater treatment plant on the Roaring Fork River is located approximately 1000 feet from the Project, is not presently sized to provide wastewater service to the PUD and an entirely new phase of the treatment plant would have to be financed and constructed for that purpose. Nonetheless, CI is currently negotiating with the Roaring Fork District over a pre-inclusion agreement that would, upon final platting of the first phase of the Project, provide for the inclusion of the Project into the Roaring Fork District and the connection to the Roaring Fork District's sewer plant. Given that those negotiations have not been completed, that the parties have not fully defined the cost of connecting to the Roaring Fork District's wastewater treatment plant, and that such a connection presents environmental permitting challenges, CI seeks to reserve the opportunity to develop its own wastewater treatment plant on the west side of the Roaring Fork River, to be owned and operated by the POA, with the expectation that the facility, as well as all associated sewer lines and lift stations, will be transferred to a special district approved for the Project. A “can and will serve” letter from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District is included as Appendix D in the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Plan (Binder 3, Tab 1, Item G of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application). River Edge Colorado PUD Written Description Attachment A 6 8. Type or method of fire protection. The Project is served by the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Hydrants and water supply meeting the requirements of the applicable fire code and ISO standards as detailed in the Water Treatment and Distribution Design Report (Binder 3, Tab 1, Item D of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application). 9. The names and addresses of mineral rights owners on the affected property and mineral rights lessees; names and addresses of water rights owners. C.R.S. §§ 24-65.5-101 et seq. and ULUR § 4-103.F.2 require that notice of hearings be given to the owners of mineral estates within the boundaries of the Property. The title commitment prepared by Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Order No. 941686-C4 and Effective Date February 9, 2011, references two interests in oil and gas in the property. 1. A 6.25% royalty interest, conveyed by quitclaim deed dated December 18, 1964, to T.M. Sanders, recorded in Book 362 at Page 445; and 2. A reservation of an undivided 1/50 interest of all oil and gas lying under the property, by Ella J. Chase in the deed dated June 12, 1948 and recorded in Book 258 at Page 594. The title commitment does not indicate that a mineral estate owner has filed a request for notification as provided in C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103(3). 8140 Partners, LLC searched the telephone directory of general use in Garfield County, and conducted a search of the tax records at the Garfield County Assessor's Office. Neither the name nor the address of the above persons could be located in either record. Moreover, a search of the Garfield County Assessor's records did not reveal any mineral estate owner under the Property. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103(2)(b), since the Garfield County records do not identify any mineral estate owners, including their addresses of record, CI is deemed to have acted in good faith and shall not be subject to further notice obligations under the statutory or County notice requirements. Therefore, there are no mineral interests that require notice under the ULUR or statute with respect to the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application. 10. Description of natural and manmade hazards. Based on the independent Geotechnical Engineering Report, enclosed with the Application (the "Geotech Report"), and the hazard mitigation plan enclosed with the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application (the "Hazard Mitigation Plan"), no significant risks from natural hazards are posed to the Project, and the Project will not exacerbate existing natural hazards within and adjacent to the Property. Notably, the Hazard Mitigation Plan incorporates the recommendations made in the Geotech Report and proposes additional mitigation measures or options to ensure a safe and successful Project and to comply with requirements of the ULUR. See Geotechnical Report provided in Appendix J of the Impact Analysis; and Hazard Mitigation Plan provided in Tab 6, Item b. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application. River Edge Colorado PUD Written Description Attachment A 7 The Geotech Report identifies the following five conditions of a geologic nature that were considered in Project planning and are addressed by the Hazard Mitigation Plan: a. a potential sinkhole hazard, b. potential terrace escarpment instability, c. active stream bank erosion, d. potential debris flows and floods, and e. earthquake considerations. First, the Geotech Report identifies nine (9) general sinkhole areas and (3) three sinkhole hazard zones within or in the near vicinity of the Property (Hazard Zone 1, Hazard Zone 2, and Hazard Zone 3). Hazard Zone 1 is described as having a high risk of new sinkholes or existing sinkhole reactivation occurring during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed development. Consistent with the Geotech Report recommendation, no buildings or movement sensitive facilities, including utilities, are proposed for Hazard Zone 1. A few roads are planned for Hazard Zone 1 but the sinkhole risk will be mitigated, in accordance with the Geotech Report, as detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Hazard Zone 2 is described as an area having an uncertain risk of new sinkholes based on currently available information. The Geotech Report recommends that additional subsurface exploration occur to assess whether the sinkhole risk is acceptable to locate buildings in this zone. Consistent with this recommendation will conduct additional testing prior to development of the Project, including as part of Phase 0, in order to determine if the risk is acceptable. If it is determined that risks demanding mitigation are present, CI will take necessary action to mitigate potential building damage, protect utilities and roads, and/or relocate facilities as necessary in accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Hazard Zone 3 is described as an area having a low risk of new sinkholes developing during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed development. Because such area is not risk-free, consistent with the Geotech Report's recommendation, CI will conduct additional testing prior to development of the Project, including as part of Phase 0, in order to determine if the risk is acceptable. If risks are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. . Second, the Geotech Report notes that steep terrace escarpments are present along the Roaring Fork River and the lower reaches of Cattle Creek. These escarpments are not suitable for building sites and buildings should be setback from the top of such escarpments. Consistent with the foregoing, the proposed areas for development within the Property do not encroach into these escarpments. Third, the Geotech Report notes that active stream bank erosion during high flood flow is occurring along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek in several areas where these streams flow along the base of the steep terrace escarpments. These areas fall within the RFC Conservation Easement, and do not place the Project at risk. As such, no mitigation is required. However, CI has proposed to RFC that some mitigation be done to these areas to preserve the conservation values within the RFC Conservation Easement. CI will seek RFC's approval of River Edge Colorado PUD Written Description Attachment A 8 certain mitigation actions within these areas as part of Phase 0, such as, armoring these areas to prevent further erosion. If approved by RFC, these areas will be further investigated and a detailed mitigation program will be developed as part of the reclamation plan for Phase 0. Fourth, the Geotech Report notes that coalescing alluvial fans developed at the mouth of the numerous, small drainage basins on the east side of the Roaring Fork Valley where the ephemeral streams discharge on terrace surfaces. With the exception of the Executive Lot at the southern end of the Project, development is not being proposed on the alluvial fans. Mitigation measures, such as flow diversion or deepened foundations, on the Executive Lot will be incorporated into the final design based on further field investigations and the construction activities planned for this lot. Lastly, the Geotech Report found that moderately strong ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable exposure time for the Project, but that the probability of stronger ground shaking is low. Moderately strong ground shaking generally is felt by most people and may cause alarm, but it results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. Therefore, consistent with the Geotech Report's recommendation, CI intends to design buildings and facilities within the Project to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and to not collapse under stronger ground shaking consistent with Garfield County Building Code. In addition to the foregoing, per the Geotech Report, prior grading activities on the Property may pose a risk because it is unclear whether the fill in all areas were adequately placed and compacted. To eliminate any potential risk, CI will conduct additional geotechnical testing prior to development of the Project, including as part of Phase 0 described above, in order to determine if soils should be removed, replaced, and/or compacted. CI will take necessary action based on the results of such testing in accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. CI's proposed mitigation strategies are detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The actions proposed ensure the protection of structures and facilities from damage. To the maximum extent practicable, CI has avoided development of areas that pose more significant risk. 11. Discussion of impacts on County services, schools, town services and any other unique operation that may be pertinent to a review of the proposed zone change The Property will have minimal, if any, impact on infrastructure in the area, County services, schools, or Glenwood Springs or Carbondale services. The Project will not be accessed by nor impact any County roads. The main entrance of the Property and the two (2) EVAs will access SH 82, which falls within the jurisdiction of the CDOT. In addition, as noted above, all internal roads will be privately owned, operated, and maintained by the POA, and will provide no demand on County services. The density of the Project, and increase in school age children in the area anticipated from the Project, does not warrant the construction of a new school. CI will make a cash deposit to the Roaring Fork School District RE-1 (the "School District") in lieu of dedicating land. This said, River Edge Colorado PUD Written Description Attachment A 9 CI has preserved its ability to work with the adjacent property owner to secure land for the School District if public access issues associated with the Property are resolved. The Project's impacts on water and wastewater services are discussion in criterion 6 of Section I and criterion 1 of Section II in the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report (Binder 1, Tab 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application). The existing fire and law enforcement services are available and adequate to serve the needs of the Project. The Project is within the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. CI has met with the Fire District about the Project and the Fire District has expressed no concerns with serving the Project. Law enforcement services are provided by the Garfield County Sheriff’s Department. The potential fiscal impacts of the Project, including, without limitation, impacts to the Sheriff's Department, were assessed in the River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared by Economic Planning Systems ("EPS"), dated November 16, 2010 (the "Fiscal Impact Analysis"). Based on EPS's analysis of the Project's fiscal impacts to the County in absolute and relative terms, EPS determined that the Project may result in a marginal fiscal loss to the County when the Project's affordable housing component is included in the analysis. However, when the Project's affordable housing component is excluded from the analysis, the Project provides an ongoing fiscal benefit to the County. Per the Fiscal Impact Analysis, this discrepancy is attributable to the fact that affordable homes generate significantly less property and sales tax as a result of lower market values and household incomes. This said, given that the Project's affordable housing program will alleviate a key issue of concern and several goals of the Comprehensive Plan, as detailed above, the Project will provide significant public benefits to the County. 12. Discussion of impacts on existing flora and fauna, air quality, wildlife, historical lands or sites, drainage or mineral extraction Please refer to criterion 4 in Section I in the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report (Binder 1, Tab 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application) with regard to the Project's impacts on flora and fauna/wildlife. The Project will have no negative impact on air quality. Rather, as noted above, by providing housing closer to employment centers located within the Roaring Fork Valley, the Project will promote energy conservation, improve air quality, shorten trips, and reduce traffic congestion. Based on CI's review of maps and records on file at the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office, there are no historic or prehistoric sites in or in the immediate vicinity of the Project. The Project will not disrupt any drainage or have any negative consequences to water quality or flooding. The Project is designed to provide adequate site drainage and meet all applicable discharge standards. The Project will utilize the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's ("UDFCD") Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual ("USDCM"), as amended, as the criteria for analysis and design of channels and hydraulic structures and as the primary guidance document River Edge Colorado PUD Written Description Attachment A 10 for the selection and design of stormwater quality BMPs. The USDCM is the authoritative criteria manual in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Region for drainage facility design. The Project will not impact mineral extraction within the Property. No mineral extraction activities currently take place on the Property. However, CI proposes to conduct materials processing within the Property over the course of development of the Project. Specifically, CI intends to process onsite sand and gravel deposits, claimed as a result of site development, for use in the construction of the Project. This use will include screening, crushing, washing, and the creation of concrete from processed sand and gravel resources. All activities will be conducted in a manner that meets or exceeds applicable noise, air quality and water quality standards and minimizes visual impacts through appropriate or necessary screening. In addition, in response to the County's request during the Pre-Application Conference for this Project that CI address the requirements of C.R.S. §§ 34-1-301 et seq. (the "Mineral Resource Statute"), CI contracted RMG Engineers to prepare a Mineral Resource Study of the Property. See Mineral Resource Study enclosed with the Application at Appendix P of the River Edge Colorado Impact Analysis, prepared by 8140 Partners, LLC, dated January 14, 2011 (the "Impact Analysis"). The purpose of the Mineral Resource Statute is to ensure that the state's "commercial mineral deposits" are "extracted according to a rational plan, calculated to avoid waste of such deposits and cause the least practicable disruption of the ecology and quality of life of the populous counties of the state." C.R.S. § 34-1-301(1). Although CI has caused this study to be prepared as a courtesy to the County, CI maintains that this Mineral Resource Statute does not apply to the Project. The statute specifically provides that "[i]t is the intention of the general assembly that the provisions of this [Mineral Resource Statute] have full force and effect throughout such populous counties, . . . , but shall have no application outside such populous counties." Id. § 34-1-301(2) (emphasis added). The statute defines "populous county" as "any county or city and county having a population of sixty-five thousand inhabitants or more according to the latest federal decennial census." Id. § 34-1-302(3). The most recent federal decennial census (i.e., Census 2000 because Census 2010 is not yet released) provides that the population of Garfield County is 43,791. Because the population threshold of 65,000 is not met, the Mineral Resources Statute does not apply to the Project. Even if Garfield County's population threshold was met and the Mineral Resources Statute did apply, based on the Mineral Resources Study, the mineral deposits located within the Property are not "commercial mineral deposits" as such term is defined by the statute. Per the study, the deposits within the Property have limited economic significance and strategic value in the context of Garfield County's overall resources and development, and do not constitute a significant economic or strategic value to the state or nation. Moreover, extraction of any such deposits on a commercial scale from the Property is infeasible for various reasons, including, zoning and planning designations, surrounding development, conservation values adjacent to the Property, groundwater, and the location and preservation of the RFTA ROW for a rail corridor. Attachment B Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development and River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan March 29, 2011 The following information is drawn from the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report dated January 18, 2011 (Binder 1, Tab 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application. 1. Requests for relief from certain standards of Article VII of the ULUR Article VII of the ULUR contemplates that the standards discussed in this Subsection 1 from which CI requests relief might not be applicable or appropriate for all projects and therefore may be waived. The standards discussed herein are inapplicable or inappropriate for the Project. Therefore, CI requests that the County waive the application of these standards to the Project. a. Restrictive Inner Buffer Section 7-203.A of the ULUR establishes a setback of thirty-five (35) feet measured horizontally from the typical and ordinary high water line on each side of a waterbody (the "Inner Buffer Setback"). This said, Section 7-203.A.2 provides that "[i]rrigation and water diversion facilities, flood control structures, culverts, bridges and other reasonable and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within this setback may be permitted." Id. CI requests that the County permit CI to construct the bridge, utility crossings, and diversion facilities proposed as part of the Project within the Inner Buffer Setback located along the Roaring Fork River. See Bridge Plan and Section S01.01 of the Drawing Package for a description of the proposed structures. Alternative bridge structures that would avoid the Inner Buffer Setback have been reviewed, but no substantial advantage to avoiding the Inner Buffer Setback has been identified. Rather, due to slopes and constraints associated with intersection alignments, the proposed shorter bridge structure with limited encroachments into the Inner Buffer Setback, provides a safer condition in the professional judgment of the Project Engineer, William S. Otero. In addition, the bridge crossing will be subject to Section 404 of the CWA and a floodplain activity permit or other review by the County. The utility crossings and water diversion facilities are required in order to access irrigation water, connect to the Roaring Fork District water and wastewater facilities (if the Roaring Fork District is selected as the water and/or sanitary sewer provider), and access CI's potable water rights in the Roaring Fork River to support the Project. These activities will comply with Section 404 of the CWA and likely will be subject to a Nationwide Section 404 Permit issued by the USCOE. These activities might also require a floodplain activity permit or other review by the County. The activities proposed within the Inner Buffer Setback also will be performed in accordance with applicable erosion and sediment control measures required by the storm water pollution River Edge Colorado Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR 2 prevention plan. Areas affected by these activities will be reclaimed in accordance with applicable PUD standards. Lastly, as discussed in the Impact Report, the proposed activities will result in no adverse impact to Cattle Creek or the Roaring Fork River. See Section III.B.2.a of the Impact Analysis. In addition to the foregoing, CI requests relief from the application of Section 7-203.A.3 of the ULUR. This Section prohibits within the Inner Buffer Setback "unless permitted or approved," the "[d]isturbance of existing natural surface drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, flow patterns, or flood retention characteristics[,]" and provides further that "[m]easures taken to restore existing topography to improve drainage, flow patterns and flood control must be approved." Id. CI requests the County's approval of its plan to repair and restore as part of Phase 0 riparian areas within the Inner Buffer Setback previously damaged by agricultural operations and site grading activities. The proposed activities are in keeping with the intent of Section 7-203 to protect wetlands and waterbodies, and will be performed in compliance with the RFC Conservation Easement and erosion and water quality control provisions of the ULUR. Details of the proposed activities are provided in Reclamation Plan included in Appendix U of the Impact Analysis and on the Reclamation Plan (RP01 Series) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ES02) of the Drawing Package. b. Subdrains for all foundations Section 7-206.B.2 of the ULUR provides that "[s]ubdrains shall be required for all foundations where possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight to proper drainage channels." Subdrains will be used as appropriate as determined by the engineer designing the foundation and applicable hazard mitigation measures. It is inappropriate or unnecessary to provide a subdrain under circumstances where soils are generally well drained like those at the Project. In addition, due to soil conditions, in most cases, basements will not be utilized. As detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan, the need for a subdrain should be left to the design engineer based on the specific site circumstances. c. Public road dedications Section 7-405.C.1.a of the ULUR provides that "[u]nless specifically approved as private rights- of-way and so designated on the final plat, all roads, streets, alleys or other public traffic ways located within the subdivision and benefiting current or future residents of the subdivision shall be dedicated as public rights-of-way." Id. As discussed previously in this Report, all roads internal to the Project are proposed to be private roads. Access to the Property requires a crossing of the RFTA ROW. The RFTA ROW is maintained as a rail-banked corridor and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of RFTA and the Public Utilities Commission (the "PUC"). Based on discussions with the PUC, a crossing that is open to the public for access to a subdivision likely would be treated by the PUC as a "public" crossing subject to the PUC's review and approval. However, there appear to be no avenues River Edge Colorado Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR 3 under the PUC regulations for a private entity to apply to the PUC for authority to construct a highway-rail crossing where tracks or other facilities currently exist. See Section 7203, 4 C.C.R. 723-7. Partially in response to this situation, CI requested that the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners (the "BOCC") approve the creation of a special district for the Project. The BOCC denied this request in September 2010. This denial leaves CI with no option but to pursue the approval of private roads for the Project. CI has, however, retained the option to convert the private roads to public roads if a quasi-governmental or governmental entity, including any special district or metropolitan district formed in accordance with Colorado law, is willing to accept and assume ownership of and maintenance responsibilities for such roads. At the present time, the Project's roads are not designed to connect to any external roadways, except for SH 82, and will only serve residents of the Project. Based on the foregoing, dedicating the roads internal to the Project as public rights-of-way is inappropriate and unnecessary. Accordingly, CI requests that the County approve all roads internal to the Project as private rights-of-way. 2. Requests for modifications from certain standards of Article VII of the ULUR In addition, to the relief requested in Subsection 1 above, CI requests modifications from the following County standards: a. Section 7-108 standard that "[a]ll roads shall be designed to road design standards set forth in Section 7-307 . . ." Roads within the Project are being proposed as suburban/urban sections to better support adjacent lot designs, including, proposed lot sizes, setbacks, and pedestrian/street-focused orientation. Without approval of the proposed design standard for roads, CI would be unable to cluster lots in the manner proposed, preserve the proposed amount of open space, or provide for pedestrian and street-oriented suburban densities. The road design standards provided in Section 7-307 would generally require that lots within the Project be double to triple their currently proposed size. Under such a program, while densities might remain the same, at least 75% of the land within the Project would be held in private spaces. The proposed road standards are relatively conservative suburban sections with on-street parking in both directions, which configuration provides more than three times the road design capacity than that demanded by this Project. This configuration could reasonably provide for connections to the north and east of the Project if desired and if Project's internal roads were to become public. b. Section 7-207 Stormwater Drainage Standards. In lieu of the standards set forth in Section 7-207, CI proposes to comply with the standards and criteria provided by the UDFCD USDCM Volumes I and II, as amended, in its design of channels and hydraulic structures, and to use these standards and criteria as the primary guidance document for the selection and design of stormwater quality BMPs. This modification is being requested in an effort to provide comprehensive and appropriate standards and specifications that will be applied to the Project since the ULUR does not provide appropriate or detailed enough River Edge Colorado Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR 4 criteria to address the infrastructure, conditions, and "suburban" form of development proposed for the Project. The USDCM is recognized as being one of the most comprehensive drainage criteria manuals available in the State of Colorado and has been used as the basis for the development of local drainage criteria manuals and in drainage design and review processes by a wide variety of municipalities in the State from Grand Junction to Denver to Fort Collins. The USDCM is approved and accepted by the Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division as a reasonable basis for design. Application of the USDCM assures that storm water will meet applicable water quality standards and that drainage structures and facilities will be designed to adequately convey storm drainage. In all cases, as promoted by the ULUR, where more naturalized channels and swales may be used to reasonably collect, treat and convey stormwater, these methods will be utilized as opposed to piping or concrete ditches. Details are provided in the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and the Bridges, Structures, and Drainage Structures Plans (Series DR01-03 and S01) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ES01-ES06) or the Drawing Package. c. Section 7-207.C.1 requirement that "[d]etention facilities shall ensure the post- development peak discharge rate does not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rate for the 2-year and 25-year return frequency, 24-hour duration storm. In determining runoff rates, the entire area contributing runoff shall be considered, including any existing off-site contribution." CI requests that only the water quality capture volume, and not the total stormwater volume (i.e., quantity storage) required by the ULUR, be detained prior to discharge off the Project Site to either Cattle Creek or the Roaring Fork River. The primary reason for this request is that the Property is located at the confluences of the two major perennial waterways and detention of surface runoff at historic rates provides little value or could even be detrimental to these waterways since it delays the releases from the Project in a manner that could coincide with the peak flows from larger contributing basins upstream (i.e., adding to the magnitude of the peak flow). If stormwater quantities are not detained, the peak flows generated from the Property will be released prior to these other peaks entering the areas. Furthermore, stormwater runoff from the Property does not discharge to or impact adjacent properties or downstream drainage structures. Should the County believe that quantity storage in addition to quality storage is required, the storage volumes for both quantity and quality are provided in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the area necessary to store this increased volume is available within the locations identified on the engineering plans to accommodate the volumes without any impact to lots within the Project. It is the opinion of William S. Otero, Project Engineer that detaining excess quantity volume is unproductive at best and potentially damaging to downstream areas at worst. d. Section 7-305.A.1.f standard that "[a]ll required landscaping must be located outside of any adjacent right-of-way unless a written waiver is received from the Director." CI requests the Director's approval to provide landscape strips and landscaped areas within the rights-of-way and adjacent to the roads internal to the Project. As noted above, roads internal to the Project will at least initially be maintained by the POA. The proposed landscaping is a critical feature of the Project and provides for detached sidewalks. The landscaping will not River Edge Colorado Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR 5 interfere with the clear vision triangle and therefore presents no hazard to motorists. Further, the proposed landscaping will have no impact to County operations or facilities. e. Section 7-305.A.7.a standard that "[d]eciduous trees shall be a minimum of two inches (2") in caliper measured four inches (4") above the ground." CI proposes a standard of 1½" caliper to enhance survival. CI’s landscape architect, Pedro Campos, has determined that survival rates would be substantially enhanced at the site by reducing tree sizes. Survival rate is one of the most critical factors in ensuring the success of a landscape plan. Winter desiccation has the potential to kill a large number of trees in this environment particularly in consideration of the limited soil matrix and water retaining properties of the surficial deposits. To this end, winter watering is proposed to help establish trees. The cost savings involved has been translated into the higher planting ratios proposed on the site than other comparable developments in the County. The overall intent of the landscape program as detailed in the Landscape Plan and LA01-05 Series of the Drawing Package meets or exceeds the intent of the ULUR in all other respects. f. Section 7-307 Roadway Standards. This section details a series of roadway standards for rural roads. The Project incorporates a series of road, trail and sidewalk sections more in keeping with the goals of the Project. The road sections follow commonly accepted design standards for suburban roadways, incorporate curb and gutter to control drainage, and provide a detached sidewalk for pedestrian safety and comfort. The proposed road sections and standards are detailed in the Project Engineering Design Report, PUD Guide and on the PUD Plan (PUD01-04) and Streets, Trails and Walkway Plan (CO01-04) of the Drawing Package. The roads, as planned, will have significant excess capacity (i.e., 2-6 times that required for this Project) and will provide for safe and efficient intersections, vision, and speeds. The rural sections and standards required as part of the ULUR cannot be utilized for the Project without changing the clustered program, enlarging lots and eliminating open space. g. Section 7-405.A requirement that "[t]he Board of County Commissioners shall require reservation or dedication of public sites and open space for schools and parks that are reasonably necessary to serve the residents of the proposed subdivision and future residents. In lieu of a dedication of sites and land areas, the Board may require payment of a sum of money not exceeding the full market value of such sites and land areas, or a combination of land dedication and payment in lieu of dedication." Due to the small number of residential units proposed for the Project, the Project would owe less than the land required for dedication of a school site. In addition, the Property is not accessible by a public road as a result of the RFTA ROW and lack of a public entity willing to take responsibility for the crossing under the PUC. Therefore, CI proposes to pay fees-in-lieu of dedication for schools. CI further proposes no public dedications of land for roads, parks or open space. CI proposes that all roads, parks and open space within the Project will be held by the POA for the private enjoyment of the residents and for right of ingress and egress to their River Edge Colorado Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR 6 properties via the roads within the Property. The Board denied CI’s request in September 2010 to form a Metropolitan District which would have provided a mechanism for providing public access to the Property and parks and open spaces provided therein. At the present time, CI has no ability to provide for public access over the RFTA ROW to the site. CI has provided allowances for future dedications if conditions change.