HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.00 BOCC Staff Report Part 1 12.12.2011Board of County Commissioners -Public Hearing Exhibits
River Edge Colorado (REC) Zone District Amendment I Preliminary Plan
December 12, 2011, continued from December 5, 2011 and November 21, 2011
1
Board of County Commissioners-Public Hearing Exhibits
River Edge Colorado (REC) Zone District Amendment I Preliminary Plan
December 12, 2011, continued from December 5, 2011 and November 21, 2011
Supplemental information dated November 7, 2011 including revised Development
00 Agreement, Affordable Housing Agreement, PUD Guide, PUD Plan and
Preliminary Plan
pp Supplemental Staff Report
QQ Letter dated November 28, 2011 from Peter Pierson
RR
55
TT
uu
vv
ww
XX
yy
zz.
2
Board of County Commissioners -Public Hearing Exhibits
River Edge Colorado (REC) Zone District Amendment I Preliminary Plan
November 21, 2011
1
Board of County Commissioners-Public Hearing Exhibits
River Edge Colorado (REC) Zone District Amendment I Preliminary Plan
November 21, 2011
Supplemental information dated November 7, 2011 including revised Development
00 Agreement, Affordable Housing Agreement, PUD Guide, PUD Plan and
Preliminary Plan
pp Supplemental Staff Report
QQ Letter dated November 28, 20 II from Peter Pierson
RR
ss
TT
uu
vv
ww
XX
yy
zz
2
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
LOCATION:
PROPERTY SIZE:
WATER/SEWER:
ACCESS:
EX ISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING :
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN :
Zone District Amendment I PUD and Subd ivision
Preliminary Plan
Carbondale Investments, LLC
Rockwood Shepard
Mid-way between Carbonda le and G len wood
Springs on the west side of SH 82 at Cattle Creek
±160-acres
Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District
State Highway 82
Residential Suburba n (RS)
CL, CG , PUD, Rural
Future Land Use Map -Residential High Density
1
I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
A. Property Location
BOCC Novembe r 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
The property is generally located in the western Y2 of Sections 7 and 18 of Townsh ip 7 South,
Range 88 West and in the eastern half of Sections 1 and 12 of Township 7 South, Range 89
West. More practically, the property is located 2.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs east and
adjacent to State Highway 82 (SH 82) with a primary access point located oppos ite Cattle Creek
Road (CR 113) as it intersects with SH 82 in the lower Roaring Fork Valley.
Properties to the north include two commercial parks (Eastbank & Evergreen) and a high-
density mobile home park (H Lazy F). Properties to the west include a medium -density (Teller
Springs) and high-density (Iron Bridge) residential development. Properties to the south include
an active gravel extraction operation (LaFarge) and medium-density res idential development
(Aspen Glen). Properties to the east include a variety of comme rcial businesses (Van Rand
Park), and a high-density mobile home park (Mountain Meadows Court).
B. General Property Description
The property contains approximately 160-acres
of former 281.62 acres site that was recently
subdivided into several >35-acre parcels . The
subject site is located on the floor of the Roaring
Fork Valley and is configured in a linear north-
south orientation with the Rio Grande Trail
forming its east border and the Roaring Fork
River forming its western border.
Physically the property can be chara cterized by
several benches that step down in an east to
2
BOCC November 21 , 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
west direction towards the Roaring Fork River. A perpetual conservation easement held by the
Roaring Fork Conservancy is located adjacent to the subject site of th is application.
C. Property History
Beyond what has been protected in the adjacent
easement, the entire property has been virtually
denuded of any viable vegetation and stripped of
much of its topsoil as a result of former
development attempts by a previous owner which
has left the property in poor condition . The ground
cover is primarily characterized by cobles and
gravel with three or four large piles of unanchored
topsoil. Some rough grading work is also evident
where the previous owner had begun to rough in a
golf course .
The Sanders Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) in 2001 with a site specific development plan that included a golf
course, 62 single-family dwelling units and 168 multi-family dwelling units for a total average
density of 1.22 acres I du or conversely, 0.81 du I acre.
In February, 2008 the Board of
County Commissioners revoked
approval for the uncompleted portion
of the PUD and rezoned that portion
to Residential Suburban (known as
RGSD under the Zoning Resolution
of 1978, as amended) leaving the
area encompassed by the
conservation easement held by the
Roaring Fork Conservancy zoned as
Open Space I Conservation District in
the Sanders Ranch PUD as shown
right.
Subsequently, the owner of the property at the
time (Sopris Development Group) sold the
property to Linksvest I Bair Chase, LLC who
submitted a Preliminary Plan Application in 2003
based on the PUD which was approved by the
BOCC in 2004 and extended in 2005 .
The net result was that the Preliminary Plan
Application became invalid due to expiration;
certain obligations I timeframes contained within
the Phasing Plan in the PUD also became invalid
thus rendering the entire PUD Plan invalid .
RGSD
~h---v-:""~"+-~~ V:t<i4 ~'--------...;;.....--------.
Open Space Conservat ion
District In Sanders Ranch PUD
3
BOCC November 21 , 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
In October 2008 the site was owned by River Bend, LLC when Related WestPac, LLC
submitted an application for a Zone District Amendment fo r Planned Unit Development (PUD).
This PUD proposed 1,006 dwelling units, 30 ,000 square feet of comm e rcial , a school site, open
space and recreation as shown on the development plan below.
This application was subsequently withdrawn by the Appl icant prior to any action taken on the
request.
II. RIVER EDGE COLORADO (REC) PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The current owner of
the site , Carbondale
Investments, LLC , (CI)
proposes to rezone a
portion of the original
site discussed above ,
from Residential
Suburban to PUD to
allow for development
of 366 dwelling units
(including 55 affordable
units), 30,000 square
feet of public, quasi -
public and commercial
floor area , open space
and recreat ion. The
owner has also
included a Preliminary
Plan Application to
allow for subdivis ion of
the site.
4
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
The application materials contain the following project description:
CJ contemplates developing the property into a wa/kab/e 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'J. 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 'J 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 Jots, dog
parks, playfie/ds, and a trail system. In addition, in keeping with the Property's agricultural
heritage and rural character, CJ anticipates that areas designated on the River Edge Colorado
Planned Unit Development ("PUD'J 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 a/so 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.
The Applicant proposes that the development proceed in 11 phases with reclamation of the
entire 160-acres being completed in Phase 0. The development is anticipated to be built-out in
2019 based upon an average annual absorption rate of 58 units per year (this information has
changed through the review process to 2031). The Applicant is requesting a vesting period for
the development for a period of 20 years.
PHASING
The PUD Plan and charts, along with language in the PUD Guide and engineer construction
plan (CP01.01 ), constitute the phasing plan for the development. In general the staging and
timing of the proposed development is described as:
The Project is proposed in several stages or filings. There are 6 filings and 5 subfilings. The
Project will be constructed over a period of5-10 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. CPOI.Ol of the PUD (Rezoning) and
Subdivision (Preliminary Plan) Drawing Package submitted as part of the PUD/Preliminary
Plan Application.
5
BOCC November 21, 2011
Ri ver Edge Colorado
KE
Phase 0 -This first phase is to reclaim the site in preparation for development activities .
Included in the 68 page Reclamation Plan , itemized as Appendi x U in Binder 2 is the
following intent:
Th is P lan proposes and details a pre-development reclamation a ctio n ("Ph ase 0''), in clud ing
grading, necessary to repair th e da mage to th e Project S it e resulting fro m a ctio ns t aken by Bair
Chase in associatio n with th e Sa nders R anch PUD which partially regraded th e Projec t Site (as
hereinafter d efined) for res iden tial and golf course deve lopment and stripped an d s tockpiled th e
top so il.
The description of the reclamation is basically a 'grading program ' but also includes:
• Relocation of the Rio Grande Trail at the entry to the site. The Applicant states that
this relocation will be done in coordination with RFTA and will result in a grade-
separated trail that will reduce or eliminate potential conflicts between trail users and
access to the site.
• Relocation of the Glenwood Ditch to facilitate property development.
• Site grading includes movement of 1.2 million cubic yards of material which will re-
grade the site for proper drainage and resolve existing and potential geotechnical
hazards . In addition this will also repair and stabilize eroding steep terrace
escarpments, and repair active and stabilize stream bank erosion.
• Construction of drainage facilities and water quality detention ponds .
• Final revegetation and planting of vegetative screens along the Rio Grande Trail and
the conservation easement.
Phase 1 -59 lots (39 "Town " lots and 20 "Attached" lots); off-site infrastructure such as
access from Highway 82 , a private at-grade crossing over the grade separated-RFTA trail,
connection to water and wastewater treatment facilities if service is provided by RFWSD.
On -site improvements include the round-about and streets to serve the lots, bridge over
Cattle Creek, water and sewer lines, parking and mailboxes at the Community Center
6
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
Phase 1B-26 lots (13 Garden Homes and 13 Affordable Homes). These first two phases
are anticipated to be constructed between 2012 and 2014.
Phase 2-31 lots (12 Village Lots, 19 Attached)
Phase 2A --56 lots (28 Garden Homes and 28 Affordable Homes).
Phase 3-36 Lots (35 Town Lots and 1 Village Lot)
Phase 4-52 Lots ( 44 Town Lots and 8 Village Lots)
Phase 4A-19 Garden Home Lots
Phase 5-27 Town Lots
Phase 5A -28 Lots (14 Garden Home Lots and 14 Affordable Homes)
Phase 6-61 Lots (9 Estate Lots, 17 Town Lots and 35 Village Lots)
Ill. REFERRAL AGENCIES
The PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan applications were referred to the following agencies
and County Departments for their review and comment. Comments that were received are
briefly noted below and more substantively included in the body of the memorandum.
a. Garfield County Road & Bridge: EXHIBIT I
Questions regarding water tank and traffic generation.
b. Garfield County Public Works: EXHIBIT J
SGM reviewed the proposal on behalf of Public Works as SGM is involved in an intersection
study which includes the Cattle Creek (CR 113) I Old Dump Road (CR 11 0) intersection with
SH 82. Issues identified include the alignment of the proposed access to the development,
deviations from CDOT standards for shoulders, and potential alternatives for traffic control
related to a development of 300+ units. SGM recommends that the Applicant coordinate
with the County and CDOT on these issues.
c. Garfield County Housing Authority: EXHIBIT K
The Housing Authority reviewed the proposed affordable housing component of the
development including a rental component that is not addressed in the County's guidelines,
percentage of AMI that exceeds the maximum County guidelines, proposes flexibility given
the long build-out schedule, and questions regarding liming on provision of units. Additional
comments are expected regarding the proposed deed restriction language when those
documents are submitted and finalized.
d. Garfield County Sheriff Department: EXHIBIT L
The Emergency Operations Sergeant has concerns regarding the Emergency Vehicle
Access (EVA) points and impact on the ingress-egress onto SH 82.
e. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: EXHIBIT M
Steve Anthony recommends stronger language in the covenants regarding responsibility of
noxious weed management of the site. Mr. Anthony would like a provision removed that
requires noxious weed treatment once 5% of the site is covered with noxious weeds, this is
contrary to requirements that eradication must occur upon detection of List A and List B
species. The revegetation plan is acceptable however a quantification of surface area to be
disturbed is typically requested -however in this case the $2,500 per acre security may
apply to the entire site (Staff calculates that this could result in a requirement for
revegetation security in the amount of $400,000 prior to issuance of a grading permit for
Phase 0).
7
f. Garfield County Environmental Health: EXHIBIT N
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
Jim Rada identified concerns regarding the water supply and wastewater treatment plan in
which the application is not definitive in terms of who will provide service to the
development. The ability of a Property Owner Association to operate and maintain such a
system will likely be expensive and burdensome to the owners. Other concerns relate to
social issues such as sustainable, walkable communities, growing fresh food, access to
fresh food and other amenities that will require driving to Carbondale or Glenwood Springs.
g. Colorado State Division of Water Resources: EXHIBIT 0
"Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan that meets the number of
EQRs proposed by this application, the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-28-
136(1 )(h)(l), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights
and is inadequate." Staff is expecting receipt of additional comments from the DWR
based on additional information provided by the Applicant.
h. Colorado Geologic Survey: EXHIBIT P
CGS states that the Applicant has generally done a good job of avoiding the most severe
geologic hazards (sinkholes and subsidence, expansive and collapsible soils, slope
instability adjacent to the river, uncontrolled fill, and debris flow and flooding hazards).
Critical recommendations should be required to protect public safety, including the necessity
of further investigations and site-specific mitigation action. CGS recommends additional
mitigation measures as outlined in their response.
i. Colorado Department of Transportation: EXHIBIT Q and BB
Dan Roussin responded that COOT had no comment on the zone change application
(Exhibit Q) and that the development would need an access permit. Mr. Roussin also states
that the traffic study indicates installation of a traffic signal in 2018. Further comment
includes consideration of re-alignment of the CR 113 intersection in conjunction with this
proposed access.
j. Colorado Division of Wildlife: EXHIBIT R
Significant impact should not result if the recommendations outlined in CDOW comments
form 2008 and 2009 are followed. These include concern with stormwater runoff into Cattle
Creek and the Roaring Fork River, burying utilities, fencing restrictions, protection of riparian
areas, 1 00' setback from the bluff along the river, and issues related to the Heron Rookery.
k. RE-1 School District: EXHIBIT AA
The development land dedication requirement is 7.3 acres however this amount is not
adequate to address site requirements for an elementary school and required accessory
facilities. "The District's only option at this point is to accept fees in-lieu of land dedication ... "
I. Carbondale Fire Protection District: EXHIBITS
Developments with more than 200 units have to have two separate and approved fire
access roads, details of which have not been submitted to the District for approval. The
proposed system appears capable of providing adequate fire flow and fire hydrants appear
adequate as well. The District raises the issue of fire sprinkler requirements. Lastly, the
development will be required to pay fire district impact fees of $730.00 per lot/unit
($267, 180).
m. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA\: EXHIBIT T
RFTA expressed concern with growth outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries of the Town
8
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
of Carbondale and City of Glenwood Springs, particularly as it affects transit cost and travel
time.
The crossing of the Rio Grande Trail (ROW) is permissible by current easement that allows
at-grade access to the site. This easement poses issues, particularly related to safety
conflicts with trail users.
n. Mountain Cross Engineering: EXHIBIT U
Water -Two options for water and sanitation service result in evidence of a legal supply
pending outcome of court decrees, however the physical supply of water is still pending
negotiations. Regardless, the Applicant must demonstrate via well pump test, water quality
test and community water system approvals from CDPHE related to private provision of
water and sanitation; or if provided by RFWSD there must be evidence of adequate capacity
of the District systems. Proposed EQR values are not consistent with ULUR requirements
of 350 gallons per day. Proposed private system did not include specifications for on-and
off-site improvements that will be necessary including, but not limited to, pump stations,
pipelines, sewer plants, water tanks, etc. Engineer-design of the anticipated pumping
system was not provided.
Geology -Additional geotechnical testing could result in changes to the proposed layout
and density. The Applicant's geotechnical engineer recommends foundation sub-drains be
provided however the flatness of the site results in a recommendation that the Applicant
consider a provide wide method for suitable gravity outlet for these drains (the Applicant is
requesting waiver from provision of foundation sub-drain).
Detention - A waiver is requested from providing storm-water detention for peak flow
attenuation. This should be of no concern provided that water-quality detention is still
provided.
Access -One public access for the project residents results in concern. An access permit
will need to be obtained. Horne occupations are permitted but the traffic report did not
appear to include these calculations.
See Exhibit U for full list of engineering issues.
o. City of Glenwood Springs: EXHIBIT V
• Creation of an unincorporated community;
• Sprawl;
• Though the number of units is smaller so is the site, future development could be equal
to or exceed previous applications;
• A rezoning does not appear to be justified as there is no "demonstrated community
need~~;
• The absorption rate in the fiscal impact analysis seems unlikely (58 units per year for the
remainder of the decade);
• Increased burden on services such as sheriff, fire, COOT, school district and results in a
"negative impact on county finances";
• The application alludes to a signalized intersection although is somewhat unclear,
impact to the RFTA corridor;
• Provision of water and wastewater treatment is unclear;
• Questions regarding the site size.
p. U.S. Fish & Wildlife: EXHIBIT W
The wildlife assessment describes the presence of Ute Ladies' -tresses orchid which is a
species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. If water is to be provided
9
BOCC November 21 , 2011
River Edge Co lorado
KE
by the District versus private , potential impacts could result. A 404 permit application will
require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
q. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: EXHIBIT X
Wetland boundary confirmation and jurisdictional determination is confirmed , however it is
not clear if impact to jurisdictional waters will be entirely a vo ided. A lternatives must be
evaluation if there are not practicable alternatives mitigation plans shou ld be developed.
r. Town of Carbondale-Planning and Zoning: EXHIBIT EE
This property was recommended to not be included within the Unincorpo rated Communities
area which is a justification used by the Applicant for the rezoning. The PC considered this
application at their June 161h meeting noting that the proposed pricepoint is consistent with
nearby developments both in and outside (within municipal boundaries) of the County.
Approval of this development would not equate to economic deve lopment and represen ts
unnecessary suburban sprawl. Other issues identified include traffic impacts to SH 82,
proposed development on a portion of the original property, additional ri ver buffering should
be considered, the site plan does not reflect clustering, water and wastewater issues,
additional details necessary on the signalized intersection, coordination with RFTA, and
impacts to wildlife.
s. Town of Carbondale-Board of Trustees: EXHIBIT FF
Stacey Patch Bernot, Mayor, responded to the referral with several concerns including
community need, justification questioned on beneficial impact to SH 82, re v iew should occur
on the whole site not just a portion divided from the original parcel, and impacts to wildlife.
t. Roaring Fork Conservancy-EXHIBIT KK
Rick Lofaro, Executive Director, states that RFC has concerns regarding the impacts of the
proposed development on the easement and values associated with that easement.
Impacts related to the original 280-acre parcel should be should be cons idered.
No comments were received from the following agencies:
u. Water Conservancy Board
v. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
w. Colorado State Forest Service
x. Soil Conservation District
y. Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District
z. Glenwood Ditch Company
One component of the Comprehensive Plan is the
Future Land Use Map which designates density ranges
and uses that may
be considered
appropriate for an
area.
10
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
This site has been subdivided from the original 288-acres as ind icated on the map left into a
property shown above that consists of 160-acres of the original parcel. The Roaring Fork
Conservancy Conservation Easement is not included in this appl ication and will remain a
separate parcel zoned Sanders Ranch PUD, Open Space.
The Introduction to the Plan discusses the following general issues which should be considered
in the analysis of this proposal:
Vacant Lots -Garfield County has approved a number of subd ivisions that are undeveloped or
only partially developed. Approximately 2,400 vacant subdivided lots exist throughout the
county.
Cost of Growth -Like most counties , Garfield County government (departments, services, tax
structure) is set up to serve rural needs . The county is not currently set up to be in the "urban "
business -to provide urban services to residential and commercia l areas . And yet, there have
been, and could be more , significant subdivisions in the un incorporated county. Even while
being served by homeowners ' associations (HOA's), property owners' associations (POA's),
and special districts, rural subdivisions still place significant additio nal burdens on county
services and finances (maintenance of roads designed for rural traffic, pub lic safety at higher
levels, social services, etc.). In addition, residents of rural subdivisions often bring increased
expectations of service , which eventually translates into increased costs to all.
Uncoordinated Growth -All of the municipalities in Garfield County have established and
planned for areas of growth (Urban Growth Areas). Together, these Urban Growth Areas could
absorb 2.5 times the projected county growth for the next 20 years . Yet, these areas legally
remain in the county jurisdiction until they are annexed. The current pro cess and lack of
effective intergovernmental cooperation leads to development patterns in the Urban Growth
Areas that can eventually thwart community growth plans and lead to inefficient services.
Private Prop erty Rights -Garfield County recognizes that owners have an inherent right to
develop property as long as the development is in the best interests of the health , safety and
welfare of the county and does not adversely affect adjacent property rights . The development
of land should be consistent with the neral land use goals and policies of Garfield Coun
Chapter 2. Future Land Use
includes the following
direction:
Future Land Use Map
The Future Land Use Map
designates the site as
Residential High Density
which provides a 'range' of
appropriate densities and a
method of determining what
range is appropriate for a
particular site :
Determining the density
range, High Density range is
11
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
from 3 du per acre (480 units on the REC parcel) to 1 du per < 2 acres (80 units on the REC
parcel), the range for a particular site will be determined by the Planning Commission based on
"degree of public benefit" and consideration of such factors as affordable housing, amount of
parks/trails/open space, energy conservation, fiscal impacts, preservation of views, providing for
schools and other public needs.
Growth of New Major Residential Subdivisions
There are several major subdivisions (15 units or more) in Garfield County that provide their
own internal services (road maintenance, water, sewer) through special districts or HOA.
However, these subdivisions are typically far from commercial centers and require travel for
even convenience needs which increases traffic and requires higher maintenance of county
roads. The Plan recognizes new major subdivisions rnay occur, but encourages them to be
more self-sufficient (having, or being near, convenience services). In order to be more self-
sufficient, new major subdivisions will require:
i. Safe, reliable access and transit opportunities
ii. Construction or upgrade existing offsite connecting county roads and intersections by the
developer
iii. Review of the fiscal costs vs. fiscal benefits to the public
iv. Internal roads to be maintained by a special district or HOA
v. Central water and sewer is provided through a special district (quasi-public, not private)
vi. Public amenities, such as trails, open areas, parks, etc., that meet the needs of residents are
included.
Staff Comment:
The proposed development has mixed compliance with these requirements.
i. REC proposes the ability to have a 'coffee shop' type of activity, or other convenience type
use, located in the Neighborhood Center tract. Otherwise the nearest located convenience
services would be at CMC Road and SH 82.
ii. This development will rely on transportation via the state highway in order to access
convenience services such as grocery stores and other necessities as well as employment
centers. Transit opportunities will be limited based upon referral comments from RFTA
which state "the nearest RFTA boarding locations Spring Creek Road and Aspen Glen."
Staff assumes that Spring Creek Road is CR 114, aka CMC Road where there is an existing
bus stop.
iii. The Applicant is working with Public Works and COOT regarding the
alignmenUimprovements at the north side of the intersection of CR 113/CR110 and SH 82.
iv. A Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), was
provided in the submittal documentation; see Appendix N in Binder 2. The analysis was
premised upon this development capturing 25% of the projected growth in the mid-valley,
resulting in an absorption rate of 58 units annually with anticipated build-out of the project in
2019. Peak annual construction employment is anticipated at 141 jobs.
Based upon a review of the revenues generated by the development, including property tax,
sales tax, building permit fees, and the expenditures necessitated by the development, the
resulting net fiscal impact to the county will be -26,000 annually. This negative will be offset
by the construction related sales tax and building permit fees. The latter is anticipated to
generate $1,200,000 in building permit fees over the life of developing the property, however
12
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
the analysis does not appear to consider the cost to the County for employees such as
plans examiners or building inspectors.
The Analysis states that the cumulative net fiscal impact, including the one-time revenues
discussed above, at $566,000. "Holding all revenues and expenditure constant, the
cumulative net fiscal impact will cover the annual shortfalls for another 21 years, or through
the year 2042." (Page 1, EPS)
The projected foreclosure rate in Garfield County for 2011 is anticipated to be 700 units, up
from 650 units in 2010. This will likely have an impact on the projected absorption rate that
is anticipated to commence in 2012.
Andy Knudtsen, Economic & Planning Systems, provided a supplemental analysis based
upon staff comments on the Fiscal Impact Analysis in Attachment E, EXHIBIT ?. Mr.
Knudtsen reiterates that the 'development will generate annual on-going revenues of
$440,000 and one-time revenues of $1.3 million'. Based upon population projections the
absorption rate of 58 units per year is supported as it equates to approximately 5 percent
capture of County growth based upon the Colorado Water Conservation Board Growth
Forecasts. The timing and duration of economic cycles is significant however long-term
forecasts anticipate positive and negative cycles within a given projections. "Thus, an
extended development process and variability in market timing would have a minimal impact
on the River Edge fiscal performance."
v. Internal roads are proposed to be private and maintained by the Property Owners
Association. Entry to the development may be gated however no detail was provided on
how this would function.
vi. The Applicant had originally requested the option to provide water and wastewater to the
development by private systems or by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. The
Comp Plan recommends provision of these services through a Special District, not a private
system. It appears that a pre-inclusion agreement with the District is imminent therefore this
issue may have been resolved.
vii. The Applicant proposes to provide significant open space including both active and passive
areas. However the Applicant is not proposing to provide (construct) any recreational
amenities and instead has stated an allowance that the POA will have the ability to construct
those facilities that are determined necessary by the residents of the development.
The proposal is not in general conformance with Sections i., iii, v. (mixed), and potentially vi
if agreement is not reached with the District.
Growth in Unincorporated Communities
New (or expanded existing) unincorporated communities should meet the following guidelines:
i. Not located in UGA of existing municipalities;
ii. Served with urban services by a special district;
iii. Contract for police from county sheriff is established;
iv. Connecting county roads are upgraded at developer's expense;
v. Fiscal costs to the public will be considered;
vi. Internal commercial is primarily for area residents;
vii. Transit opportunities are provided;
viii. Recreation and other public amenities are provided;
ix. School sites may be required.
13
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
Staff Comment: Further discussion should occur regarding compliance with Sections v. as fiscal
impacts have been considered but long-term costs to the County will result; vii. no on-site transit
facilities will be provided, and possibly ix. RE-1 has stated that provision of a school site is
preferred, resulting in mixed compliance with this element.
Chapter 3-Pian Elements
This chapter analyzes plan elements that include:
1. Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination -The nearest property boundary
of REG is located 2.46 miles from the Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Area and 2.61 miles
from the Carbondale Urban Growth Area, locating this property halfway between two
existing population centers. The FLUM designation of Residential High (less than 2 acres
per dwelling unit) is somewhat contradictory to this element but more understandable if the
density range of Residential High is considered (range is from 1 unit per 2 acres to 3 units
per acre). The designation of Rural Employment Center is related to the land uses on the
southeast side of Highway 82.
2. Housing -The Applicant proposes to provide 55 affordable units compliant with ULUR
requirements. However there are several components of the affordable housing plan that
were not contemplated in the Affordable Housing requirements, including the request to rent
those units not sold, timing of construction of the units, etc. Some of these requests may be
appropriate however they do not meet the letter of the code requirements. This should be
considered during the review, however the Applicant has stated that they will amend their
housing plan to comply with the ULUR if necessary.
3. Transportation -The Applicant has stated that this development will provide an opportunity
for upper valley employees to live in the Roaring Fork Valley rather than commuting from the
Colorado River Valley. In theory this may decrease traffic on 1-70 and Highway 82 through
the City of Glenwood Springs. However the location of the development will require that
residents continue to commute as the site is located between two community centers, transit
access will be limited and few employment opportunities exist within the development. The
improvements required to Highway 82 at the entrance to the site are significant and will
impact the Cattle Creek intersection at SH 82. The Director of Public Works, COOT, and the
Applicant will continue to meet to address this issue.
4. Economics, Employment and Tourism -Though the development and construction will
create employment opportunities they will be temporary and will not be primary jobs.
Employment for the on-site recreation/daycare/coffee shop facilities may generate several
on-going service industry positions. Overall POA maintenance of the development may also
create several positions, though a specific number of positions has not been provided.
5. Recreation, Open Space and Trails -The development does provide internal trails and
areas for recreation including the potential for tot lots and other active uses. The Applicant
has stated that funding for these improvements will be either included within the County
Improvements Agreement or somehow bonded or provided to the POA. Staff recommends
a condition of approval that will require the recreation improvements be included in the
Improvements Agreement which will require the provision of collateral to assure construction
of the facilities.
6. Agriculture -The application states that the development would like to retain agricultural
uses on the site however the current Suburban zoning does not permit Agricultural Uses.
14
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
Compliance with the underlying zone district is a requirement of a PUD, however the
provision of 'garden and orchard' sites may function as an accessory use to the residential
community. The addition of uses not found in the underlying zone district may occur within
a PUD if supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Water and Sewer Services -This issue is somewhat convoluted as the original application
suggested that the site may provide their own water and sanitation through a private system
or that the development would obtain service from Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District (RFWSD). It appears that significant headway has been made between the
Applicant and RFWSD as Staff has been notified that a pre-inclusion agreement is
forthcoming. This leaves one remaining question as the Applicant has stated that some
portions of the development may be provided private water and wastewater systems. The
Applicant should provide clarification regarding this issue.
8. Natural Resources -Preservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources is
proposed, particularly when the first phase of the development reclaims the site. Protection
of the riparian corridor and conservation easement are specifically discussed in the
development plan. Other components of this element include air and water quality
protections including stormwater management and flooding, wildlife habitat, native
vegetation and light pollution.
9. Mineral Extraction -There are likely significant gravel reserves on the property. The
Applicant has determined that this resource will be utilized in the construction of the
development of the project to the extent that gravel reserves will be stockpiled, crushed on-
site and concrete batch plant will operate to produce construction materials. The proposed
PUD zoning document lists Mineral Extraction as a use that is not permitted within the
development as 'mining' will not be necessary. The material will simply be gathered during
the reclamation process proposed as Phase 0. A proposed use that is permitted related to
development of the project is material processing. Staff is concerned with this allowance as
it relates to mitigation of potential impacts and proposed exportation of material. The PUD
Guide does include both definition and standards for this use however further clarification of
this activity should be provided by the Applicant.
10. Renewable Energy -Energy and/or water conservation and renewable energy were not
included as components of this development.
V. REVIEW STANDARDS & CRITERIA PUD and Zone District Amendment
SECTION 4-201 REZONING.
Rezoning may be initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning
Commission, the Director, or an applicant for land use change. The rezoning request may
be processed concurrently with the land use change application and review process.
B. Rezoning Criteria.
Unless otherwise provided in these Regulations, an application for rezoning must meet
the following criteria.
1. No Spot Zoning. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern and would not constitute spot zoning.
15
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
Staff Comments: There are numerous adjacent zone districts including PUD, therefore
the proposed rezoning would not constitute spot zoning. The proposed rezoning may
result in a logical and orderly development pattern for Garfield County.
2. Change in Area. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or
is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or
density in the area.
Staff Comments: It has been argued through the review process that the change in the
area that has occurred (due to the economy resulting in high vacancy rates and high
foreclosures) results in a determination that it is not in the public interest to encourage a
new use or density in the area at this time.
The Applicant states that the rezoning is not being requested to establish new uses or
significantly greater densities than what are currently permitted on the property but
instead REC is requesting the rezoning to PUD "in order to provide for a clustered form
of residential development, which form, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, will
enable Cl to provide a mix of housing types at various prices, provide efficient
infrastructure, maximize the preservation of open space and views, conserve wildlife
habitat, and retain the character of the surrounding area." (Page 5 of the Rezoning and
Subdivision Justification Report)
2. Demonstrated Community Need. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated
community need with respect to facilities, services or housing.
Staff Comments: Comments received have stated that there is no demonstrated need
for the development, while the Applicant has stated that "The Project will increase the
housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality." Specifically, if the
proposed PUD district is approved, the Project will address this critical housing need and
improve the quality of life of County residents by providing, in the Roaring Fork Valley,
366 residential homes made up of a mix of housing types and at a range of prices,
including 55 deed-restricted for sale affordable homes." The Applicant does not
demonstrate how the quality of life of county residents will be improved, nor is
documentation provided regarding this critical housing need.
4. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements. The
proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable
intergovernmental agreement affecting land use or development or an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan approved prior to filing a rezoning request.
Staff Comments: The Applicant has stated that "the Project will alleviate the County's
housing needs and traffic congestion", "the Project will preserve the area's rural
character", "the Project will provide recreational opportunities for residents substantially
in excess of what is required for the density and type of development", "the Property will
balance the County's need for economic development and environmental protection",
and "the Project provides dependable, cost-effective and environmentally sound sewer
and water services".
The proposed development is in mixed compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The
high-density residential designation on the site is a range -from three dwelling units per
acre to less than 2 acres per dwelling unit results in a range of 80 to 480 units. Critical
components of determining appropriate density on the site have been reviewed by the
16
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
Planning Commission and, based upon elements in the Plan, the Commission has
determined that the proposed density is appropriate.
5. Original Zone Designation Incorrect. The proposed rezoning addresses errors in the
original zone district map.
Staff Comments: The Board of County Commissioners specifically rescinded the
previous PUD zoning on the site (except for the conservation easement) and rezoned
the parcel as Residential Suburban. This designation was not incorrect and was not in
error.
6. Adequate Water Supply. Such an application to rezone a property from one district to
another district shall be required to demonstrate the maximum water demand required to
serve the most intensive use in the resulting zone district pursuant to Article 7-104 of this
Resolution.
Staff Comments: The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until such time
as an adequate water supply could be demonstrated based upon the maximum demand
of the project. The Applicant has provided recent documentation regarding the court
decrees necessary to establish an adequate water supply to serve the proposal.
SECTION 6-202 PUD APPROVAL STANDARDS.
In addition to the standards set forth in Divisions 1, 2 and 3 of Article VII, Standards, the
following standards shall apply to PUD applications.
A. Compliance with Rezoning Standards.
The PUD complies with the approval criteria in Section 4-201(8), Rezoning Criteria.
Staff Comments: The applicant has not adequately demonstrated a community need for
the development and the project has mixed compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Relationship to Surrounding Area.
The PUD will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The PUD is
compatible with the scale, intensity and type of uses located on adjacent property.
Staff Comments: Surrounding subdivisions include Aspen Glen to the south with 612
units approved, lronbridge to the west with a density of 1.39 acres per dwelling unit.
Other subdivisions are in the lower density range-for example Teller Spring is 8.3 acres
per dwelling unit. REC density of .44 acres per dwelling unit is significantly higher in
density.
C. Visuallmpacts.
The layout and design of the PUD shall preserve views and vistas, construction on
ridgelines that are visible from major roadways or residential development shall be
prohibited, and the design shall be compatible with the surrounding natural
environment.
Staff Comments: The site is located within a "visual corridor" however the applicant
questions the quality of that view given the significant disturbance on the site. Staff
interprets this visual quality to mean the open view to Mount Sopris, not necessarily the
view of the site itself. In fact development of the parcel will impact that visual corridor as
you travel south on SH 82. Mitigation proposed includes the clustering of units, not
17
BOCC November 21. 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
removing mature trees, planting new trees, providing vegetative buffers and open space in
the area of the conservation easement and vegetation/berming along the RFTA ROW.
D. Street Circulation System.
The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for
the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and
access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access
for police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for
when the site is used for residential purposes.
Staff Comments: The Applicant has stated that the development is a suburban form
however the street standards and circulation is based upon an urban format with excess
capacity. REC states that the pedestrian and street circulation will facilitate community
interaction. Bike and pedestrian traffic will have one access point at the main entry to join
the Rio Grande Trail.
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) is proposed in two areas along SH 82. Bill Gavette,
Carbondale FPD responded (EXHIBIT CC) that both the proposed location and width of
the EVA's is acceptable.
E. Pedestrian Circulation.
The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways throughout the PUD that allow residents to
walk safety and conveniently among areas of the PUD.
Staff Comments: The internal bike and pedestrian system was designed to facilitate
interaction and create a safe and pleasant environment. Access to the Rio Grande Trail is
limited to one access point, adjacent to the main entrance at SH 82.
F. Open Space.
The PUD shall preserve at /east twenty-five (25) percent of the area as open space.
Staff Comments: Given the site size of 160-acres the Applicant is required to preserve 40-
acres as open space. The applicant totals the provided open space as follows:
Useable Open Space (<25% slope)=
Limited Use Open Space (>25% slope)=
Detention Areas (limited use) =
TOTAL
32.43-acres
6.07-acres
2.00-acres
40.50-acres or 25.44%
Also included in the development is Community Space which totals 36.27-acres and
includes parks, common areas and the neighborhood center for a total of 22.79%.
The ULUR defines Open Space as "Any land or water area, which serves specific uses of:
providing park and recreation opportunities, or conserving natural areas and
environmental resources, or structuring urban development form, or protecting areas of
agricultural, archaeological or historical significance. Open space shall not be considered
synonymous with vacant or unused land or yards as part of a platted lot." Based on this
definition the Applicant has provided sufficient open space within the development.
G. Housing Variety.
The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types, price and ownership forms.
Staff Comments: A variety of housing types is provided including garden homes, estates
homes and executive homes. Particular units may be attached or detached. Pricing will
18
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
range from approximately $160,000 to $200,000 for the affordable homes to $1,000,000
for other housing types. Alternate ownership forms include rental of the affordable units,
otherwise for-sale deed restricted units or for-sale fair market units are proposed.
H. Affordable Housing.
The PUD shall comply with affordable housing requirements applicable pursuant to
Section 8-102 of Article VIII, Affordable Housing.
Staff Comments: Geneva Powell of Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA)
responded (EXHIBIT K) to the REC affordable housing proposal with the following
comments:
• The Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) requires presales before
building affordable housing unit (AHU) -currently the downturn in the economy
has made it harder to buy and sell homes, both free market and deed restricted.
GCHA does not know if that means the developer would released from the
obligation if there were no qualified buyers. Some flexibility is necessary from both
the Applicant and the guidelines.
• AHPA provides 3 categories of pricing all of which differ from the GCHA standards
(related to percentage of average medium income). GCHA stipulates maximum
120% AMI which Applicant proposed to allow buyers earning up to 150% of AMI-
this allows a larger pool of potential buyers.
• Applicant proposes an option of renting the AHU if not sold within 120 days. This
is not addressed in the County's guidelines.
• Questions and comments regarding the proposed agreement includes number of
units provided in each phase, amendment of the agreement by phase, etc.
The Applicant has responded that they should not be obligated to build affordable housing
units if there is no buyer and therefore the request for pre-sales, further that they would
request allowance to build-out the market rate units and provide a fee in-lieu of
constructing the affordable units. Though REC is committed to provide AHUs they
request flexibility that does not currently exist within the regulations. There is no ability to
grant a waiver of these requirements.
I. Fire Hazards.
Fire hazards will not be created or increased;
Staff Comments: Carbondale FPD provides service to the development and has met
numerous times with REC to discuss the District requirements. It appears that fire
hazards will not be created or increased.
J. Recreation Amenities.
The PUD shall provide recreational opportunities and amenities to residents of the
PUD.
Staff Comments: Significant open space and recreational amenities are planned for the
development. REC states that funding for recreation will be collateralized until such time
as the residents of the community determine the types of recreation improvements they
desire. REC will also provide a user-fee based community center/daycare/recreation
center on-site for the benefit of the residents.
19
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
K. Adequacy of Supporting Materials.
The Final PUD Plan meets all planning, engineering, and surveying requirements of
these Regulations for maps, data, surveys, analyses, studies, reports, plans,
designs, documents, and other supporting materials.
Staff Comments: Significant amounts of information have been provided in the submittal
and in the response documents. REG's desire to allow for flexibility in the development
has made the review of the copious amounts of information more difficult and confusing.
L. Taxes.
All taxes applicable to the land have been paid, as certified by the County
Treasurer's Office.
Staff Comments: A current and updated certificate of taxes has been paid.
M. Adequate Water Supply.
An Adequate Water Supply will be demonstrated in compliance with the standards
in Section 7-105.
Staff Comments: A water supply plan has been provided as well as documentation
regarding the legal ability to provide that supply. The Division of Water Resources had
provided comment prior to issuance of the Court Decrees, with the comment being that
material injury will occur. Staff is anticipating a revised letter prior to the hearing.
VI. REVIEW CRITERIA & STANDARDS Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Subdivision Preliminary Plan Review and submittal requirements include the following
sections of the ULUR. The criteria and standards for review are listed in bold italics below,
followed by a Staff Response.
A. Section 4-502 (C)5. Landscape Plan Landscape plans shall be scaled at 1 inch to 200
feet for properties exceeding 160 acres in size, or 1 inch to 100 feet for properties
less than 160 acres in size.
Staff Comments: Adequate landscape plans have been provided for the development
B. Section 4-502(0) Land Suitability Analysis
1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site.
Staff Comments: The site is not adjacent to a public road but has an existing access point
through RFTA right-of-way which is adjacent to SH 82. This access location is just north of
Cattle Creek and a RFTA crossing of the Rio Grande Trail is covered by an Easement
Grant providing at-grade access to the REC site. Public access to the site does not exist
nor is it proposed through this application.
2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site
distance and intersection constraints.
Staff Comments: REC has been working with COOT and County Public Works regarding
access to the state highway as well as intersection constraints at SH 82 and CR 113/ CR
110. This issue has not been resolved and discussions are ongoing. A condition of
20
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
approval regarding legal and adequate access, including issuance of a State Highway
Access Permit and a Notice to Proceed, is recommended by staff. Further discussion
regarding potential improvements to CR 113 intersection needs to occur so that
coordination of improvements are assured.
Access to the site is proposed to be private as the Applicant states that a public access
requires Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) license grant. Past application for
special district formation was proposed to create a quasi-governmental entity that would
have the ability to apply for PUC crossing approval -those applications failed and
therefore the Applicant states that access must remain private. Staff conversations with
the PUC included explanation of the proposed project resulting in issuance of a verbal
opinion from the PUC that this crossing would be considered "public". This is simply due
to the nature of a 366 unit subdivision. The PUC also stated that in this particular case the
Property Owner's Association may be considered a quasi-governmental entity so that
application and review could occur. The grant of public crossing requires demonstration of
necessity therefore REC could not apply to the PUC until zoning approval is granted.
Staff recommends a condition of approval that a public crossing license from the PUC be
submitted prior to any activity occurring on the site and prior to submittal of the first final
plat application. The application for public crossing needs to be coordinated with both
CDOT and RFTA.
3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and
access.
Staff Comments: Existing utility easements are clearly identified on the Preliminary Plan,
including the existing location and proposed re-location of the Glenwood Ditch, as well as
proposed easements that will be required for development of the parcels.
Access to the site is shown; however it is critical to understand that the proposed 160-
acres does not abut a public road but instead gains access to the state highway system
through an agreement with RFT A. Colorado PUC approval is required to assure adequate
public access to the site.
The Roaring Fork Conservancy holds a Conservation Easement on property located west
of and central to the development.
The Glenwood Ditch traverses this site and current agreements are in place to relocate
and pipe the length of ditch through the site.
4. Topography and Stope. Topography and stope determination.
Staff Comments: Analysis has been provided regarding the slope and topography of the
site. The property is mostly located on nearly level river terraces approximately 50 to 80
feet above the Roaring Fork River. Steep escarpments (60% slope) separate these
terraces. The site has been graded through past development proposals so that natural
topography has been modified.
The site has undergone extensive grading activity related to prior development of a golf
course approved on the property. This grading has resulted in several large soil
stockpiles.
21
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site.
Staff Comments: Waterbodies on the site include Cattle Creek, the Roaring Fork River is
located off-site of the project. The site includes steep escarpments at the western edge of
the project adjacent to the RFC easement and the Roaring Fork River. Wetlands are
located adjacent to these waterbodies but primarily within the RFC easement with the
exception of areas at the southern end of the site and adjacent to Cattle Creek.
Few natural features exist on-site due to prior grading and agricultural activities on the site.
6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade.
Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided information regarding existing drainages on
the site including:
• The Roaring Fork River which flows south to north just west of the site boundary.
• Cattle Creek crosses through the site from east to west dividing the property
almost in half. This is a moderate sized perennial stream which joins the Roaring
Fork River.
• Small alluvial fans are present at the eastern end of the site and the fans
developed at the mouth of small drainage basins that flow only during heavy
rainfall or snowmelt.
7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply
plan pursuant to Section 7-104.
Staff Comments: Resource Engineering has provided a Water Supply Plan related to the
legal water supply for the development. That plan and recent court decrees assure an
adequate legal water supply for the development.
The physical water supply was originally proposed to be a private system constructed by
REC or service from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). REG and
RFWSD have been working toward a pre-inclusion agreement to assure provision of a
physical supply of potable water by RFWSD.
Irrigation water for the development is provided for by decreed right of 50 cfs in the
Glenwood Ditch and 5.18 cfs in the Staton Ditch. A water court case determined that
historic consumptive use is 439 acre feet on 260 irrigated acres of which 150 acres is
located within the REC boundary. The Applicant also has 12.23 cfs of additional irrigation
rights in the Glenwood Ditch, represented by 367 shares in the Thompson Glen Irrigation
Company and in the Staton Ditch (4.69 cfs).
The physical source of the irrigation water is from the Roaring Fork River via a diversion
into the Staton Ditch. A raw water distribution system is proposed.
8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations.
Staff Comments: A small portion of Cattle Creek floodplain extends into the project area
and is generally avoided by development. Encroachments into the floodplain include
utilities and bridge structure. The Army Corps of Engineers responded to the referral
request (EXHIBIT X) that alternatives should be considered that avoid impact to wetland or
other waters of the United States.
22
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable.
Staff Comments: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (HP Geotech) performed an
assessment of the soils and geologic conditions of the site, including identification of
geologic hazards and soils conditions.
The topsoil was stripped from the site and stockpiled in 2005. Conditions include fill areas
that consist of coarse-grained terrace alluvium.
The site consists of two post-glacial terraces which are located between five (5) feet and
thirteen (13) feet above the Roaring Fork River. The alluvium is described as a deposit of
silty sand with occasional boulder, pebble and cobble gravel interbedded and often
overlain by sandy silt and silty sand. Shallow groundwater is expected in these areas.
Most of the REG project is located on Pinedale outwash terraces occurring in several
levels that formed at different periods. The 2005 grading removed all of the mid level
terraces. Soils profiles indicate that these terrace surfaces have been stable with respect
to erosion and deposition for over 5,000 years.
Stockpiled soil on the site will have to undergo additional analysis/treatment to determine
its viability. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services has noted that nutrient levels and
mircrobial populations may result in difficulty reestablishing native vegetation.
10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site.
Staff Comments: HP Geotech has noted the following potential hazards in their
assessment:
• Evaporite Sinkholes -The Eagle Valley Evaporite formation is located between
Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. This formation resulted in regional ground
subsidence as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the
region. If still active the likely rate of deformations would occur at a rate of .5 to 1.6
inches per 100 years.
• Nine sinkhole areas have been located in and close to REG. Sinkholes in the
western Colorado area are typically 10 to 50-feet in diameter circular depressions.
Avoidance of existing sinkholes and appropriate mitigation will address issues
associated with these hazards.
• Steep Terrace Escarpments-These 60% slope areas vary from 40 to 80 feet high
located along the Roaring Fork River and lower Cattle Creek areas. These
escarpments are potentially unstable and should be avoided by development.
Mitigation methods to stabilize these areas are being considered.
• Active Stream Bank Erosion -Erosion along the Roaring Fork and Cattle Creek
occurs during high water and contributes to steep terrace escarpment
destabilization. Correction of these areas could be beneficial in stabilizing or
reducing deformation of the escarpment.
• Debris Flow and Floods -HP determined that deposits in these areas do not have
a high collapse potential and are moderately compressible indicating that these
areas should be avoided or provide adequate mitigation to minimize the hazard.
23
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
HP also reviewed earthquake potential and radiation, neither of which were considered
as likely hazards on-site.
11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes.
Staff Comments: Vegetative cover is min imal given the agricultural history of the site , as
well as the extensive grading activities that took place in 2005. This area is virtually
devoid of vegetation except for weeds . Vegetation outside of the graded areas including
D •r-c.Jl~~~·· 0 1•-yk~'•n•o-..sa ..
• ll.u-..0'••""
·'ft·•~•o·ws ••
.,.JitO,.'\Y.•.o, ... JI
mtt....Jd ,.,. •• 'lll.
c:::J ._,.ll"'\"r\1.":1
-~. ! .........
Corur.»J
k.W ~•M
~ ..... ~ .... ..,! .... ~ ..
-Dtu
24
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
sage, oak and other brush on the escarpment and cottonwood, grass and willows on the
lower terraces.
Wildlife habitat areas include both Upland and Riparian Habitat areas with the site
consisting largely of Upland Habitat. This area was noted as having limited wildlife use
due to vegetation type and cover. It appears that the most common species are ground
squirrels, which in turn attract great-horned owls, red-tailed hawk, red and gray fox and
coyote. Bird use is limited as well due to conditions and generally includes mourning
doves, meadowlarks and mountain bluebirds.
The Riparian Habitat occurs along the Roaring Fork and lower Cattle Creek, largely
outside of the REC development area. A Great Blue Heron Rookery has historically
occurred in this vicinity however one of the original three rookery trees no longer exists
due to high springtime flows and bank scour.
Analysis of special importance species was contained in the Wildlife & Vegetation
Assessment Report. Mule deer, elk, bald eagle, heron and lewis's woodpecker were
considered, as well a Ute ladies-tresses orchid which is on the Federally Threatened list.
• Elk -The site is located within Elk Winter Range with Severe Winter Range
occurring on the east side of SH 82. Elk do use the project area, mainly for
'loafing' as foraging opportunities are marginal. The application states that
'reasonably high number of elk persist on the project site' however that winter use
of the Rio Grande Trail during winter, and construction of wildlife fencing along SH
82 appears to have 'noticeably reduced the number of elk observed wintering on
the REC property.'
• Mule Deer -The site is located between Mule Deer Winter Range to the west of
the Roaring Fork River and Severe Winter Range on the east side of SH 82.
Existing use of the site by mule deer is minimal with the conservation easement
area seeing more mule deer activity than the project area.
• Great Blue Heron -A productive heron rookery is located in the RFC conservation
easement and on the west side of river with a total of 25 nests. A pair of Golden
Eagles killed a majority of the young in 2010 and could lead to abandonment in the
future. This area is considered critical habitat and is adjacent to the REC project.
• Bald Eagle -The closest nest is located in Aspen Glen where nesting has been
successful. These birds use the REC site for roosting and hunting.
• Lewis's Woodpecker -This migratory bird arrives in May and departs in early to
mid-September utilizing the habitat adjacent to the project area. This bird is
considered a 'sensitive species' by the USFS.
12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, palentological
and historic resource areas.
Staff Comments: No recorded sites of archeological or historic importance were found to
exist in the project area.
C. Section 4-5021El Impact Analysis
1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject
property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners.
Staff Comments: Adequate information has been provided.
25
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
F IGUR E 0 3
Pro}t>d Site
Q I'Nfl l4~ (0\Y.~Q ''(\J"'t'r)'
Q o--"!1
s -~. ~:o.r • J?H ,.,~or
~ Jl~!dCl"'UI/S:J!!Uibn
CJ ,...,M ~, O.v.lop'rttC
CIJ ~,,.,
-C!'¥urc:Cloi,,G:.n«a '
(::J COTI'I"'u...a 1/l.W'<.'VI'4
D •~t>cu "d
.. ,.. .. .,.,.__.,.__,.,.....-.. .... ,,~ .. ~--.. ~· ............. 1 ........ ,..,... ......... __ ..,..._,..,."'1 •••
,-_,-..... - _ ....... -&-.... ,. .. ,.__ ~ ..... . .. -.~.-.-......... or.-................ ,._ .... ..,. ... ...
~ ... ,. .... "--····"'·,.,..-..
jo········"
2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties
within 1500' radius.
Staff Comments: Adjacent land use includes :
• North -uses include commercial, semi -industrial and mobile home park
• South -Aspen Glen PUD (residential and recreation) and La Farge Gravel Pit
• East-State Highway, RFTA Rail/Trail, commercial and semi -industrial uses
• West-lronbridge PUD and Teller Springs
3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to
flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover,
climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed
development.
Staff Comments : Site features include Cattle Creek and associated wetlands, steep
slopes and little vegetative cover. Features adjacent to the project area include the
Roaring Fork River and associated wetlands, heron rookery, and the Roaring Fork
Conservancy Easement.
These features have been used to determine a layout for the development of REC which
is clustered to minimize impact. Mitigation measures include avoidance to the e xtent
possible of these sensitive environments and open space placement to provide buffers.
26
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a
significant influence on the proposed use of the land.
Staff Comments: The Applicant states that "this analysis has determined that there are
no adverse impacts associated with soils and surficial deposits provided common
construction and site evaluation techniques are implemented as detailed in the Hazard
Mitigation Plan and that reclamation and erosion control. .. and Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan are provided." Page 66 of impact analysis. This section of the application
goes on to state that potential impacts and mitigation measures are indentified as a
series of standard considerations with respect to construction on soils of this type and
further, that these require engineering assessment and design activities including boring,
testing, and onsite review during development.
HP Geotech noted that shallow foundations place on the upper natural soils should
typically be suitable for structure support. Relatively rigid foundations such as heavily
reinforces slabs could be used to reduce the risk of differential settlement and building
stress, where determined necessary.
The application goes on to state that slab-on-grade construction should be feasible for
bearing on the natural soils or compacted structural fill, but that there could be some
potential for post-construction slab movement at sites with collapsible soils or expansive
clays. Removal of the moisture sensitive soils and replacement with compacted
structural fill could be provided to reduce the risk of movement.
A detailed pavement design is proposed to be provided post-reclamation to determine if
fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed.
Additional geotechnical analysis will be required to determine if previous fill material
placed on the site is suitable for building foundations. This analysis will occur post
reclamation therefore a condition of approval that requires the additional analysis be
provided at final plat should be sufficient.
5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area
including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what
effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land.
Staff Comments: A Hazard Mitigation Plan has been submitted which addresses
potential natural and man-made hazards. Existing and proposed conditions include
analysis of:
• Geologic Hazards -Evaporite Sink Holes, Steep Terrace Escarpments, Active
Stream Bank Erosion, and Debris Flow/Floods.
• Other Hazards -Floodplain, Wildfire
These hazards could cause potential impacts to site grading, infrastructure (including
roads and utilities) as well as foundation design. Proposed mitigation includes
identification of specific areas of concern that may require further review:
27
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
• Three zones of varying degree of impact from sink holes have been assigned to
the project area .
o Zone 1 represents an 80-foot buffer area around existing or observed
sinkholes where the risk of new or reactivating sinkholes is high . This area is
generally avoided however a few ro ads and utilities are planned within this
zone. Potential mitigation measures including grouting or structural bridging;
o Zone 2 is a risk area that indicates the presence of sinkholes but no evidence
of sinkholes have been identified. Additional geotechnical analysis should be
completed prior to final plat so that design of buildings and facilities provide
appropriate mitigation;
o Zone 3 is the remainder of the property which has a low potential for new
sinkhole development however HP recommends that assessment and
investigation be completed during grad ing and building site development.
• Steep Terrace Escarpments, Active Stream Bank Erosion, Debris Flows and
Floods and Earthquakes are avoided or mitigated thus resulting in no adverse
impacts .
b ..wU;n;
CJ ~~-~..rt~ (E) =:!!!'!Jntq ... ._.
V o&.l tC,._ Jot.rt..att.. ••~_, ..... ,,
""'•IIIIJ•#tlt-"""• _,.,_W I1~4fl•bt
tO)"'.,II'IWfl~1hrd
[!II ~ .............. .,_ .... _...._,",.,'"'""
::~~~d:.~: [TtJ ~~~u,.,._
••tJdH~etoHf• ftlllabooorftltr h UM•
rto~t,I """' ...... .w~-.~~•
.~ • ., t»~ll ltd i XIJi ~
t"'..#'t&lo,..h)t"'lf.h •• ....
"'"" [t.lll• Cdv•b
S:1 \111:41 lt.uw-1.1U"• • ~~1
~ . ....
'---'---'
k • •~·•:o 11 t.-.wa.-. 11 ttl , • .,., ... ,,ao
6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect
of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet
existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the
adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104 .
Staff Comments: This development is subject to Section 7-105 due to the water demand
in an amount greater than eight (8) single family equivalents (where an SFE is
determined to be 350 gallon of water per day). Additional information has been
submitted as of August 30, 2011 indicating that two water court rulings have been
28
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
completed thus allowing a determination of adequate legal water supply for the potable
water system to meet the demand of 350 gallons per day for the proposed 366 units in
the development.
The original application discusses the 'potential' physical supply as being provided by
the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWDS) or by a private water system
within the REG development. However, the Applicant has indicated that a pre-inclusion
agreement is currently being drafted so that RFWSD would serve this development.
Submittal of evidence of an executed pre-inclusion agreement is recommended as a
condition of approval.
Irrigation water is planned to be provided via a raw water system utilizing water rights
from the Glenwood and Staton Ditches.
7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship
of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their
ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of
sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and
groundwater.
Staff Comments: HP Geotech has provided analysis of the groundwater which is
generally deep in the Eagle Valley Evaporite deposits and that 'free water was not
encountered in the relatively shallow borings of depths between 39 and 77 feet. Shallow
groundwater may be likely in the river terraces outside of the REG development.
Surface run-off will be collected and concentrate to surface drainage systems where the
flow will be discharged through lined surface ditches and pipes to lined water quality
detention facilities. This system is designed to ensure that water is treated prior to
delivery to receiving steams. Chris Hale, reviewing engineer, has stated that this is
sufficient and that standard on-site detention to limit flow is not necessary (EXHIBIT U)
due to the location of the site.
B. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on
the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions,
including:
a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna.
b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural,
palentological, historic resources.
c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including
critical wildlife habitat.
(1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous
attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration
routes, use patterns or other disruptions.
d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by
the State or County Health Departments.
e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable.
29
Staff Comments:
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
a. Effect on flora and fauna -Rocky Mountain Ecological Services prepared a
Wildlife and Vegetation Report which analyzed the potential impacts of the
development proposal on plants and animals. The Colorado Division of Wildlife
has responded to the referral (EXHIBIT R) that there should not be significant
impact if recommendations are followed. CDOW recommendations include
fencing, adequate setbacks from sensitive areas and protection of the heron
rookery.
b. No significant archaeological or historic resources have been identified that
would be adversely effected.
c. Effect on environmental resources, including wildlife and domestic animal control
-the development plan has included protective measures related to wildlife
including timing restrictions for construction activity and inclusion of domestic
animal controls in the CCR's.
d. Radiation hazard -There is low potential for radiation hazard at this site.
e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan is an Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) requirement that is applicable to facilities that meet
criteria such as having above ground storage capacity of greater than 1,320
gallons, and that a project will discharge into or upon navigable waters of the
United States. It is assumed that a SPCC plan will be required related to
infrastructure construction and gravel crushing/processing.
9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in
compliance with Section 4-502(J).
Staff Comments: A Traffic Assessment has been provided by Fehr & Peers,
Transportation Consultants which considers existing conditions on State Highway 82, a
limited access Expressway. SH 82 is a four lane, divided highway with speeds generally
from 55 to 65 mph. The nearest controlled intersection is located one (1) mile north at
CR 114 (CMC Road). The assessment discusses future conditions on the highway and
discusses a warrant for a signalized intersection in 2018. It is staff's understanding from
the Applicant that a signal, acceleration/deceleration lanes and pedestrian crossing are
proposed to occur at the outset of the development so that these improvements are in
place for Phase 0, reclamation of the site. Dan Roussin, CDOT, has stated that this
development will need a State Highway Access Permit, as well as to coordinate with the
County for necessary improvements at the CR 113 I CR 110 and SH 82. A condition of
approval is recommended which requires issuance of a Notice to Proceed and State
Highway Access Permit prior to activity commencing on the site or with submittal of the
first final plat application.
10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise,
glare or vibration, or other emanations.
Staff Comments: Nuisance impacts will likely occur during the reclamation and
construction phases of the development. This activity will generate dust, smoke, noise,
glare, and potentially vibrations, particularly during reclamation and construction, as well
as related to mineral 'material processing' activities. The proposed PUD Guide contains
Article IV, Development Standards, which includes Section C. Specific Use, Facility and
Activity Standards. This includes noise standards based upon statutory requirements
and section standards related to utility facilities. This latter section includes
30
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
requirements for noise levels, vibration, smoke, odor and air quality. These standards
should be applicable to the whole development, particularly during construction
activities. Staff recommends that standards for dust suppression, smoke, odor and
vibration be incorporated into the PUD Guide and applicable to all construction-related
activities in the development.
11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-
212.
Staff Comments: The Applicant has two sets of requirements related to reclamation
activities, pre-development reclamation and post-development reclamation.
Pre-Development Reclamation -The current site condition exists due to past grading
activity on the site related to prior development plans that included construction of a golf
course. The pre-development reclamation activity is specific to repairing the damage
that past grading created, including restorative and pre-development actions:
• Relocation and grade separation of the Rio Grande Trail;
• Relocation of the Glenwood Ditch;
• Re-grading of the site for proper drainage, resolve existing and potential
geotechnical hazards, prepare developable areas, restore grade-breaks, replace
topsoil, repair and stabilize eroding steep terrace escarpments and repairing
active stream bank erosion;
• Construction of drainage facilities and water quality detention ponds;
• Revegetation of open space area.
Post-Development Reclamation -This requirement is included in the PUD Guide
development standards and is consistent with the standards in Section 7-212.
D. Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE
PERMITS
1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions
Staff Comments: PUD zoning allows for variation from standard zone districts however
the proposed uses must be consistent with uses in the underlying zone district or
compatible/conforming to Comprehensive Plan goals. The underlying Suburban zoning
permits uses-by-right which include single family residential, parks and open space.
Other proposed uses permitted in the Suburban zone include two-family dwellings by
Limited Impact review and eating or drinking establishment by Major Impact review.
Uses that are being requested in REC that are not permitted in the Suburban zone
include agricultural uses and materials processing (crushing and concrete batch plant).
The Planning Commission should consider these uses and determine if they are both
appropriate and supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental
Agreements
Staff Comments: The proposed REC development has mixed compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission review shall include determination of
appropriate density related to the High Density Residential designation on the Future
31
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
Land Use Map. That designation includes a range of less than 2 acres per dwelling unit,
to up to 3 units per acre based upon provision of urban level services. The requested
density of 366 units falls within the recommended range.
3. Section 7-103 Compatibility
Staff Comment: This standard requires that the nature, scale and intensity of the
proposed use be compatible with adjacent land uses and that the use will not result in
adverse impact to adjacent land. Adjacent land uses includes high-density mobile home
parks, commercial and semi-industrial uses, a gravel pit, and residential communities.
The combination of uses proposed in REC may be more intense than adjacent uses
which appear as more single use type project.
4. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water
Staff Comments: This section does not apply to this proposal as water demand exceeds
eight (8) single family equivalents (SFE's). See Section 7-105.
5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply
Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided a sufficient legal and physical source of
water to serve the proposed development of 366 SFE's. See EXHIBIT HH which is an
addendum of information which includes recent water court action. Staff has spoken with
the Division of Water Resources who will issue a revised referral response regarding the
sufficiency of the water supply. That letter should be received prior to the Planning
Commission hearing.
6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems
Staff Comments: A pre-inclusion agreement with the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District to provide water/wastewater services is imminent. Water and wastewater
services from the District should be considered a condition of approval which staff has
adequately documented.
7. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities
Staff Comments: It appears that adequate public utilities are available to serve the
proposed development.
8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways
Staff Comments: The subject site does not abut a public right-of-way however existing
agreements are in place for the existing driveway to the site. The Applicant also has
agreements with RFTA regarding crossing of the Rio Grande Trail. However the
development proposal does not currently have legal or physical access to a public right-
of-way. Various permits will be required, and a recommended as conditions of approval.
These permits include a State Highway Access Permit as well PUC approval for
crossing of the rail right-of-way. This license with the PUC may lead to amendment or
execution of new or additional agreements with RFTA.
Internal roadway standards are requested to be modified, see issue discussion section
32
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
for detailed information, thus requiring waiver from the Board of County Commissioners.
The reviewing engineer has stated that the requested waivers may be appropriate
(EXHIBIT U).
9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards
Staff Comments: Natural hazards exist on the site which includes steep slopes, slope
stability issues, soils, sinkholes and other geotechnical issues. The proposed
development generally avoids the hazard areas and/or provides adequate mitigation
measures.
E. Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE
CHANGE PERMITS
1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands
Staff Comment: Not applicable as agricultural activities have not occurred on this site for
several years if not more than a decade. The past rezoning of the site to PUD and
Suburban zone districts has rendered agricultural uses not permitted.
The Glenwood Ditch traverses this property and there is an agreement exists regarding
location and piping of the ditch. On-site irrigation is proposed to use raw-water with
rights from both the Glenwood Ditch and the Staton Ditch.
2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas
Staff Comment: Wildlife habitat areas include a heron rookery and use of the site by both
mule deer and elk. Incorporation of the recommendations from the Division of Wildlife
and project wildlife biologist would be adequate to protect habitat areas.
3. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies
Staff Comment: Section 7-203 determines that an 'Inner Buffer Zone' requires provision
of a thirty-five (35) foot setback from the high water mark on each side of a waterbody.
Removal of live vegetation or placement of any material within this zone is prohibited
except for irrigation and water diversion facilities, culverts, bridges and other reasonable
and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within this setback may be
permitted.
The Applicant has requested waiver from this section due to impacts that will occur
within the setback of Cattle Creek, including construction of a bridge and utilities. The
Applicant should provide additional information regarding the specific areas in which
activity will occur within the 35' buffer zone.
4. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants
Staff Comment: Activities that will require storage of material, equipment or fluids should
be located to protect waterbodies however specific information has not been provided in
the submittal documentation. This standard includes requirement for spill prevention,
33
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
maintenance of equipment and machines, location of fuel storage areas and collection
and temporary storage areas. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures plan
may be required and the stormwater management plan should address this issue.
5. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation
Staff Comments: This section applies to land disturbances of greater than one-half (%)
acre. The Applicant has submitted an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that
addresses stabilization of slope stability and stream bank erosion. Vegetative cover on
the site will provide additional erosion and sedimentation protections. The steep slope
areas are avoided by the development.
6. Section 7-206 Drainage
Staff Comments: Part of this standard states that "subdrains shall be required for all
foundations where possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight
to proper drainage channels." Reviewing engineer Chris Hales states (EXHIBIT U) in #5
that "The recommendation of the geotechnical engineer is that foundation sub-drains be
provided. These drains need to have a suitable outlet for drainage" and further
recommends that since the site is flat an onsite drywell for infiltration could be
considered or provision of a project-wide method for suitable gravity outlet for foundation
drains.
Karen Berry, Colorado Geologic Survey responded (EXHIBIT P) that all
recommendations outlined in the geotechnical report should be followed, this would
include construction of an underdrain system that will impact the performance of
building, roads, and utilities in the development.
7. Section 7-207 Stormwater Run-Off
Staff Comments: This section applies to new development within 100 feet of a
waterbody and to development creating 10,000 square feet or more of impervious
surface. The REG development meets these criteria and therefore has proposed plans
to create water quality detention areas prior to discharge of stormwater to the Roaring
Fork River. There is no plan for standard on-site detention of stormwater except for
storage areas that would be required for assuring water quality prior to discharge.
This code section also includes requirements for on-site detention designed to detain
flow to historic peak discharge rater and provide water quality benefits. REG plans to
provide for water quality filtering and the Applicant has requested a waiver from the
requirement to detain flows above historic peak discharge rates. Chris Hale (EXHIBIT
U) has responded "there are no drainage structures with possible capacity restrictions
downstream, this office has no concerns regarding peak-flow detention provided that
water-quality detention is still provided."
8. Section 7-208 Air Quality
Staff Comments: Air quality shall not be impacted by the land use such that it is reduced
below acceptable levels established by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. No
response was received from CDPHE but staff has concerns related to dust issues,
34
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
particularly during construction and reclamation. Other air quality impacts may result
from the crushing of aggregate and batch plant operations that are proposed as
temporary construction-related activities.
9. Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards
Staff Comments: This site is located in a low wildfire zone.
10. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards
Staff Comments: Hazards do exist on the site however it appears that the development
plan avoids many of the hazard areas and provides mitigation measures where
avoidance is not possible. Staff has incorporated these measures as recommended
conditions of approval.
11. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance
Staff Comments: No areas exist on the site within these categories.
12. Section 7-212 Reclamation
Staff Comments: The REG development proposal contains a substantial pre-
development reclamation plan to repair and restore slope and stream bank issues as
well as grading and topsoil issues related to prior grading of the site. This reclamation
will also allow for additional geologic investigation as well as to prepare the site for
eventual development.
F. SECTION 7-300 SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. Section 7-301 Compatible Design
Staff Comments: Compatible design encompasses issues regarding site organization as
well as operational characteristics, lighting, buffering, materials, and building scale.
Certainly the density, site organization and buffering can be evaluated for compatibility
with adjacent subdivisions such as lronbridge and Aspen Glen. The clustering of the
dwellings into several pods leaves tracts of open space to buffer the site both physically
and visually. Much of the development occurs on an interim bench west of the Rio
Grande Trail with proposed landscaping providing additional buffers from adjacent
developments.
Operational characteristics include locating activities such that emissions, noise, hours
of operations, etc. do not impact adjacent properties. These nuisance impacts will
require specific plans related to fugitive dust, noise, limitation of construction (days and
time), etc. Though the PUD contains some discussion regarding these standards to
mitigate these impacts they seem to be limited to utility tracts. The Applicant has
discussed noise issues however Staff is concerned that there are not specific plans to
mitigate other nuisance issues such as dust and other air quality issues. A condition of
approval should be considered which would address mitigation measures regarding
these nuisance issues.
2. Section 7-302 Building Design
35
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
3. Section 7-303 Design and Scale of Development
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
Staff Comments: Components of this standard include minimizing site disturbance and
efficiency in providing services and access to facilities.
4. Section 7-304 Off-street parking and Loading Standards
Staff Comments: The PUD Guide provides sufficient off-street parking as well as on-
street parking within the development.
5. Section 7-305 Landscaping and Lighting Standards
Staff Comments: Adequate landscape and lighting standards are provided, in the PUD
Guide as well as in the CCR's.
6. Section 7-306 Snow Storage Standards
Staff Comments: Landscape areas may be utilized as snow storage areas pursuant to
the PUD Guide. The use of these areas for snow storage requires that drainage and
potential pollutants which must be adequately managed.
7. Section 7-307 Roadway Standards
Staff Comments: The Applicant is requesting both modification and waiver of roadway
standards contained within this section. Chris Hale's comments (EXHIBIT U) identifies
several concerns particularly that alleys need to be designed to a specific vehicle such
as an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck; that proposed curb and gutter
sections should be verify that inlet spacing is congruent with the spread of water on
proposed narrow travel lanes. Additional comment includes that a single public use
entry for the project is a concern even with the provision of two Emergency Vehicle
Access points.
B. Section 7-308 Trail and Walkway Standards
Staff Comments: The standards utilized in the development plan appear to be adequate.
9. Section 7-309 Utility Standards
Staff Comments: The REG development is proposing to install underground utilities that
will be further reviewed at final plat for sufficiency of design and provision of adequate
utilities.
G. SECTION 7-400 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
1. Section 7-401General Subdivision Standards
Staff Comments: These standards include preservation of natural features, extensions
for future development, maintenance of common facilities, domestic animal control and
36
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
fireplace restrictions. The proposal appears to meet these standards including the
potential for future extension/connection to the north and the potential for additional
connection to SH 82.
2. Section 7-402 Subdivision Lots
Staff Comments: All lots within the subdivision appear to be configured in a proper
manner with adequate lot sizes and access. Further, the lots may be developable
however site specific geotechnical analysis may result in some movement of the
particular sites or specific building requirements to minimize impact.
3. Section 7-403 Fire Protection
Staff Comments: The site is located within the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection
District and a fire station is located on the north end of the H Lazy F Mobile Home site
west of the intersection of CR 154/ SH 82 and CR 114.
Bill Gavette has responded to the referral request (EXHIBITS S and HH) with HH being
specific to Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) to the site. These EVA's would allow for
two additional access points to the development which have been found to be
acceptable in both location and width.
Additional response related to fire lanes, water source, fire hydrants and maintenance is
that these components are adequate. The District also discusses the requirement of
impact fee payment in the amount of $730/unit resulting in a fee of $267,180.00 which
will be due at final plat.
4. Section 7-404 Survey Monuments
Staff Comments: This requirement will be met.
5. Section 7-405 Standards for Public Sites and Open Space
Staff Comments: The Applicant has proposed payment of fee in-lieu of school land
dedication, however historic and recent discussion with the RE-1 School District is that
they would prefer a school site on this location but "the District's only option at this point
is to accept fees in-lieu of land dedication ... "
The formula for calculation of school dedication is based upon generation of students
per dwelling unit. 366 dwelling units are assumed to generate .49 students per single
family unit and .38 students per multi-family unit. REG proposes 232 single-family and
134 multi-family resulting in the generation of 165 students. This would therefore require
dedication of 7.3 acres of land. The minimum school site size is 15 acres. The adjacent
undeveloped property is anticipated to be developed at some point and may in fact be
incorporated into this PUD (see declarations which allows for the addition of the land into
the development). The piecemeal approach to the overall development of the 280-acre
site may preclude the provision of a school site at this location.
The Applicant has stated that the 'private' nature of the RFT A!RR crossing would
preclude access for use of a school. This question of public versus private crossing has
37
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
been determined by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) as a 'public'
crossing which will require PUC licensing. This may affect the school district comments
regarding provision of a school site at this location.
6. Section 7-406 Standards for Traffic Impact Fees
Staff Comments: The site is not located within a Traffic Impact Fee zone.
VII. POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Waiver Requests -The following waivers from the provision of minimum standards are
requested pursuant to the preamble of Article VII which grants this ability upon
demonstration that the standards are either inappropriate or cannot be practically
implemented.
A. §7-108 Access and Roadways states that all roads shall be designed to the
standards in §7-307.
Staff Comment: The Applicant is requesting waiver/modification of §7-307, Road
Standards, due to use of alleys and reducing some standards due to project specific
issues. It appears that the requested waivers are appropriate.
B. §7-203 A. Restrictive Inner Buffer -this code section requires provision of a 35'
setback 'measured horizontally from the typical and ordinary high water on each side
of the water body'. Certain structures and activities are permitted while others are
specifically prohibited from occurring within this buffer. The Applicant is requesting
waiver to allow the following:
• Reclamation of the Cattle Creek stream corridor planned in Phase 0;
• Construction of a bridge over Cattle Creek -the Bridge Plan indicates that
the structure would be located within the setback;
• Utility crossings and water diversion facilities -these would affect both the
Roaring Fork River and the Cattle Creek corridors.
Staff Comment: Staff considers the granting of this waiver as appropriate however
requests that the Applicant provide a site plan indicating the encroachments that will
occur on the site. Adequate protective measures have been proposed and
reclamation of the corridor is necessary. A Nationwide Permit, Section 404, will be
likely be required from the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as a County Floodplain
Development Permit.
C. §7-206 B.2. states that sub-drains shall be required for all foundations where
possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight to proper
drainage channels. The Applicant has stated that given the soils conditions that it
likely that basements will not be utilized. They request that the requirement for
subdrains be determined by the design engineer rather than placed as a requirement
on the whole development, but have agreed to provide sub-drains if basements are
constructed.
Staff Comments: The Applicant's geotechnical engineer states that sub-drains be
provided on this site and the Colorado Geologic Survey concurs with this
recommendation. Chris Hale reviewed this waiver request and comments that
suitable outlet for drainage is necessary, and that "since the site is very flat, the likely
38
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
option at that time would be to drain these foundation drains to an onsite drywell for
infiltration. Infiltrating water on top of the site soils, most notably the Evaporite,
would increase the likelihood for potential damage due to settling."
The Applicant proposed to provide specific soils and geotechnical analysis at final
plat when site constraints will be have been further reviewed. There is substantial
concern regarding the protection of foundations given the possibility of sinkholes and
other geotechnical and soils issues. Staff does not support the wholesale waiver of
this standard but perhaps the additional analysis at final plat may provide additional
information for further review at that time. A condition of approval is recommended
regarding provision of an underdrain system, therefore waiver of this standard is not
appropriate.
D. §7 -207 Stormwater Drainage Standards -The Applicant proposes to comply with
Urban Drain and Flood Control District, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual which
are more detailed and appropriate to suburban development.
Staff Comments: This request is appropriate.
E. §7-207 C.1. Requirement for detention facilities-The Applicant requests that water
quality capture volume, not total stormwater volume, be detained prior to discharge
from the project.
Staff Comments: Chris Hale has responded (EXHIBIT U) that "since there are no
drainage structures with possible capacity restrictions downstream, this office has no
concerns regarding peak-flow detention provided that water-quality detention is still
provided." Based on these comments it appears that this waiver request is
appropriate.
F. §7 -305 A.1. Landscaping must be located outside of adjacent right-of-way
Staff Comments: The Director of Building and Planning may approve landscape
strips and landscape areas adjacent to internal right-of-way. This granting of this
waiver is appropriate.
G. §7-305 A.7. Standards for deciduous tree caliper are listed at 2" minimum measured
4" above the ground. The requested standard of 1 Y:!' caliper is to enhance survival.
Staff Comments: Staff consulted with a landscape architect who agreed that survival
of trees at 1 Y:!' caliper is greater and therefore this request for waiver is appropriate.
H. §7-307-Road Standards.
The Applicant seeks to modify the following standards "to achieve the desired
suburban form and clustered development pattern":
a. Add three roadway types not addressed by the ULUR including alleys, garden
home access and emergency vehicle access.
b. Major Collector -The entry road, from SH 82 to the internal round-about, is
requested to be modified to lower the design speed, required minimum 6'
shoulders and ditch will not be provided as vertical curbing and 0-4' shoulders
should be adequate to control water and access.
39
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
c. Minor Collector-Defined as 'Local Road' in REG this road is a neo-traditional
design for reads providing direct access to homes. The proposed section is 36'
wide with two 1 0' lanes and two 8' parking lanes/shoulders. The design speed is
lower than County standards.
Staff Comments: The Applicant states that these road standards are consistent with
urban community requirements based upon a 'suburban' form. The proposed
roadway standards comply with AASHTO (American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials) standards. Engineering review resulted in response
from Chris Hale that the alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of
either an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck and that additional
information and verification regarding inlet spacing on narrower street widths. Staff
has included this requirement as a recommended condition of approval and therefore
waiver of this standard is appropriate.
I. §7 -405 C.1.a. Standards for Public Sites and Open Space -Amount of Land
Dedicated -Road Dedications. This section requires that "unless specifically
approved as private rights-of-way and so dedicated 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." The Applicant has stated that they were unable to apply for a "public
crossing' from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and therefore the
roads were required to be private.
Staff Comment: Private roads are not uncommon in Garfield County; however they
may come in several different forms. Typically a developer would design and
construct necessary roadways within a development and then transfer the ownership
and maintenance responsibilities to an Owner's Association or Special District. The
roads would be for the use and benefit of the public while remaining in private
ownership. Examples of private roads for the use of the public include lronbridge,
Spring ridge Reserve and most other subdivisions approved in the past decade in the
County. Few subdivisions have truly private roads which include private ownership
as well as private, restricted use; these roads require gating and further restrictions
related to security and access questions related to guests, utility providers or other
easement beneficiaries and emergency services. Examples of 'private use and
ownership' roads include Aspen Glen and Elk Springs.
REG is proposing to provide truly private roads, along with gating of the entry at SH
82, however the access design has not been provided to demonstrate adequate
stacking distance and coordination with the light on SH 82.
The Applicant has stated that the request for "private roads" and gating of the
community is due to the fact that the roads must remain private due to the inability of
the developer to obtain PUC approval for a "public" crossing. This issue continues
to evolve as the PUC has stated to Staff that access to serve a 366 unit subdivision
would be considered 'public' therefore requiring a license for the crossing from the
PUC. Certainly the Applicant can request private roads owned and maintained by
the Owner's Association but it would appear that the volume and type of traffic would
require a "public crossing" from the PUC.
40
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
Staff supports this waiver to the extent that the roads will be for the use of the public
but will be owned and maintained by the POA. Staff does not support the gating of
this community without the necessary engineering to determine how this security
feature will function and coordinate with the traffic signals on SH 82.
2. 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Analysis of the various components of the Comprehensive Plan results in a
determination of mixed compliance.
3. PHASING
The Applicant has provided phasing information consisting of several tables included on
Sheet 2 of the Final PUD Plan and construction phasing in the engineer plans. These
PUD Plan tables include the following components:
Table 2A-Lot and Tract Zoning Categories and Zoning District by Zoning Category
Table 28-Lot and Tract Zoning District by Filing
Table 3-Dedications by Filing
Table 4-Landscape Areas and Standards
Table 5-Lots by Filing, Affordable Housing, and Construction Schedule
TABLE 5 ·LOTS BY FILING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
LO • Y Fill G
AfFORDABLE SCHEDULE OF
FILING ESTATE' TOWN VIllAGE ATTACHED GARDEN HOMES AFFORDABLE (%1 PLATTING'
~-,--· 0 )9 0 20 0 0 00% "'" >0 0 0 0 I} I} 1fl1".i! :i'OU
' 0 ; 12 19 0 0 120-l,/, 2016
2A 0 0 0 0 " "' )) 1"% :i'Oit;i
>A 0 0 ,, 0 ~\";. 201&
3 11 0 0 0 21 2~.1. 202 I
' 0 .. 0 0 0 16 ?% 2-,)i)
4A 0 0 " 0 15~% "'" ' 2l ' 0 0 141% "'" ,. 0 0 0 " " 1!1-0% "'" 6 II " 0 0 0 '"'" "'" ·--""''""'" ""'""~• .. '""" ·---··---·-· -·----· . ·-------· --------~--------------------.. -------------
167 5I) 19 " " ISO% LOU-?0)1
'lNCLUD€:5 EXECUTIVE LOT
Table 5 appears to most closely resemble a phasing plan as each filing is listed along
with the number and type of lots and schedule of when that the plat is planned. The
inclusion of a foot note attached to the schedule of phasing is significant given that it
states that "Approximate proposed platting sequence and schedule subject to change
based on market conditions". The inclusion of this note may render the phasing plan
timing useless although it could still be utilized for sequence of the development.
The Phasing Plan should be included in the PUD Guide so that it may be found in one
location of the documentation.
41
TABLE 28 ·LOT AND TRACT ZONING DISTRICT BY FILING
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
Table 28 lists the lots and
tracts that will be included
in each filing, for example
filing 1 appears to include
lots 1-20 in the Attached
Home zone district and 39
lots in the Town zone
district. Tracts in Filing 1
include right-of-way,
common area, etc. This is
consistent with the
information provided in
Table 5, just provided in a
different format.
Other tables track the
amount of open space and
common area dedication by
filing.
While Staff finds the
information in these tables
to be useful, the manner in
which the information is
provided is cumbersome and confusing.
render the phasing useless.
The footnotes contained in these tables may
It may be more useful to have a single document that describes the sequence of platting,
improvements associated with each plat and potential timing of platting and construction.
4. MUNICIPAL COMMENTS
A. City of Glenwood Springs -Andrew McGregor, Director of Community Development
responded to the request that the GWS City Council considered the project after
receiving a presentation from REC representatives. Council had the following
comments:
i. The City is concerned about the creation of an unincorporated community without
commensurate public services and infrastructure. This magnitude of development
could be termed "sprawl.
ii. Concern regarding the magnitude of the development based upon division of the
original site and possibility of development of adjacent parcels.
iii. The rezoning does not appear to be justified nor is there a "demonstrated
community need". Comments also include the current inventory of vacant lots
versus the absorption rate of 58 units per year.
iv. The subdivision will not promote rural character but will function as infill between
Glenwood and Carbondale.
v. Increased burden on County services and school personnel and facilities.
vi. Impact to elk herd and migratory patterns.
vii. Highway 82 impacts including when signalization will occur.
viii. Access to site and impact to RFTA ROW and SH 82 ROW.
B. Town of Carbondale Planning Commission comments:
42
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
i. Suggested an IGA be considered as a mechanism to review future development.
ii. Comments on Unincorporated Communities.
iii. Questioned community need of the development as price point is consistent with
existing approved developments.
iv. Absorption rate of homes sold between Aspen and Parachute is currently 50 units
per month and questions whether REC absorption rate is realistic.
v. Inclusion of adjacent property and potential additional development is a concern
as cumulative impacts should be considered.
vi. Specific project comments include additional buffering should be considered along
the river, the site plan does not reflect unit clustering, community gardens does
not meet the intent of retaining agricultural heritage, public access and open
space, connection to RFWSD facilities should be reviewed, provide details on the
signalized intersection at SH 82, coordination with RFTA, wildlife impacts.
C. Town of Carbondale Board of Trustees comments:
i. Gap in the Three Mile Area of Influence between Town and City, recommendation
of an IGA as a tool for cooperation and understanding.
ii. Question community need for the development.
iii. Creation of jobs would be temporary.
iv. Questions the beneficial effects on SH 82 traffic.
v. The entire site development should be reviewed not just a portion of the whole.
vi. Impacts to wildlife and lack of clustering.
5. WATER/WASTEWATER
The original application request was to allow for the prov1s1on of private water and
wastewater services or to obtain service from the RFWSD. This issue appears to have
been resolved as Staff has been notified that a pre-inclusion agreement in the final
stages of drafting between the Applicant and the District. The provision of District water
and wastewater services is supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
Preliminary Plan review is typically the process in which substantial engineering review
occurs, however the connection of the water and wastewater service to the west side of
the Roaring Fork River has not been discussed nor have sufficient preliminary plan level
construction drawings been provided on where this connection would occur and how that
connection will cross the river.
District improvements that may be necessitated by the development include the potential
for water treatment plant, wastewater treatment plant, connection of the development via
SH 82 and Aspen Glen, water storage tank on the east side of SH 82. The District is a
quasi-governmental entity and therefore would have to provide information to the
Planning Commission via a Location and Extent application.
6. ACCESS
A. COOT State Highway Access Permit -the Applicant shall be required to obtain this
permit and a Notice to Proceed prior to any activity occurring on the site.
Phase 0 is the reclamation phase and this phase may commence upon application
and issuance of a grading permit. The traffic associated with this activity could result
in safety issues with accessing the state highway. The timing of installation of
signalization and other improvements is unknown.
43
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
B. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority -comments from this agency include
confirmation that an existing Easement Grant provides for a crossing in the general
vicinity of the existing access point. The trip generation of the development will
result in 3,567 daily vehicle trips which may result in safety conflicts at the crossing.
The Applicant proposes to grade separate the Rio Grande Trail at the proposed entry
into the site however RFTA is concerned that the rail banking of this corridor could
result in future use of rail which would require substantial upgrades, and potential
grade separation of the entry. RFTA would like to enter into an agreement with the
Applicant that would assure costs of potential future improvements would not be the
responsibility of RFT A.
C. Private Roads/Gated Access -The Applicant proposes that the development contain
private roads, a common proposal for subdivisions within Garfield County. Typically
a development dedicates use of the roads within the subdivision for public use even
though the ownership and maintenance responsibilities are the responsibility of the
Homeowners Association, or in some cases a special district. The current proposal
states that the roads will be owned and maintained by the Property Owner's
Association (POA) however the roads will not be dedicated for "public" use.
Additionally there has been discussion of gating the entry to the site however no
details or plans have been provided regarding access to the site and how gating of
the entry will impact SH 82.
D. Colorado Public Utilities Commission -The Applicant has stated that the PUC would
consider this crossing of the rail corridor as a "private" crossing and therefore PUC
licensing would not be required. Staff conversations with Pam Fishhaber of the PUC
resulted in a PUC opinion that a crossing to serve 366 dwelling units would not be
considered 'private'. The PUC licensing process is recommended as a condition of
approval as the PUC requires a demonstration of need for the crossing -the
Applicant must obtain zoning entitlements prior to requesting the PUC license.
E. Garfield County Public Works -numerous comments have been received regarding
the potential impact of intersection improvements to the east side of SH82 and CR
113/CR 110. The County had undertaken an intersection study which identified this
site as a priority for improvement. The design and construction of the intersection,
including entry into REC and CR 113/CR 110 SH 82 intersection, should be a
coordinated effort. An ongoing discussion regarding these improvements is planned.
F. Internal road system -As stated earlier the Applicant has requested waiver from
Garfield County minimum road standards. The reviewing engineer concurred that
the proposed road standards for the development were sufficient. Other questions
that have arisen include the significant excess capacity associated with the
roundabout and what additional traffic or uses this road may serve. A single entry
subdivision, regardless of the Emergency Vehicle Access points, is a concern that
should be carefully considered. The Applicant has stated that potential future
connections exist through adjacent properties but provides no details or assurances
that these connections will occur in the future.
7. GEOLOGY I HAZARDS
A. Sinkholes I Soils I Steep Slopes-The development proposes to avoid these areas to
the extent possible, or provide mitigation measures as detailed in the plan.
Adequate mitigation measures appear to be in place with the exception of the
44
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
Applicant proposal to locate roads and utilities over a known sinkhole area at the
south end of the development.
B. The proposed reclamation activities included as Phase 0 may provide additional
information regarding geotechnical and soils issues than is currently known.
Additional studies should be submitted and reviewed as part of final plat application,
a condition of approval is recommended regarding this issue.
8. ZONING
A. PUD Administration -Exhibit HH contains a revised PUD Guide based upon staff
comments on the original document. Though the amendment attempted to simplify
the regulatory language it remains a complex and confusing regulatory document
that will be difficult to administer. Staff is concerned with the use of footnotes (let
alone the number of footnotes) on uses, dimensions, etc. which creates a confusing
and cumbersome document.
B. The Applicant proposes a suburban development plan utilizing urban road and
drainage standards yet seeks to retain the rural and agricultural character of Garfield
County. This property is currently zoned Suburban, a zone district that does not
permit agricultural uses but allows for lower density 'in order to maintain a rural
character'.
Compliance with underlying uses in the Suburban zone district is a requirement of
PUD zoning, except for the caveat that uses supported by the comprehensive plan
may be considered as well. Accessory gardens, fruit trees and similar types of
activities are appropriate in conjunction with residential uses or as an accessory use
to residences. However agricultural use is not permitted within the Suburban zone
which is primarily residential in character. The Planning Commission consideration
discussed this issue and thought that gardens and orchards, as well as the
development related agricultural uses were appropriate. Staff is concerned about
the Applicant's ability to export excess agricultural products and the potential impact
to SH 82.
C. Temporary construction-related uses are proposed which include 'material
processing'. This would allow REG to gather the on-site resources (sand and gravel)
unearthed during reclamation for use in the construction of the infrastructure of the
development. The use of on-site minerals is supported by the Planning Commission,
however all potential impacts related to this activity must be adequately mitigated.
Fugitive dust and other air quality issues are a concern that must be adequately
addressed. Questions remain regarding the Applicant's ability to export materials
off-site.
9. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) related
to affordable housing requirements within the REG plan. Geneva Powell, Garfield
County Housing Authority (GCHA) Executive Director, commented on requirements:
A. The Applicant requires pre-sales of the units prior to construction and there is no
precedent for this in the County's guidelines. This raises questions regarding
obligation to provide the unit if there were no qualified buyer. GCHA recommends
flexibility that would benefit potential purchasers of these units.
45
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
B. Three categories of pricing is included in the AHPA which proposes to allow buyers
earning up to 150% AMI instead of the maximum of 120% AMI in the County's
guidelines. This will open up the buyer pool to a larger population 'while maintaining
the integrity of the program by allowing families earning 80% to 150% AMI to
purchase homes priced at 70% to 110% AMI.'
C. The Applicant proposes the option of renting the affordable units if they are not sold
within 120 days. This is not addressed in the County's guidelines.
D. Additional questions include potential amendment of the AHPA with each phase
given the timeframe for the development, timing of construction of units, ability to
gain equity through potential improvements.
This issue has become more complicated as the proposed text amendment, to reduce
the provision of affordable units from 15% to 10%, proceeds through the review process.
The effect of this text amendment on REC would allow for a reduction of eighteen (18)
affordable units from the fifty-(55) five currently proposed. This would result in the
provision of thirty-seven (37) affordable housing units -the caveat is that the text
amendment would not apply to this development since they had submitted under the
current code which required 15% affordable units. The Applicant has stated that they
want to proceed to Board decision and they would then submit for a PUD Amendment to
reduce the number of affordable units in the development.
10. FISCAL IMPACT
The Applicant has provided a Fiscal Impact Analysis and Supplemental Update
(Attachment E in EXHBIT HH) prepared by Andy Knudtsen of Economic and Planning
Systems, Inc. This analysis was prepared to estimate public costs and revenues that
would result from the development. Population estimates and forecasts were utilized to
determine an absorption rate of 58 units per year, a rate of approximately 5% of County
growth.
The conclusion of the analysis was that the development of River Edge Colorado would
result in a fiscal benefit to the County in the amount of -$26,000 annually. This figure
was determined based upon annual ongoing expenditures, including long-term capital
improvements, in an annual amount to be incurred by the County at $464,000 in 2021.
The report goes on to analyze cumulative net fiscal impact of $566,000 if the total of
one-time revenues is considered and a cumulative net fiscal impact of $715,000 if
affordable housing units were not provided.
VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTED FINDINGS
The Planning Commission recommended the following findings which staff has updated to
include Board of County Commissioner hearing information:
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the hearing(s) before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues
were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that
meeting.
46
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and Subdivision Preliminary Plan may be in the best interest of the
health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County upon compliance with conditions of approval adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
4. That, upon compliance with conditions of approval, the applications are generally
compliant with the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
5. That, upon granting of waivers and compliance with conditions of approval, the
applications have adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land
Use Resolution of 2008, as amended.
IX. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission considered these applications at public hearings held on July 13,
2011 and September 14, 2011. The Commission, by a vote of 6 to 1, recommends that the
Board of County Commission approve the Zone District Amendment and Final PUD Plan,
and the Subdivision Preliminary Plan for the River Edge Colorado Planned Unit
Development, subject to the following conditions:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be
conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. The Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period of three years.
3. The maximum density permitted in the River Edge Colorado project shall be 366
dwelling units.
4. The PUD Plan, PUD Guide and Preliminary Plan documents shall be updated based
upon the approval granted by the Board of County Commissioners and copies provided
to Building & Planning. These documents shall be attached to the resolutions
associated with these applications.
5. The Development Agreement shall be finalized based upon Garfield County Attorney
Office and Board of County Commissioner comments and shall be recorded in
conjunction with the resolution (s) associated with these applications.
6. Grading Activity I Reclamation
a. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to initiation of any on-site activity
related to Phase 0;
b. Sufficient revegetation security shall be provided at grading permit;
c. No activity related to reclamation or development of the project shall occur until such
time as a State Highway Access Permit (SHAP) and Notice to Proceed has been
issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT);
47
7. Vegetation
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final plat, whichever shall come
first, the Applicant shall provide a management plan for noxious weeds on REC
property well as on the Conservation Easement parcel if agreed to by the Roaring
Fork Conservancy;
b. The Open Space Management Plans shall be amended to remove the 5%
requirement prior to treatment of noxious weeds as State statute requires that state
listed A and B species must be eradicated when detected with which the County
concurs regarding all noxious weeds.
c. County Vegetation Management Director shall be consulted regarding the calculation
of revegetation security.
8. Geology
The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical
Engineering Report submitted for the project, as such recommendations may be
amended through further geotechnical investigations, including the items listed below.
The geotechnical engineer evaluating the site shall consider the recommendations
provided by the Colorado Geological Survey.
a. Detailed geotechnical investigations shall be provided as part of the final design
submitted for each final plat and prior to the commencement of construction on the
site; provided, however, that detailed geotechnical investigations for pre-
development reclamation (Phase 0) activities, which activities shall be conducted as
part of obtaining the required grading permit. Detailed cost estimates shall be
included for mitigation done as part of the public improvements.
b. Specific foundation designs for buildings shall be prepared by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at building permit.
c. Subsidence and sinkholes are considered a potential risk across the site. The
Applicant shall provide necessary mitigation where further geotechnical
investigations reveal that the soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections
may lead to failure. Mitigation may include providing plans for alternate temporary
access. "Critical road sections" are those road sections which if damaged by
subsidence would eliminate access to lots within the REC project.
d. If an agreement is reached with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to stabilize the base
of steep escarpments, a maintenance easement and plan shall be provided to the
County.
e. An underdrain system shall be provided to protect below-grade construction such as
retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas. The drain shall be placed at
each level of excavation and at least one foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade.
f. Post reclamation (Phase 0) or post overlot/mass grading, as applicable, cut depths
for buildings, structures or roadways shall not exceed 15 feet and fills should be
limited to 1 0" in depth and not placed on steep downhill slope areas. Permanent
unretained cut and fill slopes shall be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and
protected against erosion by revegetation or rock riprap.
48
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
g. The grading plan shall consider runoff from uphill basins that drain through the
project and at individual sites and water shall not be permitted to pond which could
impact slope stability and foundations.
h. Infiltration shall be limited into the bearing soils next to buildings by required exterior
backfill to be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a
distance of at least 10 feet.
i. Roof downspouts and drains will be discharged a minimum of ten feet beyond the
limits of all backfill. Landscape irrigation shall be limited in accordance with the
provision of the irrigation system standards submitted with the PUD Application to
ensure water application rated to not generally exceed evapotransporation rates.
j. A detailed pavement design shall be provided in conjunction with submittal of each
final plat -to determine if fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed. Where fill
placement will occur as part of road construction activities in association with nay
final plat as part of the subdivision improvements rather than in advance of the final
plat application as part of reclamation (Phase 0) or overlot or mass grading activities,
a geotechnical report shall be submitted to the County for review prior to paving;
such report shall demonstrate that the fill will achieve the pavement design
objectives in the pavement design report submitted with the subject final plat.
k. The soils type results in a requirement for concrete exposed to on-site soils contain
Type 1/11 portland cement {less than 5% tri-calcium aluminate).
9. Wildlife
The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the reports of its
consulting wildlife biologist and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including the following:
a. Lighting of open space areas, including indirect lighting and transient lighting from
roads and homes, is not recommended. Street lighting shall generally conform to the
lighting plan submitted as part of the PUD Application. Lighting of open spaces
except that required around building in accordance with safety requirements is not
permitted. Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10' off of the
roadsides in areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate open space areas.
b. Fences along roads should not be permitted exclusive of the elk fence along SH 82,
cut and/or fill slopes along roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement
except where retaining walls are utilized; this includes using native plant materials
that mimic local native vegetation species and distribution in general conformance
with the landscape plan submitted with the PUD Application ..
c. Trails within REC and continuous open space areas shall be closed by the Property
Owners Association during sensitive deer and elk winter seasons. Dogs, outside of
yards or dog parks, should be on a leash year-round.
d. Wildlife friendly fences should be required in the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork
River corridors.
49
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
e. Open Space Tracts are used as winter range; therefore, reclamation will need to
occur using appropriate native plant species and vegetation profiles in general
conformance with the specifications in the Reclamation Plan and landscape plans
submitted with the PUD Application. Revegetation should occur as soon as possible.
Noxious weeds should be treated bi-annually to minimize spread and impact on
winter range.
f. Dog and cat restrictions should include limitation of one dog and/or cat per unit (plus
young up to 3 months); dogs must be leashed when outside of fenced yards during
the winter months; loose or uncontrollable dogs and contractor dogs should be
prohibited.
g. Development of the REC project shall generally comply with the Erosion Control and
Sediment Control Plan submitted for the project, and as more specifically detailed
with each final plat, in order to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment form
developed areas from reaching Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Runoff
should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation
purposes.
h. All utilities shall be buried.
10. Access and Roadways
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever
shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall submit a Crossing License from the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC), if required by state law. If PUC review
and approval of the crossing is not required the Applicant shall provide a letter from
the PUC to that effect.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever
shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide documentation from Roaring Fork
Transit Authority (RFTA) regarding the acceptance of construction to grade separate
the Rio Grande Trail in the vicinity of the project entrance. If construction collateral is
not required by RFTA then collateral for this improvement shall be included in a
County Improvements Agreement.
c. The REC alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of either an
emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck
11. Water
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever
shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the signed District
Court, Water Division 5 Decrees in Case No. 07CW164 and Case No. 08CW198.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever
shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed pre-
inclusion agreement related to the provision of water and wastewater service to the
River Edge Colorado development.
12. Final Plat Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the following final plat requirements in addition to those
50
BOCC November 21, 2011
River Edge Colorado
KE
requirements contained within the Garfield County Unified Land use Resolution of 2008,
as amended (ULUR).
a. The Applicant shall provide the following information as submittal requirements with
the first final plat application:
i. An Improvements Agreement;
ii. Demonstration of formation of the Property Owner's Association;
iii. Draft deeds for conveyance of improvements, facilities or real property from the
Applicant to the POA;
iv. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's) applicable to the development.
b. Plat notes, in addition to the standard notes, shall include the following:
i. Engineered foundations shall be required for all buildings within the development.
These foundation plans shall be stamped by an engineer licensed in the State of
Colorado or a letter stamped by a qualified geotechnical engineer stating that no
special foundation design is necessary.
13. The Applicant shall submit an appraisal with the first application for Final Plat in the
subdivision so that calculation of the amount of the fee-in-lieu payment of school land
dedication for the subdivision can be calculated. Payment of the fee-in lieu will be
required prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision.
14. Prior to approval and recordation of the first final plat The Applicant shall be required to
comply with Resolution 2008-05, the required residential impact fee of $730.00 per unit
for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Payment of this fee shall occur
prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision.
15. The 'Guesthouse' provision in the PUD Guide shall be removed.
51
From:
To:
cc:
Subject:
Date:
Betsy,
Michael Prehm
Betsy Suerth:
Kathy A. Eastley:
River Edge (Rezone PUD I Preliminary Plan)
Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:42:15 PM
After reviewing the material given, I noticed the water system had changed
from a year ago. Instead of storage tanks being installed up County Road 110
and a line down the road and across Hwy 82. It shows the water system being
tied into the Iron Bridge, Teller Springs, and Aspen Glen loop. If I understand
after talking with Kathy Eastley this loop is an alternate. My question! are the
plans for the water tanks up County Road 110 still in the works?
In the Summary of Request, the application states a maximum of 30,000
square feet of commercial/ public-quasi-public. Is this going to generate any
additional traffic that is not mentioned?
The application also requests Subdivision Preliminary Plan to create 346 lots,
and tracts for commercial/public-quasi-public use. Where would these tracts be
and what access would be needed?
Mike
6 MEMORANDUM
SCHMUESER l GORDON I MEYER
TO: Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Senior Planner
CC: Betsy Suerth, Garfield County Public Works Director
FROM: Lee Barger, SGM (it)
DATE: May 24, 2011
SUBJ: Project# 2010-413.007
Preliminary Plan Review of Proposed SH 82 Access at River Edge
I have reviewed the drawings for highway access to the proposed River Edge development at
the intersection of SH 82 and Cattle Creek Road. This review included plan sheets C01.02
(Overview of Access), C02.01 (Plan & Profile), C04.01 (Typical Sections), and C06.01 (Site
Access Plan). My concerns are detailed below.
The first concern is the point of intersection of River Edge Drive with State Highway 82.
Since a detailed plan for improvements to the Cattle Creek intersection has not been fully
developed by the County, the first priority should be to line River Edge Drive up with the
existing intersection where CR 113 (Cattle Creek) intersects SH 82. The current plan shows
this intersection offset south slightly (about 12' or one lane width) from the existing
centerline of the Cattle Creek access. If the County were to fmalize a plan for access
improvements to this intersection, coordination between the applicant and the County should
occur to be sure the final configuration is a conventional 4-way intersection with minor street
legs aligned directly across from each other. Based on the alignment shown, it appears the
applicant has some flexibility in where this approach intersects with SH 82, although the
RFTA easement may need to be modified if the design changes drastically (which it
shouldn't).
CDOT requires 6' shoulders adjacent to turn Janes; where the plans show 4' shoulders.
Additionally, the median nose shown on the plans on the westbound SH 82 approach should
be pulled back to allow large vehicles turning from Cattle Creek to eastbound SH 82 more
room to maneuver. The proposed lengths of acceleration and deceleration lanes shown on
the plans are consistent with the standards for design given in CDOT's State Highway Access
Code and based on the expected demand generated by River Edge. However, the plan only
shows improvements to the intersection for traffic oriented to and from River Edge; no
improvements are shown for the Cattle Creek or east side of the intersection (north by
118 W. 6• Stree~ Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Scbmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1 004
(970)945-5948 FAX
CDOT' s orientation). These improvements should be coordinated with the County's plan for
Cattle Creek improvements.
Finally, I did not review the River Edge interior streets plan, profiles, and sections, but I did
see the proposed roundabout at the intersection of River Edge Drive and Trailside/lliverside
Loop Drives. I am curious if other alternatives for traffic control were contemplated at this
intersection for a development of 300+ units? I am not sure a roundabout (or signal) would
be warranted. The traffic study addresses highway access only and does not analyze this
intersection or assess the operations of the internal roadway network. Could a four-way stop
or mini-roundabout be incorporated here? The money used for a full-size modern
roundabout at this location might be better spent on more vital and warranted improvements
at the Cattle Creek intersection.
118 W. 6~ Stree~ Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Scbmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
2
(970)945-1004
(970)945-5948 FAX
GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
1430 RAILROAD A VENUE Unit F
RIFLE, CO 81650
May 31,2011
TO: Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Planning Dept.
FROM: Garfield County
Housing Authority (GCHA)
REF: River Edge
Rezone PUD/Preliminary Plan,
Affordable Housing
(970) 625-3589
Fax 970-625-0859
Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) has reviewed River Edge PUD and
understands that the applicant proposes 55 affordable housing (AH) units to be built over
11 phases or 5 AH units per phase. Homes are clustered into 3 tracks in the PUD.
GCHA offers the following comments:
On page 4, paragraph 3 of the Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA)
the applicant requires presales before building AH units. There is no precedent
for this in the County's guidelines. Would the applicant be released from his
obligation to build the AH units ifthere were no qualified buyer within the
applicants timeframe? GCHA believes that flexibility from both the applicant and
the guidelines would be of benefit to potential buyers of these AH units.
Currently, the downturn in the economy and the tightening of the lending industry
has made it harder to buy and sell homes, both free market and deed restricted.
We cannot foresee this trend during the build out of this development over the
next 1 0 to 20 years.
On Page 5, paragraph 5 of the AHP A the applicant provides 3 categories of
pricing for the AH units. The applicant proposes to allow buyers earning up to
150% of AMI instead of the maximum 120% AMI allowed in the County's
guidelines. GCHA views this as opening the buyer pool to a larger population
while maintaining the integrity of the program by allowing families earning 80%
to 150% AMI to purchase homes priced at 70% AMI to 110% AMI. If the
exception to the guidelines is made to accommodate these pricing categories,
GCHA request that it apply to all resales within River Edge.
On Page 6, paragraph 9 of the AHP A applicant proposes option of renting AH
homes if not sold within the 120 days. This is not addressed in County's
guidelines. However, this is an interesting proposal as it is the intent of the
program that each AH unit be occupied by a qualified family. If allowed, the
rents would need to be below market rent to maintain the unit as affordable to
families within lower AMis. Rental guidelines could easily be written and agreed
upon, however more questions would need to discussed such as; Ifthe units are
rented would the developer offer them for sale again at some point? Would the
sale price of a previously rented unit be reduced from that of a new unit? Is the
developer the property manager for the rental?
Additional comments on the AHP A are:
Could the AHPA be amended with each phase, especially with such a long build
out schedule?
Will the applicant provide at least one single-family home within each phase?
Are all 5 AH units required to be built in a phase before the next phase is started?
Would applicant consider designing an aspect to the AH homes that would permit
owners to improve their equity by finishing or improving the home (basements,
carports, decks etc)?
GCHA continues to look over the Declaration of Deed Restriction that was provided by
the applicant and may offer some comments before final recordation.
Sincerely,
Geneva Powell
Executive Director
Garfield County Housing Authority
1430 Railroad Avenue, Unit F
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-3589 Rifle
(970) 625-0859 Rifle Fax
(970) 945-8082 Glenwood
www.garfieldhousinq.com
SHERIFF OF GARFIELD COUNTI(
LOUV'ALLARIO
107 87 -" Street
lj{enwooa Sy•-ings, co 81601
'Pfione: 970-945-0453
:fax: 970-945-6430
June 15, 2011
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8'h Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: River Edge Colorado -Rezone PUD/Preliminary Plan
Dear Kathy:
,.
JUN 1 5 2011
.,_;, _ _;:\_,\'; '( .-,,_ . .!.-'• .
w6 county :Roaa 333-.A
'Rif{e, CO 81650
'Piione: 970-665·02oo
:rax: 97o-66s·o253
I have reviewed the application for the proposed River Edge Colorado subdivision, and have the following
comments on this application.
Access
The concerns of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, in regards to the Emergency Vehicle Access
points, are also concerns of the Sheriffs Office. Additionally, without reviewing comments from CDOT, the
Sheriffs Office has concerns on the impact of the ingress/egress onto HWY 82 at the Cattle Creek intersection.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if! can be of any assistance.
James H. Sears
Emergency Operations Sgt.
MEMORANDUM
To: Kathy Eastley
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on the River Edge Rezone PUD 6720
Date: June 10, 2011
Noxious Weeds
• Staff requests that the applicant arrange an on-site meeting between the Roaring Fork
Conservancy, River Edge, and Garfield County Vegetation Management to discuss and develop a
management plan for noxious weeds located on River Edge's property that has a conservation
easement.
• Staff concurs with the statement from the applicant's consultant, Rocky Mountain Ecological
Services that weed control treatments continue to occur before development begins.
• Covenants-We recommend that the applicant put in stronger language regarding noxious weed
control that will emphasize that each property owner has the responsibility to manage state and
county listed noxious weeds
• Open Space Management Plan (OSMP)-There is a statement on page 4 of the OSMP, item 5, that
states that "weeds that occupy 5% of the foliar cover shall be treated in accordance with the State
Colorado Noxious Act." This implies that a cover of weeds of up to 5% is acceptable. Legally,
all State List A species and many List B species must be eradicated when detected. The 5%
statement should be deleted or rewritten. That standard of allowing up to a 5% cover is not
acceptable.
Revegetation
• The Revegetation Plan is acceptable. Under normal circumstances, we would request that the
applicant provide a quantification of the surface area to be disturbed, and then we would
recommend a $2500 per acre revegetation security. In this situation where almost the entire
property was scrapped bare about 7 years ago, that approach may not be the most sensible.
I recommend a meeting between Building & Planning, Vegetation Management, and the applicant
to discuss the revegetation security amount.
Jim Rada
Kathy A. Eastley;
PUD6720/SPP6721 River Edge Colorado
Friday, June 17, 20114:25:04 PM
following comments at this time:
. Neither the Water Supply or Wastewater Treatment plan is
·rt,.fi.,,itht<> in terms of who will provide these services. The option of
bri•vatetv owned and operated water and wastewater treatment
ril:r.ntc: operated by the Homeowners Association, is not, in my
;.i,()
1
pini'on, a sound option for this type of development due to the
herEmt weaknesses of HOA's to properly manage these systems .
. ,. c:t·rn.,•alv recommend that the applicant be required to nail down
~ p1rovisictn of water and wastewater services that result in high-quality,
:·,sLIStcllnalole operations.
The applicant is on the right track in terms of developing a
"' w•alkable, sustainable community that creates space for growing fresh
\;ftoocls during the summer growing season. This is an extremely
. mportant element of urban development that we need to continually
to include in community planning in order to begin addressing
x:r'lhrn·ni~ public health issues like obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
:'N~c:~in the applicant puts responsibility for upkeep of open spaces,
Zii;!i~rd,2ns orchards, sidewalks, trails and streets in the hands of the
.Y'h,nrr•<>nwn<>rc: association. I am skeptical that without a more solid
for financing and managing these community amenities, that
··.•.th••vwill eventually lose priority and fall into a degraded state and
E rE!sidlen1ts will fall back to getting in their cars to go to the store or rely
nearby convenience stores to fulfill their dietary needs.
Access to fresh foods and other amenities will still involve getting
·•:.;in ctn2's car for a run to the market in Carbondale or Glenwood. This
t:'Cdoes· nothing to reduce air pollution from vehicles. Nor does it
people to walk or ride bicycles to take care of daily needs.
believe that land should be made available for commercial purposes
'' c:.,,.,,.;f;,.:~llv to encourage development of a local food store to serve
'rE!sidlen1tsofthis community and the central valley area.
4. Assuming that the applicant can finance the construction of the
infrastructure and all other elements of the project, I see no projected
long term budget for operation and maintenance of the POA owned
and operated elements of this development. I suspect that these
numbers will be substantial, particularly if a POA WTP and WWTP are
constructed. Based on the CCRS and the amount of commonly owned
~lr:o•mr:o•nts managing a development this size could require a rather
large budget. Spread amongst 366 owners, this could result in
·• · substantial annual assessments. Along with the annual assessments
•···· and any special assessments that may be needed as to property ages,
·· this could put a large financial burden on the middle-class families
will likely occupy these homes.
for the opportunity to review this proposal.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
June 22, 2011
Kathy Easily
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Dear Ms. Eastly:
Re: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Sections 7 & 12, T7S, RBBW, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
John W. Hicken looper
Governor
i\1ikc King
Executin: Director
Dick Wolfe, P.E.
Dirl'Ctor/Statc Engineer
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to create a PUD on 160 acres for a
residential development to include 366 residential units of various sizes and types and 9 non-
residential units, all to be built on 346 lots, along with recreational open space and a neighborhood
center. In addition, the applicant is proposing to complete the subdivision process for the proposed
PUD by subdividing the land into 346 lots.
The applicant proposes to provide water to the PUD through the Roaring Fork Water &
Sanitation District (the District) pursuant to water rights and an augmentation plan decreed in Case No.
01 CW187 and pending court cases 07CW164 and 08CW198. Potable water will be provided either
through existing alluvial wells and/or surface water diversions operated by the District, or through a
surface water intake located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the project site, to be operated
by the River Edge Colorado Property Owners Association (POA). Irrigation water will be provided by
the POA through the Glenwood and Staton Ditches. Sewage disposal will be through a central
system. A conditional letter of confirmation from the District was provided.
The applicant anticipates a requirement of 375 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) of potable
water for 366 residential units and 9 non-residential units. Per the Water Treatment and Distribution
Design Report provided in the submitted materials, it appears this requirement is based on the
assumption that each EQR is equivalent to a household demand of 189 gallons per day (gpd) per
single family unit. The augmentation plan decreed in the Division 5 Water Court, in case no.
01 CW187, limits the final development to 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation using an assumption
of 300 gpd per EQR. This decreed augmentation plan does not allow for the flexibility to assume a
reduced household use water demand per single family unit in order to increase the number of EQRs.
To date, no other decrees providing water to the development have been adjudicated, and
pursuant to the decree in case no. 01CW187, the applicant is limited to less EQRs than is proposed
under this application. The applicant indicated that additional water supply will be available in two
pending water court cases; however, pending water court cases do not serve as an adequate claim to
a legal water supply. In addition, the proposed alternative supply for potable water diverted through a
surface water intake along the Roaring Fork River and operated by the POA has not yet been decreed
but is included in the pending water court cases. Until these proposed alternate points of diversion
are decreed, the applicant is limited to diverting the water through infrastructure owned and operated
by the RFWCD as specified in case no. 01CW187. The applicant will not be able to utilize an alternate
Office of the State Engineer
1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589
http :1/w a ter .state. co. us
Kathy Easily June 22, 2011
River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan
water infrastructure system until such a time as alternate points of diversion, which allow for the
applicant to have direct control of said water, are decreed.
The applicant anticipates a raw water demand for approximately 150 acres of irrigation
at any one time. Diversions will be made from the Roaring Fork River at the Glenwood Ditch and from
Cattle Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the Water Supply Plan provided with the application, the
applicant can divert approximately 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Staton
Ditch. The 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch are subject to
the change of water right and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case nos. 01 CW188 and
01 CW189. Use of these water rights at the proposed subdivision must be operated in accordance with
the decrees entered in case nos. 01CW188 and 01CW189 and cannot result in an expansion of use.
Note that these two cases also provide for operation of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1 -5. The
operation of the lakes must also be in accordance with the terms of these decrees and cannot result in
an expansion of use of the Applicant's share of these ditches.
Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan that meets the number
of EQRs proposed by this application, the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(l),
that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate.
Since a final water supply has yet to be confirmed, we will refrain from commenting on the physical
adequacy of the water supply at this time. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this
matter, please contact Karlyn Adams in this office.
MS/kaa/River Edge PUD and Subdiv.docx
Sincerely,
'-
Megan Sullivan, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Shennan Street, Room 715
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2611
Fax: (303) 866-2461
June 3, 2011
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
keastley@garfieldcouny.com
Re: River's Edge PUD and Preliminary Plat Application CGS GA-11-0008_1
Dear Ms. Eastley:
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Bill Ritter
Governor
Harris D. Shennan
Executive Director
Vincent Matthews
Division Director and
State Geologist
Thank for the submittal of the above referenced proposal. The proposal is to allow a mixed-use development with
366 residential units, open space aod commercial. I visited the site on May 29th and 31 ". As noted in the
application, the site is generally located on terraces above the Roaring Fork River aod adjacent to SH 82. Cattle
Creek is a large drainage, which enters and bisects the site. An existing house is located near the center of the site.
The site has been graded in the past; fill areas and soil stockpiles cao be found throughout the site. Other structures,
such as irrigation ditches aod rail, cross the site.
Generally, the site has moderate slopes. Slopes steeper thao 30 percent are present along terrace edges adjacent to
the Roaring Fork River. A small alluvial fao sits in the northeast corner of the site. Also, as you know, the site
contains numerous sinkholes caused by the dissolution of evaporate bedrock. Soil piping, erosion, and slope
instability was evident alongthe steep terrace slopes. Erosion of the base of the terrace was evident where the outer
bends of the river cut into the base ofthe terrace.
Generally, the applicaot has done a good job avoiding the most severe geologic hazards. The main geologic hazards
are outlined in geotechnical reports, by HP Geotech, dated August 12, 2008 and November 15,2010, include the
following:
• Subsidence and sinkholes caused by dissolution of evaporite deposits
• Expansive and collapsible soil
• Slope instability along steep slopes adjacent to the river.
• Uncontrolled fill
• Debris flow and flooding hazards
The recommendations in the most recent geotechnical report are similar to those contained in an earlier version.
Recommendations critical to protecting public safety include:
• Buildings, roads, aod underground utilities should not be placed on or near high-hazard sinkholes;
identified as Zone I. To the extent feasible, Zone 2 or moderate hazard areas should be avoided. If
development occurs in such areas, all sinkholes, and areas with potential sinkhole hazards should be fully
investigated prior to approval of development plans .
•
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Page2
June 3, 2011
•
• If avoidance is not possible, roads can be constructed over stabilized sinkholes but buildings and critical
utilities should not.
• Buildings should be setback from the steep escarpment. A minimum setback of 2H: IV should be measured
from the edge ofthe river channel.
• Riverbanks at outside channel bends are eroding the base of steep terrace slopes during peak flows. If
allowed to continue, slope failure may occur and impact roads and buildings near terrace escarpments.
Other reconnnendations that will impact the performance of buildings, roads, and utilities include:
• Mitigation of expansive ancl/collapsible soil
• Construction of an underdrain system
• Restrictions regarding cuts and fills and other grading activities; including identification of the extent of
uncontrolled fill and removal and recompaction
• Mitigation of debris flow hazards
• Mitigation of corrosive soil
The application also contains a mitigation plan ofhow hazards will be mitigated. Some of the key mitigation
measures are outlined below:
Sinkhole Hazards
Roads, homes and utilities generally avoid High Hazard Zone I areas. However, road and utility segments cross
Hazard Zone I areas and homes are proposed in Moderate Hazard Zone 2 areas. In these areas, the applicant
proposes:
• Further investigations will be performed and a site-specific mitigation action will be developed as part of
final design and field construction activities.
• At a minimum, road areas will be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below design grades, and
select fill placed and compacted to 95 percent Standard Proctor or better.
• Utility areas will be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the design invert, select fill pl~ced
(compaction at 95 percent Standard Proctor) and ·a sleeved utility installed (i.e. allowing bridging ofthe
identified void).
• Compaction grouting or structure bridging may be considered.
• The placement of geosynthetics beneath the pavement may also be considered
• Whichever mitigation is selected, the primary objective is to lessen the impacts of differential settlement.
• If adequate mitigation cannot be achieved, utility areas will be realigned to areas without hazards.
• Additional investigation will be done for lots located in Zone 2 before development. Lots may be relocated
or special foundation designs required.
Slope Instability Along Steep Terrace Slopes
• Planned development within the Project Site does not directly encroach into any existing steep
escarpments. However, further erosion of terrace escarpments may cause safety hazards.
• The applicant proposes stabilization of eroding areas. Discussions regarding stabilization of areas within
the RFC Conservation Easement are occurring. If approved by the RFC, these areas will be further
investigated and a detailed mitigation program developed as part ofthe Reclamation Plan (Phase 0).
• Additional investigation of "piping failures" will be done and stabilization plans will be developed.
Irrigation within these areas will be managed to reduce further degradation.
Debris Flows
• Grading for Highway 82 and the development to the east of the highway should reduce the extent of future
deposition on the fan limiting the risk to proposed structures on the site ..
•
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Page3
June 3, 2011
o Flow diversion or deepened foundations, on the Executive Lot should be incorporated into the fmal designs
based on further field investigations.
CGS Recommendations
o The mitigation measures outlined by the applicant appear to be feasible. However, additional investigation
and design will be needed. Other than specific foundation designs for buildings, this should be done prior
to approval of the final plan and, in most cases, before construction begins. Detailed cost estimates should
be included and mitigation should be done as part of public improvements.
o As a result of additional work, fioallot, utility, and road layout may change; this includes relocation.
o CGS also considers subsidence and sinkholes, related to dissolution of the underlying evaporite bedrock, to
be a potential risk across the site. Near-surface underground voids may exist that have not yet breached the
surface to become visible sinkholes. One specific concern is that it appears there will only be one access
into and out of the site. If a sinkhole occurs along sections of the primary access road, emergency access to
the site may be greatly impaired. The county may wish to discuss this issue with the county emergency
manager. It may be prudent to verify soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections and/or
develop plans for providing an alternative emergency access if needed.
o If an agreement is reached to stabilize the base of steep escarpments, a maintenance easement and plan
should be provided. Making sure that the base of the slope remains protected over the course of time
against erosion will be important to the safety of sections of road and several lots.
o Where roads and utilities cross high and moderate sinkhole hazards, the applicant proposes a wide range of
mitigation options. Each option has associated risks and costs. The county may wish to take an active role
in determining what options are chosen and what risks are taken by the county and future owners;
especially if any maintenance responsibility is assumed.
o The site does contain industrial minerals. The mineral resource report states that because the site is zoned
residential mineral deposits are not of economic value. However, this may be true but the report does not
contain any data to support this conclusion. The applicant is correct in concluding state statutes regarding
preservation of commercial mineral deposits do not yet apply to Garfield County. However, I am not sure
if the county has adopted plans or policies that would apply.
o All other recommendations outlined in geotechnical reports are valid and should be followed.
In summary, it is important to note that even with the avoidance and mitigation measures outlined above and in the
geotechnical report, subsidence may occur and building, roads, and utilities may be severely damaged. The
following quote from the geotechnical report should be strongly considered during the entitlement process. Even
with mitigation it may not be possible to prevent some structural damage to buildings, but it should be feasible to
prevent sudden collapse and provide a reasonable level of safety for the building occupants."
Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 303.866.2018 or by email at
karen.berry@state.co.us.
Sincerely,
):,"'~~
Karen A. Berry
Geological Engineer, PG, AICP, CPESC-SWQ
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Roussin, Daniel
Kathy A. Eastley:
River Edge Colorado Rezone
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:33:04 AM
Kathy -I have no comments on the rezone. As you are aware, this project will
have a big impact to the highway system. The applicant will need an access
permit for SH 82. The challenge will be to tie it other side due to 4 intersection
( 2 frontage roads, 2 county roads). As you are aware, COOT, Garfield County
and the applicant will need to work together to make the long-term access work.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
thanks
Dan Roussin
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
222 South 6th Street, Room 1 00
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-683-6284 Office
970-683-6290 Fax
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Will, Perry
Kathy A. Eastley;
FW: River Edge Colorado
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:47:50 PM
cattlecreek2.doc
Cattle Creek.doc
From: Groves, John
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 9:34AM
To: Will, Perry; Yamashita, Matt
Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado
It should not have significant impacts if they follow the recommendations outlined
in letters dated 4/15/2008 and 2/19/2009 regarding Cattle Creek Crossing. The
main impacts will be to the heronry if our previous recommendations are not
followed. There will be displacement of the elk that winter on the property while
construction is ongoing, however they are likely to move in thicker once that has
ended and it is not critical winter range. I have attached the letters if you want to
send to Kathy or I can put together a short letter for your signature.
John
From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:54PM
To: Will, Perry
Subject: River Edge Colorado
Perry,
A referral was sent to the CDOW in late April seeking comments on a development
proposal for River Edge Colorado (formerly known as Cattle Creek). I've not
received comments from CDOW and was hoping that you could provide me a
timeframe on when we might receive something-or if there is no comment, and
email to that effect.
Thanks.
Kathy Eastley, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, #401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580
Fax: 970-384-3470
keastley@garfield-county.com
SUCCESS IS NEVER FOUND. FAILURE IS NEVER FATAL. COURAGE IS THE ONLY
THING. -WINSTON CHURCHILL
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas E. Remington. Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: {303) 297·1192
wildlife. state. co. us
April15, 2008
Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept
108 81h Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cattle Creek Crossing sketch plan submission
Dear Fred:
For Wildlife-
For People
The proposed Cattle Creek Crossing property is not located within any big game critical habitat
areas, but adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of Highway 82.
Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and spring months but
with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River and
Cattle Creek. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south of the property and a wide
mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the property. In addition the
property is home to a large great blue heron rookery, many small mammals, nee-tropical song
birds, raptors and amphibians.
The existing conservation easements held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy will go far to help
protect the riparian and wetland habitats along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. The
proposed enhancement of these riparian areas and enhancement of Cattle Creek for trout
habitat are welcomed by the Division.
The overall size and density of this proposed development will have a direct and indirect
impact on wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be
addressed, but the Division would like to make the following recommendations to help
minimize potential impacts:
1. As noted the property in not located within any mapped big game critical habitat areas,
however elk usage of the property is considerable. Surrounding golf courses and residential
areas provide fertilized grasses drawing the elk to the area which then seek refuge on the
undeveloped Cattle Creek property. The displacement of elk out of this refuge area is likely to
create additional road kill with elk moving back and forth across Hwy 82. The development
has proposed using the existing Cattle Creek culvert under Hwy82 as an elk underpass, but it
is unlikely much use will occur due to the proximity of buildings and activity on the east side of
the highway and. the natural unwillingness of elk to use underpass structures.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Shemnan, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tom Burke, Chair • Claire O'Neal. Vice Chair • Robert Bray. Secretary
Elk conflicts are to be expected in the development and plantings of native vegetation are
encouraged to help reduce some of those conflicts. Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or
nut producing plants or shrubs will help discourage elk, deer, bears and other wildlife from
feeding on landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not
liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or bear.
2. The heronries located on the south west portion of the property are likely to be greatly
impacted with the current development plan. Nests are located as close as 50 yards to the
crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building sites proposed for this area are well
within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640 ft. and will likely cause abandonment of
the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to minimize the impacts this development will
have on the heronry including: creating a buffer zone around the heronry, extensive berming
and vegetative screening, restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks
on homes facing the heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least
1 year prior to any construction occurring near the heronry. More detailed recommendations
can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted.
3. The riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek are extremely important
to wildlife. These areas ·on the property currently contain a large great blue heron colony and
had previously seen bald eagles nest there. Due to the critical nature of these areas for
wildlife it is recommended that any proposed trails/paths be eliminated and public access be
limited into these areas.
4. Storrnwater runoff into Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River is of concern. Adequate
measures need to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from the
developed area reaching these waterways. Runoff water should be filtered before running into
the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes.
5. All utilities buried.
6. Fencing should be held to a minimum. Any necessary fencing should be wildlife friendly.
For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space between the top two
strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails.
7. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their property.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933.
Sincerely,
Perry Will
Area Wildlife Manager
Cc: DOW-R.Velarde, J.Groves, file
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas E. Remington, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
wildlife. state. co. us
February 19, 2009
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept
108 81h Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cattle Creek Colorado PUD review
Dear Kathy:
For Wildlife-
For People
The DOW has reviewed the Cattle Creek Colorado PUD amendment and has previously
commented on the development proposal in a letter dated April15, 2008. Comments and
recommendations from that letter are still relevant.
The Cattle Creek development property is not located within any mapped big game critical
habitat areas, but is adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of
Highway 82. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and
spring months with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork
River and Cattle Creek. While it is not mapped critical winter range the property has become a
preferred wintering area for elk. The upper benches provide loafing/solitude areas, while the
riparian corridors provide cover and food. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south
of the property and a wide mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the
property. Car/elk accidents have increased significantly along the stretch of SH 82 from mile
marker 6.5-12 in the past several years.
In addition the property is home to a large great blue heron colony , many small mammals,
nee-tropical song birds, raptors and amphibians.
The overall size and density of this project is going to have direct and indirect impacts to
wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed. The
Division is concerned about several issues related to the current development proposal and
makes the following recommendations:
1. The proposed trails into the riparian areas along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork
River should be eliminated. Any recreational trails proposed should remain on the
bench above the river and out of the conservation easement areas held by the Roaring
Fork Conservancy. The proposed trails are listed for fisherman access but in reality
these will become recreational hiking trails and dog walking areas which will rapidly
diminish the values for wildlife that the easements are designed to protect.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Robert Bray, Chair • Brad Coors, Vice Chair • Tim Glenn, Secretary
.... • ... I I I rt' "' r I .... u ... • ...... I. A II ""'' I I .-. .... I o .... ,
2. The Division is discouraged with the fact that the current great blue heron nesting locations
have not been identified in the current building plan nor have any steps been taken to
minimize impacts in the building plan. The mitigation proposals outlined in the CCR's are
inadequate and rely on future abandonment of the colony. The current locations are
several hundred yards upstream of the old nest sites identified in the building plan and
have been active for over 5 years. The heronries located on the south west portion of the
property are likely to be greatly impacted with the current development plan. Nests are
located as close as 27 yards to the crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building
sites proposed for this area are well within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640
ft. and will likely cause abandonment of the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to
minimize the impacts this development will have on the heronry including: creating a 200
meter buffer zone around the heronry with extensive berming and vegetative screening,
restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks on homes facing the
heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least 1 year prior to
any construction occurring within 400 meters of the heronry. More detailed
recommendations can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted.
3. 1 00' building envelope set backs need to established from the crest of the bluff overlooking
the riparian corridors on the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek.
4. Maximum building height should be 25' especially for building locations overlooking the
Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek.
5. The DOW would like to sit down with the developer to further discuss their proposal for
funding off-site mitigation and habitat enhancement.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933.
Sincerely,
Perry Will
Area Wildlife Manager
Cc: DOW-R.Velarde, J.Groves, file
.,-\
FIRE· EMS· RESCUE
June 12, 2011
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: River Edge Colorado-Rezone PUD I Preliminary Plan
Dear Kathy:
I have reviewed the application for the proposed River Edge Colorado Subdivision. The
application was reviewed for compliance with the International Fire Code (IFC), 2009 edition,
adopted by the County. I would offer the following comments.
Access
The proposed street layout and access throughout the subdivision is adequate for emergency
apparatus. Two Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) points are discussed on page 9 of the Project
Engineering Design Report but the EVAs are not indicated on the drawings. IFC Section 0106.2
"Multiple Family Residential Developments" requires developments with more than 200
residential dwelling uuits to have two separate and approved frre access roads. Details of the two
EV As must be submitted for approval.
Water Supplies for Fire Protection
The Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District has agreed to service the development. The
proposed system is designed to provide for 1,500 gpm residential frre flows and 2,000 gpm non-
resi<i_~!ltialfire flows. Th~ prpp9sed water system app~earHo be capable of provic:lirlg_the': design
fire flows throughout the development. The proposed location and spacing of the frre hydrants is
adequate as well.
The International Residential Code (IRC) adopted by the County will require automatic fire
sprinklers in all residences, effective January 1, 2013. Installation requirements will be in
accordance with NFP A 13D or Section P2904 of the IRC. Residential sprinkler systems
typically require 26-60 gallons per minute (GPM) flows however IRC Section P2904 would
allow flows as low as 13 GPM in certain cases. Required flows are primarily dependent upon
roof and ceiling design. Connections of service lines to the water mains should be designed to
allow for the required flows.
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569
River Edge Colorado, Page 2 of 2
Impact Fees
The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the District. The developer
will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development
impact fees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording
of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the
agreement is executed. The current fee for residential development is $730.00 per lot/unit.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569
From:
To:
cc:
Subject:
Date:
David Johnson
Kathy A. Eastley:
Tamra Allen: Fred Jarman:
Jason White:
RE: River Edge
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:24:06 PM
RFTA has the following concerns about this proposed development:
Location Outside the UGB
In preparation for RFTA's Strategic Planning Board Retreat on June gth, I created a table highlighting the
common themes of the surrounding Comprehensive Plans. One of the most prevalent themes is
concentrating development within the town center or within the UGB. Carbondale is currently updating its 2000
Comp' Plan, and this will undoubtedly be a priority as well. The proposed development is located outside the
urban growth boundaries of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, which appears to conflict with this priority.
RFTA is also concerned about growth outside the town boundaries. Currently, RFTA's local route serves over
50 stops in each direction. One way travel time from Glenwood Springs to Aspen is about 100 minutes, which
makes it unattractive for current and potential passengers and increases operational cost. RFTA is addressing
this issue by implementing BRT, which will serve nine key locations along the SH82 corridor, and by conducting
a feasibility study, now underway, of local transit systems in Carbondale and in the Basalt/EI Jebel area. One of
the goals of the feasibility study is to create transit systems in each area to provide local mobility within the
town centers and to "feed" passengers to the BRT stops, where they can enjoy fast, frequent regional transit service.
RFTA's Board is comprised of elected officials in cities and counties throughout the region, including Glenwood
and Carbondale. Based on the overriding philosophy of maintaining growth and services within town boundaries,
and the issue of the cost and travel time impacts of adding additional service, it is unlikely that the Board will
endorse adding service to River Edge development, even if the applicant is willing to pay for the capital and
operating costs of adding boarding locations at SH82 and CR113. The transit assessment conducted by Fehr
and Peers does not estimate potential transit ridership. Consequently, the need for additional rolling stock and
the size of shelters and other amenities are unknown. The nearest RFTA boarding locations are at Spring
Creek Road and Aspen Glen. Neither location appears to be within walking distance.
Rio Grande Trail ROW Crossing
As stated in the Land Suitability Analysis, the RFTA right-of-way crossing required by the entry road at CR 113
and SH 82 is covered by an Easement Grant providing at-grade access to the Project Site. The easement for
access to the Project Site at this location was granted by RFRHA.
Although the at-grade crossing is covered by an easement, it poses a number of issues. First, according to the
traffic study, trip generation from the residential, commercial and other uses is estimated at 276 a.m. peak hour, 347
p.m. peak hour, and 3,567 daily vehicle trips. This may pose safety conflicts between vehicles, bicycles
and pedestrians at the crossing. In addition, the principal intention for purchasing the ROW and rail banking was
to preserve it for future passenger rail. Should a rail system be established, the at-grade crossing would need to
be improved, possibly to a grade separated crossing, to address operational and safety issues. RFTA does not
wish to bear these costs and wishes to seek an agreement from the applicant that the crossing be upgraded per
PUC guidelines Part 723-7 (Rules Regulating Railroad, Rail Fixed Guideways, Transportation by Rail, and
rail Crossings) should rail service be established.
David Johnson, AICP
Director of Planning
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
1340 Main Street
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
970.384.4979 office
970.384.4870 fax
970.376.4492 mobile
djohnson@rfta.com
From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 201112:11 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Tamra Allen; Fred Jarman; Jason White
Subject: RE: River Edge
David,
When could we expect these comments?
Kathy Eastley, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, #401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580
Fax: 970-384-3470
keastley@garfield-countv.com
SUCCESS IS NEVER FOUND. FAILURE IS NEVER FATAL. COURAGE IS THE ONLY THING. -WINSTON CHURCHILL ___ , __ , __
From: David Johnson [mailto:djohnson@rfta.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:04 AM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Cc: Tamra Allen; Fred Jarman; Jason White
Subject: River Edge
_ _________ .. _____ _
I apologize: I have not yet sent comments on River Edge. Can I send today?
David Johnson, AICP
Director of Planning
Roaring Fork TransportaUon Authority
1340 Main Street
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
970.384.4979 office
970.384.4870 fax
970.376.4492 mobile
djohnson@rfta.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and
June 10,2011 ~-' .
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401 ·"
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
JUN 1 3 2011
'.·. ;' ',.'
MOUNTI\IN CROSS
ENGINEERJN(i, INC.
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN
RE: Preliminary Plan& PUD Rezone Application for River Edge: SPPA672
Dear Kathy:
This office has performed a review of tire documents provided for the River Edge Subdivision
Preliminary Plan and PUD Rezone Application. The submittal was found to be thorough and well
organized. The review generated the following questions, concerns, and comments:
Project Binders:
1. The Applicant proposes two options for providing water to tire subdivision: either connection to
the Roaring Fprk Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) or providing their own community
system. The application materials seems to provide enough evidence that there is a legal supply
of water (pending outcome of Water Court) regardless of the option pursued. However the
physical supply is still pending negotiations. There are requirements that the Applicant would
need to meet witlr either option: well pump test, water quality test, community water system
approvals with CDPHE, among others if the applicant were to provide their own system; and
evidence of adequate capacity of the systems of RFWSD if connecting to them.
2. Depending on if the Applicant provides tlreir own sewer and water connections, the Applicant
will need to adjust tlreir potable water analysis to use EQR values congruent witlr the ULUR of
Garfield County namely 350 gpd for interior household use. Typically outside irrigation is
above and additional to the 350 gpd but since a separate irrigation water system is proposed,
only minimal increases wquld be expected, if any.
3. The Applicant proposes to do some additional geotechnical . testing to determine any
modification necessary to the Hazard Plan. The Applicant should address the impacts that the
testing could have on the proposed lot layout and the overall site density based on the results.
4. The proposed bridge crossing of Cattle Creek may require a floodplain pertnit and/or LOMR
from FEMA depending on its impact to tire floodplain. The Applicant will need to address this
ISSUe.
5. The recommendation of the geotechnical engineer is that foundation sub-drains be provided.
These drains need to have a suitable outlet for drainage. The. Applicant proposes that these
should be determined at the time of individual lot construction. Since the site is.very flat, the
likely option at that time would be to drain these foundation drains to an onsite drywell for
in:filtration. Infiltrating water on top of the site soils, most notably the Evaporite, would
increase the likelihood for potential damage due to settling. The Applicant should consider a
project wide method for suitable gravity outlet for foundation drains ..
6. The Applicant is requesting a. waiver from providing storm-water detention for peak flow
attenuation. Ultimately this waiver will need to be given by the BoCC but since tlrere are no
drainage structures witlr possible capacity restrictions downstream, tlris office has no concerns
regarding peak-flow detention provided that water-quality detention is stili' provided.
826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com
River Edge
· Page 2 of4
7. Similarly, the Applicant is requesting a waiver for some of the road standards as described in the
application materials. Ultimately this waiver will need to be given by the BoCC but this office
has no concerns regarding this provided the following are addressed:
o The Applicant proposes that the alleys not be required to design to a specific design
vehicle. The design vehicle should at a minimum include the larger of either an
emergency response vehicle or garbage truck.
o The proposed curb and gutter section uses a small pan width of 12" rather than a more
typical pan width of 24" on requested narrower street widths. The Applicant should
verify that inlet spacing is congruent with the spread of water on the proposed narrow
travel lanes.
8. The project proposes essentially one access for the proJect residents although there are two other
locations for emergency vehicles to the site. There are some concerns with only one public
access for a project of this size.
9. The Applicant has begun discussions with COOT but has not obtained an access permit at this
time. This access permit will need to be obtained.
I 0. This access to Highway 82 is proposed to be a signalized intersection. Design discussions are
underway but the design has not yet been determined and will require coordination with
Garfield County for reconstruction and redesign of the frontage roads and Cattle Creek on the
east side.
11. It is understood that offsite improvements for water and sewer services do not need to be
included in the application and will be reviewed for Location and Extent if the Applicant
connects to RFWSD. The Applicant should coordinate with Garfield County staff if the
Applicant determines to provide their own sewer and water services; a separate or amended
application may be necessary .. The Application materials do not provide any information on the
design of the offsite improvements such as pump stations, pipelines, sewer plants, water tanks,
etc.
12. The Applicant proposes a raw water irrigation system for residences that would be pressurized
by a pumping system provided by the Applicant. The materials provide preliminary
performance specifications of the pumping ·system but not an engineering design of the
anticipated system.
13. The CC&Rs should include any regulations necessary for the irrigation systems of the
individual Lots, such as sprinkling systems, controllers, and connection to the irrigation system.
14. The CC&Rs and the Landscape Plan should include the I 0' irrigation restriction in landscaping
around buildings per the recommendations ofHP Geotech.
15. The sewer design proposes a wastewater treatment plant and force main ejecting into a manhole
near lots on Rookery Street and Riverside Loop Drive. The Applicant should discuss how any
associated odors are to be mitigated.
16. The Applicant proposes to discharge treated effluent from the proposed wastewater treatment
into constructed wetlands. It appears that the wetlands intended are within the Common Area
tracts. The Applicant should evaluate wetland discharge and determine if the wetlands created
in common areas between Lots is the most advantageous or appropriate location when compared
to the adjacent Roaring Fork.
17. The project disturbance may require that an individual permit with the Corps ·of Engineers be
obtained instead of a nationwide permit. The Applicant will need to .determine the appropriate
course of action.
18. It appears that home occupations would be allowed but the traffic report does riot appear to
include these in the calculation of trip generation. The Applicant should address any impacts.
MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC.
Civil a·nd Environmental-Consulting and Design
826 VJ Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross~eng.com
Project Plan Sheets:
River Edge
Page 3 of4
I. Additional parking should be provided for the ball fields and playgrounds in the active
recreation areas.
2. The playgrounds should be located closer to the adjacent street and proposed parking areas
than the ball fields.
3. The traffic calming island of the round-about eliminates the turning movement into Moraine
Court from Riverside Loop Drive. The Applicant should evaluate. this.
4. At present the sidewalks and internal project trails show no connection to the Rio Grande ·
Trail. Sidewalks on River Edge Drive terminate on top of the underpass but do not continue
to either the proposed project signalized intersection or connect to the Rio Grande Trail.
Given the potential complications of tying into the underpass and the pedestrian crossing
necessary at Highway 82, the Applicant should determine how to connect these to provide
pedestrian access in the most safe and efficient manner.
5. The proposed plans show some road grades of 0.5%. This is very flat and often proves to be
very difficult to maintain constant curb and gutter flow-line grades. The Applicant should
consider varying or steeper grades.
6. The round-abouts on the n9rth and south ends of the projects should have radii on the .curb
and gutter returns with the intersections of the project streets.
· 7. An engineered pavement design should be provided based on project specific soils.
8. The project site grading along the north property line shows incomplete contours, trespass
on the adjacent property to the north, and creates drainage problem areas. The Applicant
should revise the grading plan and obtain any necessary agreements and/or temporary
easements.
9. The proposed drainage channel has slopes at grades as flat as 0.5%. The channel also
proposes materials of rip-rap, grass, or concrete. All of these materials are not suitable for
the flat slopes that are proposed. The Applicant should determine channel materials based
on slopes, flow velocities, and maintenance. .
I 0. The drainage plan shows inlets daylighting between lots. and flowing along the side yards
before getting to the <:Oll)Illon areas. These tend to be problematic as the buildings are
constructed, graded and the landscaping is placed. They are also difficult to maintain
positive flows in natural or grass swales especially at the very flat slopes that are proposed.
The Applicant should investigate alternatives.
II. The Applicant .should design the release structures and routing for discharges from the water
quality ponds.
12. The Applicant should verifY the location of inlets at intersections for drainage of low spots
or provide valley pans for crossings.
13. Chert Court does not show a connection to the culvert beneath it for drainage.
14. The Applicant should investigate alternative layouts or routings within the narrow corridor
between Cattle Creek and Mica Court. At present the Glenwood Ditch, Cattle Creek, a
retaining wall, storm drain culvert, pedestrian trail, sewer line, and water line all compete for
space.
15. Storm inlets should be designed to connect to storm manholes instead of connecting with a
tee directly into the storm main line piping.
16. The contours for Mica; Moraine, Ore, and Heron Courts show a jog at the front of the lots
that creates a low spot and should be corrected.
MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC.
Civil arid Environmental Consulting and Design
826 Y2 Grand A venue, Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
River Edge
Page4 of4
17. The relocation of the glenwood ditch is shown within a constant graded slope that will make
access and maintenance difficult. The slope grading should be adjusted to provide a bench
an:d/or access road along the top of the ditch.
18. The plans show that the curb and gutter convey runoff water across the bridge. This is not
typically done. The Applicant should verify this with the structural engineer.
19. Grading and drainage from the Rio Grande Trail to the intersection with Highway 82 has not
been desigoed.
20. An access easement is provided into the proposed Estate Lot but no desigo is provided to
verify that the access can be constructed within the easement provided. The Applicant
should verify the access grading.
21. The Applicant should perform an energy grade line analysis on. Storm Manhole Nc7 to
verify that the water would not bubble up during higli flows.
22. The 48" storm drain line is at a 0.3% slope. This is very difficult to construct and maintain.
The Applicant should investigate alternatives.
23. There are multiple adjacent sewer lines that drain the same direction. The Applicant should
combine runs of sewer. line as practical and/or verify the layout with RFWSD.
24. Rookery Street force main discharges into· a manhole on Riverside Loop Drive. Disc;:harges
into these manholes are subject to corrosive gases and odors. The Applicant should
determine any special considerations that may be necessary for this manhole.
2~. The multiple adjacent manholes in Heron Court should be verified with RFWSD and/or
alternative arrangements investigated.
26. The plans and specifications will need to be approved for construction by RFWSD if that
option is pursued.
27. Utility connection should be desigoed and stubbed out for the future connection of the Estate
lot to irrigation, sewer, and water utilities.
28. The utilities are shown as being constructed beneath the bridge abutments. This should be
changed to either hang the main lines beneath the deck or cross cattle creek out to the side
for ease of maintenance and eventual replacement.
29. The offsite water line connection is' shown as being constructed in the existing box culvert.
The Applicant should desigo this to mitigate freezing or determine an alternative.
30. The sewer and water lines proposed within Ore Court are at nearly the same elevation and
will make service· connections very difficult. The Applicant should offset these elevations.
Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments.
Chris Hale, PE
MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 Yz Orand A venue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
From: Chris Hale
To: Kathy A. Eastley;
Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:44:46 AM
Kathy:
Good Questions!
On the detention, I am not aware of any law that requires detention but I can do
some research and see what I find. I did make a comment about the subdrains on
item #5 on the first page, but I left out the part concerning the waiver. So based on
comment #5, I would not support this waiver.
Thanks. Let me know.
Sincerely,
Mountain Cross
Engineering, Inc.
Chris Hale, P.E.
826 1/2 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ph: 970.945.5544
Fx: 970.945.5558
From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:03PM
To: Chris Hale
Cc: Carey Gagnon
Subject: River Edge Colorado
Chris,
I have some specific questions for you on this project;
1. I thought that state statute required stormwater detention-that post-
development peak flow could not exceed pre-development peak discharge.
The project do~s not proposed to detain stormwater so how can they meet
this statute? The BOCC cannot waive state law.
2. They are requesting waiver ofthe subdrains for all foundations required
by 7-206 B.2. Your letter states that the geotechnical engineer recommends
that these sub-drains be provided-would you support this waiver?
If you could respond to these questions I would appreciate it!
Kathy Eastley, AICP
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Kathy,
Andrew McGregor
Kathy A. Eastley;
River Edge PUD/Subdivision
Thursday, June 09, 2011 3:41:46 PM
MEMORANDUl.docx
Attached are comments on the application. Thanks for your patience.
Andrew
MEMORANDUM
June 9, 2011
TO: Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Planning and Building
FROM: Andrew McGregor, Community Development Department, City of GWS
RE: Rivers Edge PUD
At their meeting on June 2, 2011, the Glenwood Springs City Council heard a brief presentation on the
River's Edge PUD from Sam Otero, PE representing the owner, described the project. At the conclusion
of the presentation, the Council discussed the application. The following are comments from the City
Council in regards to the application.
• Consistent with our comments voiced during the County's Comprehensive Plan update process
last year, the City is very concerned about the creation of an unincorporated community
without commensurate public services and infrastructure. This magnitude of development in
this location could be termed "sprawl".
• While we recognize that this application contemplates a smaller number of dwelling units, it is
also a smaller parcel. If and when adjacent parcels are proposed for development, with the
County's current land use designation, the magnitude of the development could equal or exceed
previous applications.
• Based on the criteria for rezoning contained in the County's land use resolution, a rezoning does
not appear justified. There is no requisite "change in circumstances". It could be argued that
the only zoning warranted would be to a lesser intensity use. Likewise, there is no
"demonstrated community need". There is already a vast inventory of vacant lots and homes
available in the Roaring Fork Valley. The absorption rate in the fiscal impact analysis suggests an
absorption rate of 58 units per year for the remainder of this decade. This rate seems unlikely
considering market conditions. Adding additional platted properties to the valley's inventory
will only dilute the values of those already in existence. And finally, the proposed
PUD/subdivislon will not promote rural character; rather it will be the final defining act of infill
between Glenwood and Carbondale.
• The proposed development will place an increased burden on sheriff's dept., fire district, COOT
and RE-1 personnel and facilities. As the fiscal impact report states, the project will have a
"negative impact on county finances".
• Concerns over the impact to the resident elk herd and their migratory patterns.
• According to the traffic report, the project will generate approximately 3500 ADT onto Highway
82. The application alludes to a signalized intersection although it is somewhat unclear. The
impact of a signal in this location will increase travel times along the Hwy. 82 corridor. And
while delivering potential sales tax dollars, a portion of these vehicles will travel to and through
Glenwood further exacerbating our congestion and travel times at peak hours.
• It is unclear how the applicants will provide water and wastewater treatment. Two options for
each utility are outlined in the application.
• It is unclear from the application materials how the main roadway will connect from the west
side of the RFTA ROW to the SH 82 ROW. What type of crossing is contemplated at this
entrance location? This should be addressed in advance of any decision on the application. As a
co-owner of RFTA, we are concerned about any adverse impacts to the corridor.
• According to County Assessor's records the subject property consists of 283 +/-acres. However,
the application consists of only 160+/-acres. Is it acceptable to rezone only a portion of a
parcel? The City has concerns about the future rezoning of the 123 acres unaccounted for in
this PUD application.
In closing, the City would encourage the County to follow the direction outlined in its recently adopted
Comp Plan update and develop a cooperative IGA for review of areas within the spheres of influence
around all municipalities in the county. The existing IGA is inadequate for generating the much needed
dialogue between jurisdictions for potentially significant land use changes.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Kathy,
Ellen Mayo@fws.gov
Kathy A. Eastley;
River Edge Colorado
Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:23:04 PM
We appreciate your request for comments on the River Edge Colorado
project
I want to direct your attention to the wildlife assessment in B2 Appendix K
section 2.2 Riparian Habitats on page 9. The final paragraph describes the
presence along the river's edge of the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, a species
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
As it says in the report: "If water and wastewater services are provided
RFWSD then County teview of potential impacts to orchids would occur as
part of location and extent review (M. Sawyer 8140 Partners 12/6/2010).
Further, a section 404 permit application (under the Clean Water Act) to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will require section 7 consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I am available if you have questions.
Ellen Mayo
Botanist/Plant Ecologist
USFWS Ecological Services
764 Horizon Dr., Bldg. B
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
(970) 243-2778 ext. 14
There is far more to life than getting things done.
Jon Kabat-Zinn
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Morse, W. Travis SPK
Kathy A. Eastley;
River Edge Colorado SPK-2010-01312 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thursday, May 05, 2011 8:59:24 AM
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Dear Ms. Eastley:
I am responding to your April 25, 2011 request for comments on the River Edge
Colorado project, located west of Highway 82 along Cattle Creek and the
Roaring Fork River.
The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study area is under the
authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United
States include, but are not limited to, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds,
wetlands, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require
Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work.
On October 13, 2010, I performed a wetland boundary confirmation and
jurisdictional determination to ascertain the extent of waters on the project
site. I confirmed that the wetland delineation prepared by PEN DO solutions,
Inc. on behalf of the applicant is accurate and that approximately 6.52 acres
of jurisdictional waters occur within the property. It is not clear from the
information provided in your request for comment if impacts to jurisdictional
waters will be entirely avoided.
The range of alternatives considered for this project should include
alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United
States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.
In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable
alternatives to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should
be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project
implementation.
Please refer to identification number SPK-2010-01312 in any correspondence
concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Travis Morse, Biologist
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Colorado West Regulatory Branch
400 Rood Avenue, Room 142
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
0: (970) 243-1199, ext. 17
C: (970) 216-1184
F: (970) 241-2358
w.travis.morse@usace.army.mil
web: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/regulatorv.html
Let us know how we're doing.
http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html
Information on the Regulatory Program.
http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/organizations/cespk-co/requlatorv/index.html
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
From:
To:
cc:
Kathy A. Eastley
Rockwood Shepard;
Carey Gagnon; Fred Jarman;
Subject: Division of Water Resources comments
Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:03:00 AM
Water Resources -river edge. pdf
Date:
Attachments:
Rocky-
Attached are comments from the Division of Water Resources-the lack of
approved court decrees results in a comment that " ... the proposed water supply
will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate".
The ULUR. Section 7-105, states that "An adequate water supply plan shall be
required for any preliminary or final approval of an application for rezoning,
planned unit development, limited impact or major impact review, development
or site plan, or similar application for new construction. This section shall apply to
all development permits which require a water demand in an amount of more
than 8 (eight) single-family equivalents where 1 (one) single-family equivalent
equals 350 gallons of water per day."
Two issues arise as a result of this section:
1. The pending court decrees are not sufficient demonstration of
adequate water to serve the proposed development;
2. The submittal documents are inconsistent with regard to gallon that
comprise an EQR-the ULUR requires 350 gallons-the water supply plan
submitted uses 350 gallons, other areas of the application utilize 300 gallons
or 189 gallons.
As you are aware this is an issue that must be resolved to the extent possible prior
to Planning Commission and staff would recommend that the PC not move
forward with a recommendation until sufficient water is demonstrated.
Kathy Eastley, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, #401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: 970-945-13n ext. 1580
Fax: 970-384-3470
keastley@garfield-county.com
SUCCESS IS NEVER FOUND. FAILURE IS NEVER FATAL. COURAGE IS THE ONLY
. THING. -WINSTON CHURCHILL .
June 29, 2011
VIA EMAIL (KEASTLEY@GARFIELD-COUNTY.COM)
Kathy Eastley, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th Stneet, #401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Brownstein I Hyatt
Farber I Schreck
Wayne F. Forman
Attorney at Law
303.223.1120 tel
303.223.0920 fax
wforman@bhfs.com
RE: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan: Response to your June 23, 2011 email
referencing June 22, 2011 Referral letter from Megan Sullivan on behalf of the Division of
Water Resources (the "DWR letter'')
Dear Kathy:
On behalf of Carbondale Investments, llC, I am writing to request that you reconsider your June 23,
2011 email to Rocky Shepard In which you take the position that the Planning Commission should
wilhhold action on the River Edge Project, In light of the DWR letter finding that, due solely to the lack
of a water court approved augmentation plan, the proposed water supply for the River Edge Project is
Inadequate. Let me first address the DWR letter and then your response.
Contrary to the requirements of C.R.S. § 30·28-136(1)(h)(l), the DWR Letter does not address the
adequacy of the components of the water supply assembled by Carbondale for the River Edge Project,
including whether there is a physical supply available for the Project and whether the water rights held
by Carbondale to offset out-of-priority depletions associated with withdrawals of that physical supply are
adequate to protect other water rights. For reasons that are not obvious, the DWR Letter completely
overlooks these essential issues. In stark contrast, Michael Erion, P.E. of Resource Engineering, Inc.,
explains in the January 17, 2011 Water Supply RePOrt that: there is an adequate physical water supply
from the sounoes identified by Carbondale to supply the Project; and Carbondale owns significant senior
water rights In the Glenwood Dilch and Staton Dilch, together wilh a contract for 62.6 acre feet of
augmentation water through the Basalt Water Conservancy District ("BWCD") Contract, that provide
more than adequate augmentation rights to offset an out-of-priority depletions associated with providing
a potable water supply to the River Edge Project In fact, nothing In the DWR Letter addresses,
criticizes or undermines Mr. Erion's conclusion that Carbondale presently holds adequate water rights
and resources to supply the Project
It is clear from the DWR letter that the sole basis for the negative finding regarding Carbondale's
proposed water supply is that Carbondale does not yet have decnees in hand for its pending water court
cases, Case Nos. 07CW164 and 08CW198. As such, the DWR review does not represent an
assessment of the water supply plan but simply the stetus of the adjudication of the water rights. But
there is nothing in the County's Land Use Code that requires an applicant to have all of Its water court
decrees in advance of Planning Commission action. Indeed, such a requirement would be Illogical. It
could require a landowner to expend tens of millions of dollars securing water rights and years In water
court to fully adjudicate water rights, for a development that may not ever be approved. That
410 Se=t<cnth Stn:e, SWtc 2200 I Den\•ct, CO 80202M32
Brownstein H)'iltt Farber Schreck. UP I bhfs.com
Kathy Easlley, AICP
June 29, 2011
Page2
int$rpretatlon of the ULUR is unsupportable and, in fact, contradicts the plain language of the code.
Because the DWR failed to assese the water supply plan and instead focused solely on the fact that the
adjudication Is incomplete, its comments do nothing to lnfonn' the County's review of the pending zoning
and subdivision applications.
You quote ULUR § 7-105, which provides that an "adequate water supply l!!ln shall ba required before
any preliminary or final approval of an applicatiOn for rezoning, (PUD), ••.. • (emphasis added).
Carbondale has submitted such a plan, in the form of Mr. Erion's letter, and therefore, carbondale has
met this requirement Aooordlngly, there is no basis to delay the Planning Commission's action on the
Carbondale application based on the DWR Letter. Furthermore, ULUR § 7-106.A contradicts the need
for Carbondale to have lis decrees finalized as a condition of PfOCE'edlng before the Planning
Commission: "Nothing In this section shaH be construed to require that the applicant own or have
acquired the proposed water supply or constructed the related Infrastructure at the time of the
application (Resolution 201G-29)."
We are fully aware that before approval of any final plats for the Project, carbondale will have to have
its water rights fully decreed. Bear in mind that Carbondale does hold a decreed water court
augmentation plan, case No. 01CW187, for 349.55 EQRs based on a water supply of 300 gpd/EQR.
Pending Is an applicatiOn by carbondale, Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District and BWCD for a
minor amendment to that decree to increase the supply to 350 gpd/EQR. We anticipate that we will
have that case and lis companion case pending In Case No. 07CW164 decreed within the next two to
tour weeks, mooting this Issue entirely. But Carbondsle strongly objects to your suggestion that llhe
Planning Commission cannot take action on the River Edge Project without Carbondale having fully
decreed water rights In hand.
Thank you for considering this Information and we look forward to discussing this with you further.
7!J.ely,
ftL~
WFF:jc
cc: Rockwood Shepard
Mark Sawyer
Sam otero
Lori Baker, Esq.
Carey Gagnon, Esq.
137381211555924.2
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Hi Kathy-
Shannon L. Pelland
Kathy A. Eastley;
River Edge
Thursday, June 30, 20111:00:20 PM
River Edge.pdf
! have attached a letter regarding the River Edge development. Please let
me know if you have any questions or concerns. It seems that the
dedication of a school site would be problematic due to the uncertainty
about whether access approvals for a public crossing could ever be
obtained. That's unfortunate for the District and the developer.
Thanks for your patience.
Shannon
Roaring Fork School District
1405 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: 970.384.6000
Fax: 970.384.6005
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
I 08 8th Street
Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Ms Eastley:
Judy Haptonstall_-Superintendent
Brad Ray -Asst. Superintendent of Curriculum,
'-Instruction and Assessment. -.
Shannon Pelland -Asst. Superintendent of
Business Services
Thank you for the providing the School District the opportunity to comment on the River Edge
Land Use Plan. Representatives of River Edge have been in contact with the District during their
planning process.
Under the District's land dedication formula, the calculation indicates that River Edge would be
required to dedicate about 7.3 acres for a school site. This amount is not adequate to address the
site requirements of an elementary school including building envelope, ball fields and parking,
and would have required either an additional contribution of acreage by the developer, or the
purchase of additional acreage by the District. The developer's initial intent was to provide all or
part of a school site. That would have required the formation of a metro district since a private
developer cannot apply for a public crossing of the RFTA right-of-way. Because River Edge
was unable to obtain approval to form a metro district, they could not submit an application for a
public crossing, nor could the School District since it is not the owner of the property. While it
is possible that a site could be dedicated for a school, there are no guarantees that the District
would be successful in gaining public access across the right-ofway.
Therefore, we believe the District's only option at this point is to accept fees in-lieu-of!and
dedication to be calculated in accordance with the County Regulations.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions.
SifJely,
.. s:sl1~
Shannon Pelland
Asst. Superintendent, Business Services
From:
To:
cc:
Subject:
Date:
Roussin, Daniel
Kathy A. Eastley;
Babler. Alisa:
RE: River Edge Colorado
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 4:54:22 PM
Kathy -Thank you for the opportunity to review River Edge Colorado
development on SH 82 near Cattle Creek (CR113). This development will
need an access permit. At this time, CDOT hasn't done a complete
reviewed the traffic study dated December 201 0. The study indicates a
signal in 2018 and conceptually, this would meet the Code if the access is a
public road.
CDOT recognizes the access to this development is closely related to the
operation of the east side of CR 113. Both accesses will need to be
coordinated to function as one intersection. Due to the close proximity of
the frontage roads and county roads (113 &110), it will take some effort to
re-align the intersections. Garfield County has made CR 113 the highest
priority in the Garfield County Transportation Intersection Needs
Assessment (TINA). These access issues need to be figured out prior to
final development approval.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
thanks
Dan Roussin
Region 3 Traffic
From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:45AM
To: Roussin, Daniel
Subject: River Edge Colorado
Dan,
Attached are the comments received from SGM-they reviewed the proposal
because of the potential impact to the intersection study which they had
undertaken on behalf of the County. l'lllook forward to getting comments from
you next Tuesday! Thanks.
Kathy Eastley, AICP
Senior Planner
FIRE· EMS ·RESCUE
August 4, 2011
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: River Edge Colorado-Emergency Vehicle Access
Dear Kathy:
I have reviewed the drawings for the two proposed emergency vehicle access (EVA)· roads for
the proposed River Edge Subdivision. The south EVA would connect at the intersection of
Alpine Bluff Street and High Creek Road. The north EVA would connect between Lot 1 and Lot
9 on Trailside Drive. Both EVAs would connect the subdivision to Highway 82. Table 1:
"Street Design Criteria" of the Project Engineering Design Report indicates that the EV As would
have a width of 20 feet. Both the proposed location and width are acceptable. Any gates
installed to control access should be in accordance with Section D103.5 "Fire apparatus road
access gates" of the International Fire Code, 2009 edition.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
July 1, 2011
Kathy Easily
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Dear Ms. Easily:
Re: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Sections 7 & 12, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
John \V. Hicken looper
Governor
Mike King
Executive Director
Dick Wolfe, P.E.
Director/Sta!C;" Engineer
We have reviewed additional information regarding the above referenced proposal to create a
PUD on 160 acres for a residential development to include 366 residential units of various sizes and
types and 9 non-residential units, all to be built on 346 lots, along with recreational open space and a
neight>orhood center. In addition, the applicant Is proposing to complete the subdivision process for
the proposed PUD by subdividing the land into 346 lots.
The applicant proposes to provide water to the PUD through the Roaring Fork Water &
Sanitation District (the District) pursuant to water rights and an augmentation plan decreed in Case No.
01 CW187 and pending court cases 07CW164 and OBCW198. Potable water will be provided either
through existing alluvial wells and/or surface water diversions operated by the District, or through a
surface water intake located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the project site, to be operated
by the River Edge Colorado Property Owners Association (POA). Irrigation water will be provided by
the POA through the Glenwood and Staton Ditches. Sewage disposal will be through a central
system. A conditional letter of confirmation from the District was provided.
The applicant anticipates a requirement of 375 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) of potable
water for 366 residential ur"iits and 9 non-residential units. Per the Water Treatment and Distribution
Design Report provided in the submitted materials, it appears this requirement is based on the
assumption that each EQR is equivalent to a household demand of 189 gallons per day (gpd) per
single family unit. The augmentation plan decreed in the Division 5 Water Court, in case no.
01CW187, limits the final development to 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation using an assumption
of 300 gpd per EQR. This decreed augmentation plan does not allow for the flexibility to assume a
reduced household use water demand per single family unit in order to increase the number of EQRs.
To date, no other decrees providing water to the development have been adjudicated and
pursuant to the decree in case no. 01 CW187, the applicant is limited to less EQRs than is proposed
under this application. The applicant indicated that an additional water supply will be available as soon
as two pending water court cases are decreed in case nos. 07CW164 and 08CW198. The applicant
indicated that they expect decrees will be entered soon in these two cases; unfortunately, at this time,
these pending water court cases do not serve as an adequate claim to a legal water supply. In
addition, the proposed alternative physical supply for potable water diverted through a surface water
intake along the Roaring Fork River and operated by the POA has not yet been decreed, but is
included in the pending water court cases. Until these proposed alternate points of diversion are
decreed, the applicant is limited to diverting the water through infrastructure owned and operated by
Office of the State Engineer
1313 Shennan Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866~3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589
http://water.stale.co.us
Kathy Eastly July 1, 2011
River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan
the RFWCD as specified in case no. 01 CW187. The applicant will not be able to utilize an alternate
water infrastructure system until such a time as alternate points of diversion, which allow for the
applicant to have direct control of said water, are decreed.
The applicant anticipates a raw water demand for approximately 150 acres of irrigation at any
one time. Diversions will be made from the Roaring Fork River at the Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle
Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the Water Supply Plan provided with the•application, the
applicant can divert approximately 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Staton
Ditch. The 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch are subject to the
change of water right and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case nos. 01 CW188 and
01CW189. The use of these water rights at the proposed subdivision must be operated in accordance
with said decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use. Note that these two cases also provide for
operation of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1 -5. The operation of the lakes must also be in accordance
with the terms of these decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use of the Applicant's share of
these ditches.
In summary, there are several aspects of this water supply plan that are not yet in place. First,
the source of the physical supply has yet to be confirmed. The applicant indicated that domestic water
requirements for the project will either be supplied by the District or through infrastructure operated by
the POA. As of the date of this letter, the applicants have neither obtained a final contract with the
District acknowledging the District as the confirmed water supply source, nor have in place a water
supply infrastructure plan that meets all county water use design requirements and can be supplied
through a decreed alternate point of diversion. Second, while the water supply plan currently proposed
in the draft decrees submitted to the water court to date indicates that there is the potential for a
sufficient water supply for the subdivision as proposed in this referral, this water supply is the subject of
pending decrees. The applicant indicated that they are actively pursuing resolution in the cases,
however, as of the date of this letter, a final decree has not been entered for either case no. 07CW164
or08CW198.
Without a final decree for cases no. 07CW164 or 08CW198, the proposed water supply plan
for the number of EQRs in this project cannot be provided under a water court approved augmentation
plan. Therefore, the State Engineer cannot find, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(l), that the
proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights and is adequate. If you
or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Karlyn Adams in this
office.
Sincerely,
.l C~~-1 I ~• lt•\,--cqt<--·""-''"''J"u., __ _
\ {)
MS/kaa/River Edge PUD and Subdiv ii.docx
Megan Sullivan, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
June 30, 2011
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
511 COLORADO AVENUE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
108 81h Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: River Edge
Dear Commissioners:
JUL 0 5 2011
G/\t~l-=;i~LU 0CUi',~T-'r'
BU!LD!i'-!D r:; PU\NNiN(.;
Thank you for referring the River Edge project to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review
and comments. The Planning Commission discussed the application at its June 16, 2011 meeting.
First, the Planning Commission discussed the fact that the Commission had submitted a letter to
the County during the County Comprehensive Plan review expressing concern about the future
development of the Cattle Creek area. The Planning Commission had pointed out that there is a
gap between the Three Mile Areas of Influence between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, and
that future development in this area would likely affect both communities. The Carbondale
Plarming Commission suggested some type of mechanism, perhaps an Intergovernmental
Agreement between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County, in order to jointly plan
. for this area of the Roaring Fork Valley. Unfortunately, the County did not adopt this
• suggestion.
In the letter, the Planning Commission had also noted that the definition of an "Unincorporated
Community" was an existing, large, self-contained subdivision. The Land Use Map showed the
"Unincorporated Communities" boundary as an area larger than the existing developed area and
it encompassed the Cattle Creek property. The Plarming Commission suggested that the
boundary of the "Unincorporated Community" be revised to reflect the definition as the existing
developed area and that the vacant area in Cattle Creek not be included within the boundary.
This recommendation was developed from concerns that the designation would result in a new
town in unincorporated Garfield County. Again, this suggestion was not adopted. If fact, the
River Edge application justifies the rezoning based on the fact that the property falls within an
"Unincorporated Community" on the County's land use map.
At its June 16, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission questioned the community need for the
development and noted that the proposed price point of the development is consistent with
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
several existing nearby developments such as Midland Point and Ironbridge. This is in addition
to developments already approved within the area municipalities.
The Planning Commission noted that the absorption rate of homes sold between Aspen and
Parachute is currently about 50 units per month. If this development is approved and based on
the developers expectation to build and sell 50 units per year, this single development would
account for 8% of the demand for housing between Aspen and Parachute. The Planning
Commission questioned if this figure was reasonable and noted that any lot sales in the proposed
development would likely come at the expense of lot sales in existing subdivisions. In fact, there
is concern that it would negatively affect existing jobs generated by existing developments.
The Planning Commission is emphatic in its belief that an approval of the proposed development
would not equate to economic development as it does not guarantee new homes starts and only
represents unnecessary suburban sprawl.
The Planning Commission questioned the justification in the application that the development
would have beneficial effects on traffic on Highway 82. Again, there is still plenty of inventory
of approved residential developments which could be built within the municipalities which
would, in reality, reduce traffic on Highway 82 due to the available services within the
municipalities.
We understand the original Cattle Creek property has been subdivided into 3 parcels. If the other
lots were developed, it could result in approximately 500 to 600 units. The impact of the
potential development needs to be considered in a cumulative manner rather than taking a
piecemeal approach. It would be difficult to endorse anything for this parcel unless there is a
master plan for this area.
As far as specifics of the development, the Planning Commission would like to offer the
following comments:
1. The houses have been pushed as close to the boundary along the river as possible. Some
additional buffering should be considered.
2. The application represents that there is clustering of residential units; however, the site
plan does not reflect clustering.
3. The provision of community gardens does not meet the intent of retaining our agricultural ,
heritage
4. The request for the waiver of the provision of public open space should be discouraged. It
should also be noted there is no public access to any planned open space areas along the
Roaring Fork River.
5. The application does not indicate how the connection to a water/wastewater facility
would be accomplished. This should be clear prior to review of the application.
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
6. The application references a signalized intersection along Highway 82 but details on that
intersection are unclear. This should be determined prior to review of the application.
7. The request to defer the provision of affordable housing units should be discouraged.
8. It appears there needs to be some higher level of coordination with RFT A.
9. There is concern about the impacts on the wildlife, especially the resident elk herd. The
lack of clustering exacerbates that concern. We encourage you to implement the
suggestions outlined in the letters from the Division of Wildlife dated February 19,2009
and April 15, 2008.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
July 5, 2011
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
511 COLORADO A VENUE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
I 08 81h Street, Suite 40 I
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I
Re: River Edge
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for referring the River Edge project to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review
and comments. The Board of Trustee's discussed the application at its June 21,2011 meeting.
The Planning Commission discussed the application and has submitted a letter for your
consideration. The Board of Trustee's would like to comment on the application and reinforce
some of the points the Planning Commission submitted in its comments.
As there is a gap between the Three Mile Areas of Influence between Glenwood Springs and
Carbondale, and development in this area would likely affect both communities, the Carbondale
Planning Commission suggested an Intergovernmental Agreement between Glenwood Springs,
Carbondale and Garfield County, in order to jointly plan for this area of the Roaring Fmk Valley.
An IGA can be a very useful tool to provide a level of cooperation and understanding in
applications that will affect Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County. Unfortunately
this has not taken place.
The Board strongly encourages and recommends that an IGA be developed to allow for more
collaboration among and between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County as to how
the Cattle Creek area may be developed in the future. Since it is unlikely that the IGA can be
agreed upon quickly, the Board asks that the County make time during the River Edge land use
process to allow an opportunity for cooperation between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and the
County.
The Board and Commission question the community need for the development. The proposed
price point of the development is consistent with several existing nearby county developments
such as Midland Point and Ironbridge. This is in addition to developments already approved
within the area municipalities. With the absorption rate at 50 units per month valley-wide, and
the proposed development to take up 8% of the demand, the loss of sales in existing
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
developments should be considered. Construction of more homes may provide for an influx of
jobs for a very limited amount of time. Once the homes are built, there is no guarantee that they
wilt be sold in a timeframe that is beneficial, thereby negating the benefit of the temporary jobs
created during construction.
The Board and Commission also question the justification in the application that the
development would have beneficial effects on traffic on Highway 82. Again, there is adequate
inventory of approved residential developments which could be built within the muuicipalities
which would, in reality, reduce traffic on Highway 82 due to the available services within the
municipalities.
A development plan for the entire site will need to be reviewed, not just this one parcel as each
of the three parcels will affect the surrounding areas.
There is also concern about the impacts on the wildlife, especially the resident elk herd. The lack
of clustering exacerbates that concern. We encourage you to implement the suggestions outlined
in the letters from the Division of Wildlife dated February 19, 2009 and April 15, 2008. This
would include a winter closure of proposed trails and prohibiting the use of easements and
buffers in the commuuity for recreation and trails.
In the not too distant past, this area was identified as "one of the most environmentally sensitive
pieces of property in Garfield County." This points out the compelling need we have for an open
space fund in Garfield County. Preservation through either open space dedication and/or
acquisition would greatly enhance the preservation of wildlife habitat and maintain the rural and
uniquely scenic character of this property, preserving it in perpetuity for future genemtions.
Thank you for the opportuuity to submit comments.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
~~
Stacey Patch Bernot
Mayor
Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
July 7, 2011
To: Kathy Easterly, Garfield County Planner
From: Ron Biggers Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department
Re: Comments on River Edge Colorado, applicant Carbondale Investment LLC, location 113 CR, Cattle
Creek and Colorado State Highway 82
The applicants did discuss this planned unit development with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection
District staff (CRFPD). It appears their comments address the main emergency responds needs required
for this review. In reviewing the information given to me by the applicant I have a few additional
comments to add to those made to the applicant by the CRFPD staff.
They are the following:
• I believe the codes referenced for the proposed buildings on this site will be the 2009
International Codes and amendments to them. Garfield County adopted the 2009 Building
codes in 2010 and International Fire Code in the spring of 2011. The application mentions the
2003 International Fire Code as a reference.
• Garfield County in 2010 adopted the 2009 International Residential Code. The adoption
included section P2409 Dwelling Units Fire Sprinkler systems. This requirement is currently
scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2013. This section requires all one and two family
homes to have fire sprinkler systems installed in them after January 1, 2013. This will require
the water services to each unit to be sized properly to meet the water flow requirements for
the fire sprinkler systems.
• The road sizes vary and some will need to be posted with no parking signage so emergency
vehicles access is not hindered by parked vehicles on them. Who will enforce the no-parking
regulations, private security or the Garfield County Sherriff?
• Other: What type or types of development may-be considered for the remainder of the
property? Are fire flow water demands for future development being considered in the water
demands for this PUD? Is emergency access to future development sites on the property being
included in the plans for this PUD?
If this PUD gets approval to move forward more comments will be forth coming as it goes through
future planning and construction reviews.
EXHIBIT HH -Applicant submittal of supplemental information dated September, 2011.
This Exhibit is part of the 4 binder application that was submitted.
September 6, 20 II
Kathy Eastley, AICP
Senior Planner
Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen, Inc.
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, #40 1
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Kathy,
The Aspen Glen Board of Directors (BOD) would like to submit this letter in reference to the
River Edge development proposed just north of Aspen Glen. In preparation for this letter the
BOD reviewed the submitted application and the referral letters submitted by the Town of
Carbondale and the City of Glenwood Springs.
The Aspen Glen BOD agrees with many of the concerns identified in all three letters. In
particular the BOD supports the concept of an IGA or alternative process that encourages
cooperation and dialogue between Glenwood Springs, the County and the Town of Carbondale.
If appropriate, Aspen Glen would like to participate in that kind of dialogue given the
infrastructure in place to support Aspen Glen such as the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation
District.
In addition, the BOD is equally concerned that the current land use application and development
analysis pertains to just about half of the total property (160 acres vs. 283 acres +/-). Although
Aspen Glen is only half built out the entire property was planned and platted at once thus
providing neighbors and the County a thorough review of the proposed development and
complete picture of impacts and benefits.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide referral comments for River Edge. Please do not
hesitate to contact me or Leslie Lamont, our Design Review Administrator, with any questions or
comments.
Art emm, sident
Aspen Glen Board of Directors
0080 Bald Eagle Way Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (970) 963-3362 · Fax: (970) 963-4550
Lance Luckett, Community Services Director Email: lance@sopris.net
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
September 8, 2011
Kathy Eastly
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Dear Ms. Eastly:
Re: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Sections 7 & 12, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
john W. Hickenlodper
Governor
Mike!Gn "--. gDir L>X-ecutive-ector
Dick WoJfe, P.E.
Director/State Engineer
We have reviewed add~ional information regarding the above referenced proposal to create a
PUD on 160 acres for a residential development to include 366 residential un~ of various sizes and
types and 9 non-residential units, all to be built on 346 lots, along w~h recreational open space and a
neighl:lorhood center. In addition, the applicant is proposing to complete the subdivision process for
the proposed PUD by subdividing the land into 3461ots.
The applicant proposes to provide water to the PUD through the Roaring Fork Water &
Sanitation District (the District) pursuant to water rights and an augmentation plan decreed in Case No.
01 CW187 and pending court cases 07CW164 and 08CW198. Potable water will be provided either
through existing alluvial wells and/or surface water diversions operated by the District, or through a
surface water intake located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the project site, to be operated
by the River Edge Colorado Property Owners Association (POA). Irrigation water will be provided by
the POA through the Glenwood and Staton Ditches. Sewage disposal will be through a central
system. A conditional letter of confirmation from the District was provided.
The applicant anticipates a requirement of 375 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) of potable
water for 366 residential units and 9 non-residential units. The augmentation plan decreed in the
Division 5 Water Court in case no. 01CW187 and proposed for amendment in pending court case no.
08CW198, limits the final development to 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation using an assumption
of 350 gpd per EQR. An additional court case, case no. 07CW164, is currently pending in the Division
5 Water Court that would allow for an additional 850.45 ERQs using a 350 gpd per EQR assumption.
The applicant anticipates a raw water dernand for approximately 150 acres of irrigation at any
one time. Diversions will be made from the Roaring Fork River at the Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle
Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the Water Supply Plan provided with the application, the
applicant can divert approximately 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Staton
Ditch. The 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch are subject to the
change of water right and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case nos. 01 CW188 and
01 CW189. The use of these water rights at the proposed subdivision must be operated iri accordance
with said decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use. Note that these two cases also provide for
operation of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1 -5. The operation of the lakes must also be in accordance
with the terms of these decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use of the Applicanfs share of
these ditches.
Office of the State Engineer
1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589
http://water.state.co.us
Kathy Eastly September 8, 2011
River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan
As of the date of this letter, a final decree has not been entered for either case no. 07CW164
or 08CW198. The Division 5 Water Court Referee has issued a ruling in both cases and so long as no
party opposes the rulings, both cases are anticipated to receive a final decree after a 20 day objection
pertod has passed. In addition, the applicant is in the process of completing a preclusion agreement
with the District that would provide adequate physical water supply to the proposed development
through the utilization of the District's infrastructure.
The State Engineer offers the opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136{1)(h)(l), that the proposed
water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights so long as a final decree is
entered in cases 07CW164 and 08CW198 that is no different from the Water Court Referee's rulings
issued on August 22, 2011. In addition, so long as the applicant completes the preclusion
agreement with the District that allows for the utilization of the District's infrastructure, this office finds
that the proposed water supply will be physically adequate. If you or the applicant has any questions
concerning this matter, please contact Karlyn Adams in this office.
MS/kaa/River Edge PUD and Subdiv iv.docx
Sincerely,
Megan Sullivan, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
Eddie Rubin, Supervising Water Commissioner, Districts 37, 38, 39 and 45
CONSERVANCY
llrin,!,'ing P~opk T11g~thcr
to Pr(Jt•'" Our H.ivrr;
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Diane Schwener
President
Stephen Ellsperman
VIce President
Ramsey Kropf
Seaetaq
Gail Orrick
Treasurer
Carter Brooksher
Andrew Light
Jim Light
Rick Lofaro
Executive Director
Louis Meyer
RickNeiley
Rivers Coundl Lia.iso11
Jennifer Sauer
Larry Yaw
PROGRAM STAFF
Rick Lofaro
Executive Director
Claire Britt
0/BceManager
Sharon Clarke
Land& Water
Conservation Specialist
Sarah Johnson
EduGJtion Coordin.1tor
Tim O'Keefe
Education Director
Chad Rudow
WaterQpality
Coortlinator
Sarah Woods
Director of Philanthropy
September 8, 20 II
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning
I 08 8th Street, Suite 40 I
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I
Re: River Edge Colorado
Dear Kathy:
As you know from our prior communications, we have grave concerns about the
impacts of the proposed development on the Conservation Easement and the
Conservation Values. We will address those concerns in more detail once we
have had an opportunity to fully review the River Edge PUD Application.
While the Conservancy has no intention of obstructing or delaying the submission
of River Edge's application, we cannot at this point in time confirm that the plans
and activities described in the PUD Application are consistent with the purpose of
the Conservation Easement.
While we understand that the PUD Application does not request subdivision
approval and thus lacks detail regarding many aspects of the proposal, there are
conditions set out in the Grant of Conservation Easement with which River Edge
has not yet complied. From our limited review of the application, it does not
appear that River Edge has provided us with the plans and specifications for
screening, planting, vegetation activities and construction processes as required
by Section 5.3 of the Grant of Conservation Easement. If in fact this information
is contained within the PUD Application, I would appreciate it if you could
out where it is located as the application is voluminous.
One matter of particular concern to the Conservancy is th~;c\fact
application does not appear to provide specific proposals '.
Conservation Values of the Easement will be protected from
development proposed. This is an issue that we have raised rer,ea·t!J4lyfwilt\il
applicant. Given the scope of the proposed development, feel
upon River Edge to propose specific measures to protect the ~· :onver.s~tiion
the heron nesting areas and the overall integrity of the Ea:senlliptt,. A!dcj!t)(Jn
are concerned that this application is for some of the
Easement. If the other adjacent land is developed, there·~··'~'"~
P.O. Box 3349 Basalt, Colorado 81621 I 970.927.1290 I www.roaringfork.org
effects to the easement that we cannot address without seeing the plan for the entire property.
Two sizable out parcels greater than 35 acres were carved out and are not part of this application.
We have been told by a River Edge representative that these out parcels will most likely consist
of a school, commercial development and high density multi-family land uses. These parcels will
most likely be sold to third parties. We will then be faced with working with multiple parties.
We believe that River Edge should have been required to provide a PUD plan or Master Plan for
the entire 280 Acres. This will only complicate our involvement and review.
At the time Roaring Fork Conservancy accepted the conservation easement granted by Sanders
Ranch in 2000, the proposed number of units was less than 300 for the entire property. As
several applications have been submitted for the same property, the number of units has
increased significantly, without addressing issues and concerns we have for protecting the
conservation values of the easement. We have not seen detailed drainage and on site wastewater
treatment plans, nor have we seen any plans to limit and control human traffic into the
conservation easement.
We request a detailed explanation of how River Edge proposes to protect the Conservation
Values given the proposed increase in density and number of residents or have them point out to
us where this information is included in the application, it would be helpful in our review of their
proposal.
Very truly yours,
Rick Lofaro, Executive Director
ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
barkingmoon@sooris.net
Kathy A. Eastley:
River's Edge
Monday, September 12, 2011 7:55:38 PM
To whom it may concern:
The River's Edge development affects thousands of commuters a day who travel
Highway 82. Under no circumstances should a development be approved with any
type of traffic signal on highway 82 at Cattle Creek.
I have traveled this section of road for 20 years starting when there were no traffic
lights from Walmart to Carbondale. Now there are 3 unsynched signals that change
on a whim causing seasoned drivers to react radically. This is not merely an
inconvenience or just a waste of increasingly expensive gasoline. The road known
as "killer 82" seems only more dangerous as the number of signals increases on a
raceway filled with aggressive drivers bent on beating the other to the next stoplight,
only to be thwarted by slower trucks hogging the left lane. I reside just a few
hundred yards from Cattle Creek Road so I have a vested interest in this project.
Please, no matter how large the development proposal is, insist that improvements
to the highway must include access ramps and a bridge but absolutely NO
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT CATTLE CREEK ROAD. Future proposals will come and go
for this vast acreage and building the access plan to which I am referring is forward
thinking -especially since there is so much space (privately held) on the river side
(SE) of the highway at Cattle Creek.
Yes we are in a recession, but COOT/Washington may help fund a minor portion of
this. However, one other way might work.
If all traffic to the development is routed to the existing CMC traffic signal (aka
"Thunder River Market" or county road 114) and the intersection of 82 and 114 were
improved for the increased traffic, this may alleviate funding issues and improve
traffic flow. If this plan were to pass, an emergency only access port would need
to be installed at Cattle Creek and 82. and acceleration lanes in both directions, but
no new stoplight. I would also suggest enough space be left at the intersection by
the developer for future access ramps.
Please do not let the South of Glenwood become another El Jebel, and insist, "No
more stop lights!"
Mark VonderHaar
Granted The moving party is hereby ORDERED
to provide a copy of this Order to any pro
se parties who have entered an
appearance in this action within 10 days
from the date of this order.
EXHIBIT
J M fvj James B. Boyd
District Court Judge
Date of Order attached _____ ,_ __ ,
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION 5, COLORADO
Garfield County Courthouse
I 09 gth Street, Suite I 04
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I
Telephone: (970) 945-5075 £ COURT USE ONLY A
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER Case No.:
RIGHTS OF CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC AND
THE ROARrNG FORK WATER AND SANITATION 07 C WI64
DISTRICT
IN GARFIELD. PITKIN , SUMMIT AND EAGLE
COUNTIES
FINDINGS AND RULING OF THE REFEREE AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF
THE WATER COURT
THIS MATTER has come before the Water Referee on an Application for Wat er Rights ,
Approval of Plan for Augmentation and for Appropriative Right of Exchange (the
"Application"), originally filed by River Bend Colorado , LLC ("River Bend"), for whom
Ca rbondale Investment s, LLC ("Carbondale") has been substituted as Applicant. On November
20, 2008, the Court entered an order adding The Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
("District") as an Applicant in this case. Upon inclusion of subject property into the Di strict, the
District would provide water and wa stewater services to the Development.
The Referee, having reviewed the Application and the other pleadings in this case, and
having made such inve stigations as are neces sa ry to determine whether or not the statements in
the Application are true, having consulted with the Division Engineer. and having become fully
advised with respect to the subject matter of the Application in acco rdance with C.R .S. § 37-92-
302(4), C.R.S., doe s hereb y make the following Findings and Ruling of the Reteree in this
matter.
I. INTRODUCTION
The water rights that are the subject of the Application arc intended to serve the
development of280 acres of land lo cated in Garfield County, Colorado (the "Development"). A
map and legal description of such property is attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respective ly .
' '
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments. LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWI64
Page 2
The Court entered a decree in Case No. OICW 187, Water Division No.5, for a Change of
Water Right and for Approval of Plan for Augmentation for water service through the District
water system to the Development, for up to 349.55 EQRs as defined by the policies of the
District. The decree in Case No. 0 I CW 187 contemplates that the final Development may include
a variety of configurations of residential and commercial EQRs, but subject to the overall
limitation of 349.55 EQRs as defined by the policies of the District. The decree in Case No.
OICWI87 has been amended by the decree in 08CWI98 so as to be consistent with the decree in
this case.
The purpose of this decree is to supplement the decree in Case No. OICWI87 to provide
potable water service for an additional 850.45 EQRs, for a cumulative total under this decree and
the decree in Case No. OICWI87 not to exceed 1200.00 EQRs as defined in the policies of the
District and Carbondale.
The District and Carbondale are currently negotiating a pre-inclusion agreement under
which the District would provide potable water for the Development, or a portion thereof. The
maximum number of EQRs that could be developed within the Development is 1200, as defined
in the policies of the District, including the irrigation of up to seven acres within the
Development under the decrees in this case and Case No. 01 CW187. Until such an agreement is
executed, Carbondale shall be entitled to exercise the rights under this decree and the decrees
entered in Case Nos. 01CWI87 and 08CW198 only from the proposed structures for the REC
Roaring Fork Diversion and the REC Well Field and shall have no rights to utilize the other
existing or proposed structures decreed herein to supply water to the Development, namely, the
Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement, the Aspen Glen Well Nos. 1-7,
Coryell Ranch Well Nos. 1-14, the Roberson Ditch, or the Posey Pump and Pipeline.
The Basalt Water Conservancy District provides augmentation water pursuant to the
decrees in this case and Case No. OICW!87 through an allotment contract originally entered into
with Sanders Ranch Holdings, LLC, and which was assigned to River Bend. Carbondale has
obtained from the BWCD an assignment of an amended water allotment contract that will
provide sutlicient augmentation water for this decree, and the decrees in Case Nos. 0 ICW188,
01CW189 and 07CWI64, as described below. This amended allotment contract is referred to
herein as the "Allotment Contract.''
Carbondale may convey to the District the water rights included in the decrees in this
case and Case No. 0 I CW 187, and may assign to the District the portion of the Allotment
Contract necessary· for augmentation under the decrees in this case and Case No. 01CW187.
Upon such conveyance and assignment, the District shall be responsible for compliance with the
terms and conditions of the decrees in this case and Case No. 0 I CW187.
II. FINDINGS
I. Name. address and telephone number of Applicants
\ '
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CW 164
Page 3
A. Carbondale Investments. LLC
280 I Turtle Creek Blvd., Apt. 6E
Dallas, TX 75219
and
c/o Rockwood Shepard
Carbondale Investments LLC
243 Crescent Lane
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970)-456-5325
B. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
P.O. Box 1002
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
2. History of Case: The Application in this case was properly verified and tiled with
the Water Clerk, Water Division No. 5 on September 27, 2007. The initial application was
amended by the First Amended Application by Order of the Court dated November 29, 2007. On
September 19, 2008, the Division Engineer submitted a written Summary of Consultation in
accordance with C.R.S. §37-92-302(4). The Application was further amended by the Second
Amended Application by Order of the Court dated November 20, 2008. The Application was
further amended by the Third Amended Application by Order of the Court dated January 6,
2009. On August 26, 2009, the Division Engineer submitted a written Summary of Consultation
in accordance with C.R.S. §37-92-302(4) with respect to the Third Amended Application, which
the Referee has considered. On June 3, 20 I 0, the Court ordered that Carbondale be substituted
as the Applicant in this case and that the case caption be amended accordingly.
3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Timely and adequate notice of the Application was
given in the manner required by law. See C.R.S. §37-92-302. Neither the land nor the water
rights involved in the Application are located in a designated groundwater basin. The Court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and over all persons who have standing to
appear as parties, whether they have appeared or not, all notices required by law having been
given and the Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Application. See C.R.S.
§§37-92-203 and 37-92-302.
4. Opposition: Timely statements of opposition were tiled in this case by the Twin
Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company, Thompson Glen Ditch Company, Thomas H. Bailey, and
the United States Bureau of Reclamation. No other person or entity has sought to intervene and
the time for filing statements of opposition has expired. The Court has approved stipulations
between the Applicants and each of these opposers and this decree is at least as restrictive on the
Applicants as the ruling to which these opposers have consented.
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWI64
Page 4
A. Conditional Water Right
5. Name of structure: Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge
Enlargement (renamed from River Bend Enlargement in Application).
6. Location of Point of Diversion. The Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River
Edge Enlargement will be diverted at the point of diversion of the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork
Diversion, located on the West bank of the Roaring Fork River in the NEI/4 NEI/4, Section 29,
Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 6'" P.M., at a point whence the NE corner of said Section 29
bears North 53"18' East, a distance of I ,357 .4 teet. The point of diversion can also be described
as being 846 feet from the North Section line and 1,068 feet from the East Section line of said
Section 29.
7. Locations of Alternate Points of Diversion. The Application seeks approval to
divert up to 1.25 c.f.s. at the following alternate points of diversion owned and operated by the
District, as alternate points of diversion to the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge
Enlargement: Aspen Glen Well Nos. I through 7 ("Aspen Glen Wells"), Coryell Ranch Well
Nos. I through 14 ("Coryell Ranch Wells"), the Robertson Ditch and the Posy Pump and
Pipeline. Diversions hereunder may be in addition to all or part of the 0.5 c.f.s. allotment of the
Basalt Conduit water right under the decree in Case No. 0 I CW187. The maximum total rate of
diversion through the alternate points of diversion under the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork
Diversion River Edge Enlargement water right and through the REC Well Field and REC
Roaring Fork Diversion described below in Paragraphs 11.8 and II.C, respectively, under this
decree shall be 1.25 c.f.s. The total diversions under this decree and the decrees in Case Nos.
OICWI87 and 08CWI98 shall be 1.75 c.f.s. The water right applied for herein right may be
diverted at any one or any combination of said alternate points of diversion; provided. however,
that until such time as the Development is included into the District pursuant to an agreement
between Carbondale and the District, Carbondale shall be entitled to exercise these rights only at
the REC Roaring Fork Diversion and REC Well Field as alternate points of diversion, and in that
case, the District shall not exercise the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge
Enlargement or its alternative points under this decree. The locations of the Aspen Glen Wells,
Coryell Ranch Wells, Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion, Robertson Ditch and Posy Pump
and Pipeline are shown on Exhibit C.
A. The Asoen Glen Wells are located in T.7S., R.88 W., 61h P.M., in Garfield
County, Colorado, and are described as follows:
Aspen Glen Well No. I located in the SEl/4 SWl/4, Sec. 20, 660 feet from the South
section line and 1555 feet from the West section line of said Sec. 20.
Aspen Glen Well No.2 located in the NWI/4 NEI/4, Sec. 29, 768 feet from the North
section line and 2200 feet from the East section line of said Sec. 29.
'
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CW164
Page 5
Aspen Glen Well No.3 located in the NW1/4 NEI/4, Sec. 29, 508 feet rrom the North
section line and 1794 feet rrom the East section line of said Sec. 29.
Aspen Glen Well No. 41ocated in the NWI/4 NEI/4, Sec. 29,788 feet from the North
section line and 2462 feet from the East section line of said Sec. 29.
Aspen Glen Well No. 5located in the NW1/4 NE1/4, Sec. 29,703 feet from the North
section line and 2038 feet from the East section line of said Sec. 29.
Aspen Glen Well No. 61ocated in the NWI/4 NEI/4, Sec. 29,393 feet from the North
section line and 2270 feet from the East section line of said Sec. 29.
Aspen Glen Well No. 71ocated in the NEI/4 NWI/4, Sec. 29, 447 feet from the North
section line and 2627 feet from the West section line of said Sec. 29.
B. The Coryell Ranch Wells are located as described in Table I below.
Table l-Location of Coryell Ranch Wells l-14
in T. 7 S., R. 88 W. of the 610 P.M.
Quarter Quarter Distance from Distance from
Location in North line of East Line of
Well No. Section 29 Section 29 Section 29
I NENE 1268.54 1021.95
2 SWNE 1849 2064.12
3 SENE 2086.54 86.95
4 SENE 1808.54 301.95
5 SENE 1508.54 486.95
6 NENE 1218.54 666.95
7 NENE 928.54 966.95
8 NWNE 774 1284.12
9 SWNE 1469 1294.12
10 SWNE 1609 1604.12
11 SWNE 1739 1839.12
12 NWNE 879 1619.12
13 SENE 1733.54 831.95
14 SENE 1873.54 971.95
C. The Robertson Ditch has a point of diversion located on the Westerly bank of
the Roaring Fork River at a point whence theSE corner of S. 12, T. 7 S., R. 89 W., Sixth P.M.
Bears N. 27°56' W. 2,788.14 feet. This structure can also be described as a point within the NW.
V. ofthe SE. \1,, S. 18, T. 7 S., R. 88 W., 6th P.M. 1,509 Ft. from the South line and 1123 Ft. from
the West line of said Section I 8, with its source from the Roaring Fork River.
D. The Posy Pump and Pipeline has a point of diversion located in Government
Lot I 7 of Section I, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6'h P.M. at a point whence the
Northwest Corner of said Section I bears North 57"02'42" West a distance of3799.13 feet. This
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CW 164
Page 6
structure can also be described as a point within NW. '!.of theSE. V., S. I, T. 7 S., R. 89 W. of
the 6'h P.M. 2300 Ft. from the South line and 2290 Ft. from the East line of said Section I, with
its source from the Roaring Fork River.
8. Source: The source of water for the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River
Edge Enlargement is the Roaring Fork River. The source of water for the Aspen Glen and
Coryell Ranch Wells is groundwater tributary to the Roaring Fork River. The source of water
for the Robertson Ditch and the Posy Pump and Pipeline is the Roaring Fork River.
9. A. Date of initiation of appropriation: September 27, 2007
B. How appropriation was initiated: By the formation of an intent to make the
appropriation described herein and overt acts constituting a substantial step towards the
appropriation, including engineering and design of the proposed development and notice at the
developed alternate points of diversion described herein,.
C. Date water applied to beneficial use: N/A
10. Amount: 1.25 c.f.s., conditional
II. Proposed use: Domestic and municipal purposes, including but not limited to, fire
protection uses and park and landscape irrigation on up to four acres of land within the
Development.
12. Name and address of owners of land on which structures are located: The District
has contractual or easement rights to the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge
Enlargement and all the alternate points of diversion.
B. Conditional Underground Water Right
13. Name of structure: REC Well Field (renamed from RBC Well Field in
Application).
14. Locations of Alternate Points of Diversion: The REC Well Field consists of that
portion of the Development, excluding a Conservation Easement area granted to the Roaring
Fork Conservancy, located in theW. Y:. ofS. 7, T. 7 S., R. 88 W. of the Sixth P.M .. the E. Y:. ofS.
12, T. 7 S., R. 89 W. of the Sixth P.M., and theSE. V. ofS. I, T. 7 S., R. 89 W. of the Sixth P.M.
The Applicant may develop up to ten wells within the REC Well Field and each of these wells is
claimed as an alternate point of diversion.
15. Source: Groundwater tributary to the Roaring Fork River
16. A. Date of initiation of appropriation: December 31,2008
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CW I 64
Page 7
B. How appropriation was initiated: By the fonnation of an intent to make the
appropriation described herein and overt acts constituting a substantial step towards the
appropriation, including engineering and design of the proposed development and notice at the
developed alternate points of diversion described herein.
C. Date water applied to beneficial use: N/ A
17. Amount: 1.25 c.f.s., conditional
I 8. Proposed use: Domestic and municipal purposes, including but not limited to, fire
protection uses and park and landscape irrigation on up to four acres of land within the
Development.
19. Name and address of owners of land on which structures are located: Carbondale.
C. Conditional Water Right
20. Name of structure: REC Roaring Fork Diversion (renamed from RBC Roaring
Fork Diversion in Application).
21. Location of Point of Diversion: The REC Roaring Fork Diversion is located on
the East bank of the Roaring Fork River in the NWV. of the NWV., S. I 8, T. 7 S., R. 88 W., Sixth
P.M., 1,206 Ft. from the North and 434Ft. from the West lines of said S. 18.
22. Source: Roaring Fork River
23. A. Date of initiation of appropriation: December 31, 2008
B. How appropriation was initiated: By the fomnation of an intent to make the
appropriation described herein and overt acts constituting a substantial step towards the
appropriation, including engineering and design of the proposed development and notice at the
developed alternate points of diversion described herein.
C. Date water applied to beneficial use: N/A
24. Amount claimed: I .25 c.f.s., conditional
25. Prooosed use: Domestic and municipal purposes, including but not limited to, fire
protection uses and park and landscape irrigation on up to four acres of land within the
Development.
26. Name and address of owners of land on which structures are located: The REC
Roaring Fork Diversion is located within the Development.
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWI64
Page 8
D. Plan for Augmentation
With respect to the claim tor approval of a plan for augmentation set forth in the
Application, the Referee makes the following findings based on the evidence and documents
presented in this case:
27. Names of structures to be augmented: Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion
River Edge Enlargement and its alternate points of diversion decreed herein, the REC Well Field,
and the REC Roaring Fork Diversion as applied for herein. This plan for augmentation shall
apply only to those out-of-priority depletions associated with diversions from these structures
under these augmented water rights for service to the Development pursuant to this decree.
28. Water rights used for augmentation: Pursuant to the Allotment Contract,
Carbondale is entitled to use up to 74.9 acre feet per year, total, of augmentation water from any
of the three sources described below (Ruedi Reservoir, Green Mountain Reservoir and the Troy
and Edith Ditches). An estimated amount of 25.17 acre feet of the 74.9 acre feet of Allotment
Contract water will be dedicated to augmentation of out-ot~priority depletions pursuant to this
decree from the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement and its alternate
points of diversion decreed herein, the REC Well Field, and the REC Roaring Fork Diversion.
Another portion of the 74.9 acre feet of water available under the Allotment Contract will be
dedicated to augmentation of out-of-priority depletions pursuant to the decree in Case No.
OICWI87, as the same is amended by the decree in Case No. 08CW198, from the Aspen Glen
and Coryell Ranch Wells, Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion, REC Well Field and REC
Roaring Fork Diversion. A final portion of the 74.9 acre feet of water available under the
Allotment Contract will be dedicated to augmentation of evaporation losses from Bair Chase
Lakes Nos. 1-5 pursuant to two separate decrees in Case Nos. OICW188 and OICWI89. The
total quantity of water allocated under all of these decrees is 71.42 acre-feet, leaving a surplus of
3.48 acre-feet available under the Allotment Contract to be used for additional transit losses or
other augmentation purposes under these decrees. The quantity of augmentation water allocated
under each of these decrees is summarized in Table 2, below.
Table 2-Quantity of Augmentation Water Allocated Under the
Allotment Contract
Decree Quantity of Water
Allocated (AF)
Case No. 07CW164 25.17
Case No.01CW187. as amended by Case 12.95 No.08CW198
Case No.O I CW 188 6.5
Case No.O I CW 189 26.8
TOTAL
A. Ruedi Reservoir:
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWI64
Page 9
71.42
(I) Previous decrees: Rucdi Reservoir is a component of the Frying Pan-
Arkansas Project and was originally decreed tor the storage of up to 140,697.3 acre feet of water
in Civil Action No. 4613, Garfield County District Court, on June 20, 1958, with a date of
appropriation of July 29, 1957. Subsequently, in Case No. W-789-76, the decreed storage
capacity for this Reservoir was reduced to I 02,369 acre feet. By decree of the water court in
Case No. 81CW34, Ruedi Reservoir was decreed a refill right in the amount of 101,280 acre feet,
conditional. ln Water Court case No. 95CW9S, 44,509 acre teet was made absolute.
(2) Legal description: Ruedi Reservoir is an on·channel reservoir located in
Sections 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14 through 18, Township 8 South, Range 84 West, of the 6'h P.M. in
Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
(3) Source: Frying Pan River, tributary of Colorado River
(4) Decreed amount: 102,369 acre teet (originally decreed for 140,697.3 acre
feet; reduced to 102,369 acre feet in Case No. W-789-76; decreed for refill right of 101,280 acre
feet, conditional, 44,509 acre feet subsequently made absolute)
(5) Adjudication date: June 20, 1958
(6) Appropriation date: July 29, 1957
(7) Decreed uses: Generation of electric energy, domestic, municipal,
industrial, irrigation and stock watering
(8) Remarks: Augmentation water may be released from Ruedi Reservoir into
the Frying Pan River, tributary to the Roaring Fork River, tributary to the Colorado River, to
augment out-of-priority depletions caused by diversions under the structures to be augmented
hereunder.
B. Green Mountain Reservoir:
(I) Previous decrees: Water storage rights tor Green Mountain Reservoir
were originally decreed in Case Nos. 2782, 5016, and 5017, United States District Court, District
of Colorado, October 12, 1955.
(2) Legal description: Green Mountain Reservoir is an on-channel reservoir
and is located approximately 16 miles Southeast of the Town of Kremmling in Summit County,
Colorado, and more particularly in all or parts of Sections II, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 24 ofTownship
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWJ64
Page 10
2 South, Range 80 West, and of Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, and 34, Township 2 South,
Range 79 West of the 6'" P.M.
(3) Source: Blue River, tributary of Colorado River
(4) Decreed amount: 154,645 acre feet
(5) Adjudication date: October 12, 1955
(6) Appropriation date: August I, 1935
(7) Decreed uses: In accordance with paragraph 5(a), (b), and (c) of the
section entitled "Manner of Operation of Project Facilities and Auxiliary Facilities" in Senate
Document No. 80.
Suucture
Troy
Ditch(l)
Troy
Ditch
l!ll Enlg
Troy
Ditch
2r.1 Enl~
Edith
Ditch
F.dith
Ditch
I~ Enlg
Troy
Ditch
Water
System
aka
Lower
Hendgate
C. Troy Ditch and Edith Ditch Water Rights are described in Table 3 below:
Table 3-Description of Troy Ditch and Edith Ditch Water Rights
Priority Court Adj. Date App. Date Decreed Use AMOUNT SOLD. TRANSFERRED OR AMOUNT
Caso t\mount (4) RESERVED REMAINING
No (c f.s.) (10)
(5 6 (7 8 9 c.r.s. AF
370 3082 08/25/1936 05/01/1906 5.10 I 0.000 u.ouu 0.095 0.064 0.035 4_906 NIA
427 .1082 08/25/1936 05/01/1928 10.80 I 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.134 0073 10.393 N/A
669 4613 06/20/1958 0610111942 6.20 I 0000 0.000 0.115 0.077 0.042 5.%6 NIA
353 .3082 08/2511936 05/01/1904 272 I 0 110 0.132 0.050 0000 001& 2.410 NIA
673 4613 06120/1958 07/01/1946 3_23 I 0_000 0.000 0.060 0.000 0.022 3.148 NIA
I.
W· D.
(2) 2281 15.50(3) M, 0.110 0.132 0.520 0_275 0190 14213 412.89
c.
p
.. . . (I) Ongmally d1verted from Mtller Creek. A II others ongmally dtverted from Frymg Pan RlVer.
(2) Alternate point for all priorities of Troy and Edi<h Ditches.
(3} Combined amount limited to 15.5 c.f.s. and 453 Af of consumptive use, 300 AF of which can be
stored.
(4) I= Irrigation, D =Domestic, M =Municipal. C =Industrial and P =Piscatorial.
(5) Transferred to Edith Ditch Well in Case No. 80CWI with 1.0 AF.
(6) Transferred to three springs on Cap K Ranch in Case No. 82 CWt89 (1.29 AF assumed to be
included).
(7) Deeded to George Yates with 15.4 AF in 1983. 0.2 c.f.s. and 10.60 c.f.s. were included in Case
No. 82CW357 for Ruedi South Shores augmentation plan.
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CW164
Page II
(8) Deeded to Joan Wheeler in 1987 for diversion at the Troy Ditch I" and 2"" Enlargement ( 16.9 AF
assumed to be included).
(9) Reserved for augmentation of Cap K Ponds with 5.52 AF. Case No. 91CW220.
(10) A total of40.11 AF of the original453.00 AF has been sold or transferred. The total amount
remaining to the Basalt District under all the said Troy and Edith Ditch water rights is 412.89 acre
feet.
Decreed Legal Descriptions: Troy Ditch Headgate No. I is located on the West bank of Miller
Creek at a point whence the North Quarter Corner of Section 14, Township 8 South, Range 84
West, bears North 38 degrees 29 minutes West, approximately 632 feet. Troy Ditch (Headgate
No. 2) First Enlargement and Extension is at a point on the South bank of the Frying Pan River,
whence the Northwest Comer of Section 13, Township 8 South, Range 84 West, of the 6'" P.M.,
bears North 87 degrees 17 minutes West a distance of approximately 1172 feet. Troy Ditch
Second Enlargement as decreed is located at a point whence the Southwest Comer of Section 7
Township 8 South Range 83 West of the 61h P.M. bears South 83 degrees 13 minutes West
2,549.15 feet. The existing point of diversion of the Troy Ditch, First and Second Enlargements
as determined by a subsequent survey is located on the South bank of the Frying Pan River at a
point whence the Southwest Corner of Section 12, Township 8 South, Range 84 West of the 6'h
P.M. bears South 89 degrees 00 minutes 21 seconds West 7,798.32 feet. The point of diversion
of the Lower Headgate of the Troy Ditch and Water System from which the water is pumped
into the ditch is located on the South bank of the Frying Pan River at a point whence the
Northwest Corner of Section 13, Township 8 South, Range 84 West of the 61h P.M. bears North
86 degrees 39 minutes 32 seconds West 1,527.38 feet. Edith Ditch is located on the north bank
of the Frying Pan River at a point approximate!~ 900 feet east of the northwest comer of Section
13, Township 8 So!lth, Range 84 West of the 61 P.M. Edith Ditch First Enlargement as decreed,
is located on the Northerly bank of the Frying Pan River at a r,int whence the Southeast Corner
of Section 12, Township 8 South, Range 84 West of the 61 P.M. bears South 83 degrees 58
minutes East 4,280.9 teet.
In Case No. W-2281, Division 5, the Court decreed that 453 acre feet of annual consumptive-use
credits were available to these ditches, and that 300 acre feet could be stored in an unnamed
reservoir. The Basalt District owns 412.89 acre feet of the 453 acre feet, and makes the water
rights available to contract allotees for use pursuant to an approved substitute supply plan or
decree of the Court. Augmentation water from the Troy and Edith Ditches may be delivered to
the Roaring Fork River by bypassing water at the headgates to those ditches on the Frying Pan
River.
29. Statement of Plan tbr Augmentation:
A. In addition to the 349.55 EQRs decreed in the decree in Case No. 01CWI87,
the Development will consist of a maximum of 850.45 residential or commercial EQRs, based on
the following EQR and depletion assumptions:
Gallons per day per residential EQR 350
Gallons per day per commercial EQR 350
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWI64
Page 12
Irrigated area. potable (sq. ft.) 174,240 (4 ac.)
B. Either Carbondale or the District will provide domestic and municipal water
service to the Development. Diversions from the structures to be augmented hereunder, shall not
exceed 1.25 c.f.s. for use within the Development. All out-of-priority depletions associated with
such diversions will be augmented by releases of up to 25.17 acre feet of the 74.9 acre feet of
Allotment Contract water from the sources of augmentation supply available under the Allotment
Contract. This augmentation plan will be administered under the direction of the Division
Engineer in the course of administering the Basalt Water Conservancy District's water supply
program.
C. The domestic and municipal water requirements for the Development and the
estimated augmentation requirements are described in Table 4 below. The estimated amount of
augmentation water required amounts to 25.17 acre feet per year, based on the projections
described in Table 3, including a 5% transit loss tor water released from Ruedi and Green
Mountain Reservoirs. In the event that transit losses are increased in the future. Applicants, their
successors, or assigns, shall allocate additional augmentation water to compensate for such
increase, and shall modify any accounting form pertaining to this plan accordingly. So long as
any additional augmentation water is fi-om the same sources as the augmentation water available
under the Allotment Contract (Green Mountain Reservoir, Ruedi Reservoir, or the Troy and
Edith Ditches), no amendment or supplementation of this decree shall be required to effect such
change.
Table 4-Demand, Consumptive Use and Augmentation Requirements
Demand Consumptive Use
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Month In-Irrigation Total In-Irrigation Total Augmentation
House House Requirement
January 28.32 0.00 28.32 1.42 0.00 1.42 1.49
Februarv 25.58 0.00 25.58 1.28 0.00 1.28 1.34
March 28.32 0.00 28.32 1.42 0.00 1.42 1.49
April 27.41 0.11 27.52 1.37 0.09 1.46 1.53
May 28.32 1.75 30.07 1.42 1.40 2.82 2.96
June 27.41 2.32 29.72 1.37 1.85 3.22 3.39
July 28.32 2.16 30.48 1.42 1.73 3.14 3.30
August 28.32 1.36 29.68 1.42 1.09 2.50 2.63
September 27.41 1.16 28.57 1.37 0.93 2.30 2.42
October 28.32 0.26 28.58 1.42 0.21 1.62 1.70
November 27.41 0.00 27.41 1.37 0.00 1.37 1.44
December 28.32 0.00 28.32 1.42 0.00 1.42 1.49
TOTAI.S 333.44 9.t3 342.57 16.67 7.30 23.97 25.17
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWI64
Page 13
(I) In-house water demand in acre-feet based on 850.45 EQRs at 350 gallons per day per EQR
(2) Irrigation demand in acre-feet for 174,240 sq. ft. of irrigated area based on 80% application
efficiency, Col 5 +efficiency.
(3) Col I + Col2
(4) In-house consumptive use based on 5% consumptive use through at a central wastewater
treatment plant
(5) Irrigation consumptive usc 1.83 acre-feet per acre based on a modified Blaney Criddle analysis
(6) Col4 + Col5
(7) Augmentation requirement includes 5% allowance for transit loss
D. The current sources of supply available to the District are the Aspen Glen
Well Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the Coryell Ranch Well Nos. II and 13. Glover analyses on the Aspen
Glen and Coryell Ranch Wells show that stream impacts from pumping such wells occur in the
same month as the well pumping. Prior to diverting from the other ground water structures or
ground water rights to be augmented under this decree, as described in Paragraphs 5 through 26
and Paragraph 27, the District or Carbondale shall re-evaluate lagged pumping impacts for such
water rights and structures, and submit a Glover analysis of lagged depletions from each
structure, together with accounting that includes any modification necessitated by changes in the
timing of depletions, to the Division Engineer. After reviewing the Glover analysis and
accounting, the Division Engineer may administratively approve such ground water diversions to
the extent out-of-priority depletions are fully augmented in time, quantity, and location.
E. It is anticipated that wastewater treatment for the Development wi II be
provided at the District's Water Treatment Plant ("Treatment Plant"), located upstream from the
Development on the west side of the Roaring Fork River. Treated eftluent will be discharged to
the Roaring Fork River at the Treatment Plant outfall. The location of the outfall is depicted on
Exhibit C. Applicants will take credit for such return flows in their accounting and will only be
required to augment out-of-priority depletions associated with diversions for municipal and
domestic in-house uses. If Carbondale is required to develop its own wastewater treatment plant,
the outfall for that plant will be located at one of two alternate locations, one on Cattle Creek and
the other on the Roaring Fork River, depicted on Exhibit C ("Carbondale Plant").
F. Municipal use within the Development shall include irrigation of up to four
acres of parks and landscaped areas under this decree. The decree in Case No. OICWI87
provides for irrigation of up to three acres, for a total of up to seven acres under the two decrees.
Return flows from irrigation shall accrue to the Roaring Fork River. Applicants will take credit
for such return flows in their accounting and will be required to augment only out-of-priority
depletions associated with diversions for irrigation. Estimated irrigation requirements and
associated augmentation requirements are set forth in Table 4, above. Except for the seven acres
of parks and landscaping irrigation, water for outdoor and irrigation uses (including irrigation of
lawns and gardens) within the Development will be supplied from the Roaring Fork River and
Cattle Creek through the Glenwood and Staton Ditches.
G. This plan for augmentation and change of water rights will be administered
based on an accounting plan to be developed in conjunction with the State Engineer's Office.
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CW 164
Page 14
The accounting plan shall account for all diversions and depletions under this decree and the
decree in Case No. OICWI87 and, at a minimum, will account for the elements described in
Exhibit D.
E. Appropriative Right of Ex~bange
30. Appropriative Right of Exchange. The Application incorporates an appropriative
right of exchange of Applicant's contract for the use of water stored in Green Mountain
Reservoir for use in the Roaring Fork River to augment out-of-priority depletions caused by
diversions under the River Edge Enlargement water right through the alternate points of
diversion. Green Mountain Reservoir is located on the Blue River, tributary to the Colorado
River, at the point described in paragraph 28.B .. above. Augmentation water may be released
from Green Mountain Reservoir and delivered to the confluence of the Colorado and Roaring
Fork Rivers. The reach of the exchange is between the confluence of the Colorado and the
Roaring Fork Rivers, and any of the points of diversion described in paragraph 7, above,
including the REC Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion, up to the Coryell Ranch Well
No. 3 which is the farthest upstream alternate point of diversion. The rate of the exchange is the
rate of diversion under the River Edge Enlargement water right, up to 1.25 c.f.s., minus return
flows to the particular reach. The appropriation date of the exchange shall be administered as
September 27, 2007.
3 I. Legal Description of Exchange Reach and Rate of Exchange. The exchange
decreed herein is segmented into two reaches, a diversion amount reach and a depletion amount
reach, as follows:
A.( I) If the District provides water and wastewater service to the Development.
the upstream. diversion amount reach is located from the furthest upstream point of diversion for
the Aspen Olen and Coryell Ranch Wells in the SE '!. of the NE '!. of Section 29. Township 7
South, Range 88 West of the 61h P.M., 2,086.54 feet from the North Section line and 86.95 feet
from the East Section line, downstream to the location of the outfall of the District's wastewater
treatment plant located on the left (west) bank of the Roaring Fork River in the SEV. of the SEV.,
T7S, R89W, 6th P.M., 337 feet from the South Section line and 237 feet from the East Section
line. The rate of the exchange in this reach is 1.25 c.f.s.
A.(2) If Carbondale provides water and wastewater service to the Development,
the upstream, diversion amount reach is located from the REC Roaring Fork Diversion described
above to the discharge from the Carbondale Plant to the Roaring Fork River, which will occur at
one of the following two locations: the confluence of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River
in the NWl/4 of the NWI/4 Section I, T7S, R88W, 6th P.M., 1,197 feet from the North Section
line and 852 feet from the East Section line; or a point in the NWl/4 of the NWI/4 of Section 18,
T7S, R89W, 61h P.M. 1160 feet from the North section line and 420 feet from the West section
line. The rate of the exchange in this reach is 1.25 c.f.s.
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CW164
Page 15
8.(1) If the District provides water and wastewater service to the Development,
the downstream, depletion amount reach is located from the location of the outfall of the
District's wastewater treatment plant located on the lefi (west) bank of the Roaring Fork River in
the SEY. of the SEY., T7S, R89W, 6th P.M., 337 feet from the South Section line and 237 feet
from the East Section line, downstream to the confluence of the Colorado and the Roaring Fork
Rivers in the SE Y. of the NW Y., Section 9, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6'" P.M.,
2,150 feet from the North Section line and 2,286 feet from the West Section line. The rate of
exchange in this reach is 0.80 c.f.s., the rate of diversion under the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork
Diversion River Edge Enlargement water right, up to 1.25 c.f.s., minus the discharge at the
outfall of the applicable wastewater treatment plant minus the return flow trom up to 4 acres of
irrigation.
8.(2) If Carbondale provides water and wastewater service to the Development,
the downstream, depletion amount reach is located from the downstream-most point of discharge
to the Roaring Fork River from the Carbondale Plant, which is at the confluence of Cattle Creek
and the Roaring Fork River in the NWI/4 of the NWI/4 Section I. T7S, R88W, 6th P.M., 1,197
feet from the North Section line and 852 feet from the East Section line, downstream to said
confluence of the Colorado and Roaring Fork Rivers. The rate of exchange in this reach is 0.80
c.t:s., the rate of diversion under the REC Roaring Fork Diversion water right, up to 1.25 c.f.s.,
minus the discharge at the outfall of the Carbondale wastewater treatment plant minus the return
flow trom up to 4 acres of irrigation.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
32. The Water Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
proceeding and over all persons or entities affected hereby, whether they have appeared or not.
See C.R.S. §§ 37-92-203 and 37-92-302.
33. Timely and adequate notice of the Application was given in the manner provided
by statute. See C.R.S. § 37-92-302(2).
34. The Application filed herein is in accordance with the law and should be granted
subject to the terms and conditions of this decree. Sec C.R.S. §§ 37-92-302 and 37-92-305. No
injury to other water rights will occur as a result of the exercise of the requested change of water
rights or plan for augmentation and exchange in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
decree. See C.R.S. § 37-92-305(3).
IV. RULING OF THE REFEREE AND DECREE OF THE COURT
The toregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law are incorporated in this decree by this
reference, and the Application is hereby granted, subject to the tenms and conditions set forth in
this decree.
35. The request for approval of the Conditional Underground and Surface Water
Right for the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement described in
'. .
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWI64
Page 16
Section II.A., and the diversion thereof at the alternate points of diversion described therein is
hereby approved, subject to the terms and conditions of this decree.
36. The Conditional Underground Water Right for the REC Well Field in Section
II.B. is hereby approved, subject to the terms and conditions of this decree.
37. The Conditional Water Right for the REC Roaring Fork Diversion in Section II.C.
is hereby approved, subject to the tenns and conditions of this decree.
38. The Plan for Augmentation described in Section II.D. is hereby approved, subject
to the terms and conditions of this decree.
39. The Appropriative Right of Exchange described in Section II.E. of this decree is
hereby approved, subject to the terms and conditions of this decree. The Applicants shall
provide adequate notice to the Division Engineer prior to operating the exchange decreed herein.
40. The tenns and conditions of this decree are adequate to assure that no material
injury to any water rights will result from the exercise of the water rights or the plan for
augmentation set forth herein.
41. The maximum total rate of diversion through the alternate points of diversion
described in paragraph 7 above, under the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge
Enlargement and its alternate points of diversion decreed herein, REC Well Field and REC
Roaring Fork Diversion water rights under this decree shall be 1.25 c.t:s. The maximum total
diversions under this decree and the decree in Case No. 0 I CW 187 shall be I. 75 c. f.s. The
Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement water right may be diverted by
the District at any one or any combination of the Aspen Glen Wells, the Coryell Ranch Wells,
the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion. the Robertson Ditch or the Posy Pump and Pipeline.
The total diversions from Aspen Glen Wells, the Coryell Ranch Wells, the Coryell Ranch
Roaring Fork Diversion, the Robertson Ditch or the Posy Pump and Pipeline shall be limited to
that amount of water available at the point of diversion at the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork
Diversion.
42. The maximum amount of land that may be irrigated under this decree and the
decree in Case No. 0 I CW 187 shall be seven acres. Return flows from irrigation shall accrue to
the Roaring Fork River. As part of the accounting required under this decree, the appropriate
Applicant shall provide to the Division Engineer a map showing the location and amount of land
irrigated by the District's water system. In the event that the amount nf augmentation water is
insufficient to fully replace all out-of-priority depletions hereunder, the appropriate Applicant
shall terminate irrigation under this decree to the extent necessary to allow in-house uses to
continue.
43. Within sixty days of completion of construction of the well(s) within the REC
Well Field pursuant to a well penni!, the appropriate Applicant must notifY both the Water Court
' ' .
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CW164
Page 17
and the Division of Water Resources of the precise location of the well(s). In its application to
make the conditional ground water right(s) in the REC Well Field absolute, the Applicant shall
identifY the specific point(s) of diversion and the terms and conditions necessary to avoid injury
to other water rights from well pumping at that location. This may result in changes to the terms
and conditions of the decree that are specific to the ultimate location of the well(s).
44. The plan for augmentation approved herein is sufficient to permit the continuation
of diversions when curtailment would otherwise be required to meet a valid senior call for water,
to the extent that the Applicants shall provide replacement water necessary to meet the lawful
requirements of a senior diverter at the time and location and to the extent the senior would be
deprived of his or her lawful entitlement by the Applicants' diversion.
45. The plan for augmentation approved herein provides for the augmentation of
those out-of-priority depletions associated with diversions under the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork
Diversion River Edge Enlargement and its alternate points of diversion decreed herein, REC
Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion water rights. Augmentation shall only be required
when said water rights are out-of-priority.
46. The estimated augmentation requirement of 25. I 7 acre feet annually is
appropriate and reasonable.
47. The Green Mountain Reservoir and Ruedi Reservoir water utilized in connection
with the subject plan for augmentation shall be stored in its respective reservoir under the
priorities awarded to the United States of America for said reservoirs. However, Applicants
agree that the subject plan for augmentation shall not be administered under the priority date
awarded the United States of America for Green Mountain Reservoir or Ruedi Reservoir, but
shall be administered as a decree entered with a filing date of 2007.
48. To the extent the implementation of the subject plan for augmentation necessitates
the use of Green Mountain and/or Ruedi Reservoir water, the appropriate Applicant shall have a
final, fully executed agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation or the Basalt Water Conservancy
District for the use of Green Mountain and/or Ruedi Reservoir water, as the case may be, prior to
its implementation of those portions of the augmentation plan which require the use of such
water.
Applicants acknowledge that their right to utilize Green Mountain or Ruedi Reservoir water as a
source of augmentation water for the rights sought herein is dependent upon the terms of any
agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation or the Basalt Water Conservancy District and the
physical availability of such water for Applicants' benefit. Applicants agree that to the extent the
exercise of the rights sought herein depend upon Green Mountain or Ruedi Reservoir as a source
of augmentation water, such rights shall not be exercised should Green Mountain or Ruedi
Reservoir water no longer be available for Applicants' use.
. , . ~
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWI64
Page 18
Water stored in Green Mountain Reservoir pursuant to the Allotment Contract shall not be used
to augment out-of-priority depletions under this decree unless sufficient exchange potential
exists on the reach beginning at the confluence of the Colorado River and the Roaring Fork
River, upstream to the points of diversion for the Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch Wells if the
District is using these wells to supply the Development or otherwise to the REC Roaring Fork
Diversion.
49. The transit losses associated with replacement releases and the exchange in this
decree are only for the purposes of establishing that the plan can operate and may be sufficient to
prevent injury. Actual transit losses will be determined and assessed at the time releases are
made and may be modified pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 37-80-102(7) and 37-83-104 as determined
necessary by the Division Engineer.
50. The appropriate Applicant shall install measuring devices, provide accounting,
and supply calculations regarding the timing of depletions as required by the Division Engineer
for the operation of this plan, and shall file an annual report with the Division Engineer by
November 15" following each preceding irrigation year (November I through October 31)
summarizing diversions and replacements made under this plan. The accounting report shall
account for all diversions and depletions under this decree and the decree in Case No. OICW187
and. at a minimum, will account for the elements described in Exhibit D.
51. Carbondale shall establish a homeowners association or special district which
shall be responsible for ensuring that the terms and conditions not the responsibility of the
District under this decree are met.
52. The appropriate Applicant must obtain and maintain valid well permits issued
pursuant to C.R.S. §37-90-13 7 and this plan of augmentation prior to the construction and/or
operation of the wells pursuant to this plan. The State Engineer shall issue well permits allowing
diversions of the River Edge Enlargement water right at the Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch
Wells at such time as the Applicants or their successors or assigns submit well permit
applications to the Office of the State Engineer. See C.R.S. § 37-90-137(2). In issuing such
permits, the State Engineer shall be bound by this decree.
53. The timing and amount of any releases of replacement water shall be made at the
discretion of the Division Engineer, and may account for revised lagged pumping impacts. The
appropriate Applicant will provide monthly accounting to the Division Engineer of the amount
and timing of diversions, resulting consumptive use, out-of-priority depletions and the discharge
of augmentation water. Such information will be included in an accounting form to be
developed by said Applicant, acceptable to the Division Engineer. Said Applicant will designate
a representative responsible tor filing an annual report with the Division Engineer by November
15 of each year, summarizing diversions and replacements made under the plan for augmentation
decreed herein during the previous water year of November I through October 31.
54. The State and Division Engineers shall administer the water rights as set forth
herein and will not curtail withdrawals under the water rights described herein as long as such
'lo I t I
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWI64
Page 19
withdrawals occur in priority and in accordance with this decree. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 37·92-
305(8), the State Engineer shall curtail all out-of-priority diversions, the depletions from which
are not replaced so as to prevent injury to vested water rights. Further, if the Allotment Contract
is terminated or expires and fails to be renewed, this decree must be amended to include an
alternative source of replacement water prior to such termination or expiration, or else all out-of~
priority diversions hereunder will be curtailed.
55. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-92-304(6), the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction
over the plan for augmentation decreed herein regarding the question of injury to vested water
rights or decreed conditional water rights of others, for a period of five years after the Applicants
provide written notice to the parties, the Division Engineer, and the Court that the augmentation
plan has become operational. The augmentation plan shall be deemed operational hereunder at
the time of build-out of the initial phase of the Development (375 EQRs or such lesser amount
that is approved by Garfield County for development of the initial phase) and first use of the
augmentation supply. Such notice must confirm that the decreed augmenting sources are in
place, that the terms and conditions necessary to operate the plan as required by this decree have
been met, and that the augmented uses and augmentation have been initiated. Further, the Court
shall retain jurisdiction regarding the question of injury from the withdrawals of ground water
from new sources (other than Aspen Glen Wells Nos. 2, 3, and 4 and Coryell Ranch Wells Nos.
II and 13) for a period of two years after each new ground water structure is brought on line.
56. An application for a Finding of Reasonable Diligence shall be filed in the same
month as the decree herein is entered every six ( 6) years after the entry of the decree herein so
long as Applicants desire to maintain the conditional water right herein awarded, or until a
determination has been made that such conditional water right is made absolute by reason of
completion of the appropriation.
57. Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Uniform Local Rules for all State Water Court
Divisions, upon the sale or transfer of the conditional water rights decreed herein, the transferee
shall file with Division No. 5 Water Court, a notice of transfer which shall state:
A. The title and case number of this Case No. 07CW 164;
B. The description of the conditional water right to be transferred;
C. The name of the transferor;
D. The name and mailing address of the transteree;
E. A copy of the recorded deed of transfer.
The owner of said conditional water rights shall also notifY the clerk of the Water Court for
Water Division No.5 of any change of mailing address. The clerk shall place any notice of
transfer or change of address in the case file of this Case No. 07CWI64 and in the case file
(if any) in which the court makes any subsequent finding of reasonable diligence.
" 1 1 '
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWI64
Page 20
Hon. Hell) K. S!tabli~·.Da.M.t.b8./1,tttJif
Water Referee ·
Water Division No. 5
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC
and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Case No. 07CWI64
Page 2I
THE COURT DOTH FIND THAT NO PROTEST WAS FILED IN THIS MATTER.
THE I'OREGOING RULING IS CONFIRMED AND APPROVED, AND IS HEREBY
MADE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THIS COURT.
Dated: _________ _
Hon. James B. Boyd
Water Judge
Water Division No. 5
C: \Oocu mems and Selti ngs\PW i 1\>.!r\Oesktop\Carbortdale lnwstment!I\RHFSOOCS-11141 OIW8-v8-Draft_ deere~_ 07CW 164. DOC
ThH document comtltutec a mlmg of the courr atld should be ITe<-~ted as cuch
Court Authorizer
Comments:
Exhibits A through D to be Ruling of the Referee are incorporated into this Decree. Any request for a further
finding of reasonable diligence shall be filed in October 2017.
E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C
009 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-Sm Voice (970) 94S..1137 Fac:simlle
RIVER BEND COLORADO, LLC
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
Date: 1212912008
Ale: 660-7.4
Drawn by: RP
Approved by: JMC
.r
EXHIBITB
PARCEL A:
A TltACl' OF LAND smJATB IN WI'S 4, 8, 7, I AND 8 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOU1H,
RANG188-WIST 01'111B8'111 PRINCIPALMBlllDWI AND IN LOT 31 OF SI!CUON I,
'lOWNSHI' 7 SOVTH, RANGIII WISTOF11111 miPRINCIPALMI!lllDIAN, GARPIILDCOUNIY,
COLORADO LYING WIST OF 11111WI!STBIILYRICHTOF WAY LINI! FOR COLOIL\DO STATB
IDGHWAYNO. II AND LYING I!AS'I' 01111111 IASTBRLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE POR111E
SOI1I'HIIRN PACJFIC TIIANSPOIITA'l10H COMPANY RAILROAD IDJ!NVIRAND RIO GRANDE WESTBRN
ll\ILRONJ) ASPEN BRANCH, BI!ING MOitB PARI'ICtJLARLY DIISCIIIBID AS ·
FOU.OWS:
OONMIIIICING AT A FOU'ND GARFIBLD COUNTY SUIYIYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACB FOR :mE
wrrNBSS COliNIIll10 11IB 50111111/t CORNill 011 SAID SBC'I'ION 7, WJIINCII A FOUND
GAIFII!LD COUNl'Y suavBYOR BlASS CAP IN PLACB FOR 11111 SOUTIIIIAST i:oltNIIR or SAID
SIICTION 7 BIIAIS S 88 DBCRI!IS 28'47* B A DISTANCE OF 2871.80 PIII!T, wrm ALL
IIIIARINGS CONTAINID RI!RIIIN IIBINC RBLA1Wll11111RB1'0;
'l1tiiNCB N Z7 DIGIII!I!S SI'Z4" I! A DISI'AMCB OF 1114.15 FBI!T TO A POINT ON lHI! ·
IASTBIILY RIGHT OJI WAY LINE FOR ,asot11'111!11Jtf PACJlllc TRANSI'OR1'A'l10N COMPANY
RAILROAD ASI'I!N BRANCH AND THII111.UB POINT or BBGINNINO OF '1111 TRACl' DJ!SCIIIBI!D
HI!IIIIIN;
TIIIINCB ALONG SAID I!ASTIIIILY IIIOH'l' or WAY UNE 111B POUOWING 2 COIJRSI!S;
1) 78.8ZI'Ul' ALONG THII ARC OF A CURVI CONCAVE 10 Till! WEST, RAVING A llADilJS OF
2815,01 JIIIBT AND WHOSii CHORD HAllS N II DBGRI!l!S 51'41" W A DISTANCB OF 71.82
l'I!IT;
2) N 18 DI!GIII!I!S 38'52" W A DISI'ANCII OF 382f,47 FBB'I'TO A fOIN'I' ON'l11B NOIITH LINE
OF LOT 31 OP SI!Cl10N I, toWNSHIP 7SOUI'H, RANCB II WIST;
THBNCI S 88 DBGIII!I!S U'W B Ai.oHO THB NOIITH LlNB OF SAID LOT Sl A DISI'AMCI OF
100.80 FBI!TTO 111B NOKI1Ilii\Sl'COIINIIR OF SAID LOT It;
THBNCB S tD J)IGRIES 10'01' W AIDNG THB BAST UNB OF.SAID LOT 31 A DISI'AMCE OF
IUS JII!BT 10 'l1IB NOR1'1fWl!ST CORNIR OF LOT 7 OF SBCTIOH 7, TOWI'ISHIP 7 SOtml,
RANCB 88 WIIST; . ·
tHBNCI S 80 DECIIIIS 01'00' I ALONG THB NORTH UNB Or SAID LOT 7 A DISTANCE OF
873.15 nJri'TOAI'OINTOH THIIWISTBILY liGHT OF WAY FOR COLORADOSTATEIUGHWAY
NO.I2;
THBNC!l ALONG SAID WBSTIIRLY liGHT OF-WAY UNB 11IB FOLLOWING I COUIISES;
I) S S5 DEeRJ!BS ~4'00' B A DISTANCII OJIIIIUI FBI!T:
2) 250.28 PIII!T ALOHG Till,! ARC or A' CUJlVB CONCA VB TO THE WEST, !lAVING A RADllJS OF
11140.00 PDT AND WHOSE CHORD BIIAIIS S 21 DBGRI!I!S 11'00' B A DISTANCE or 2511.10
JI1!IIT;
3) S 11 DI!GRBBS GI'OO" BA DISTANCI OF 97.80 PDT:
4) H8.1Z PJ!ET u.ONC THII ARC OF A CURVB CONCAVE TO 1H1 WEST, RAVING A RADIUS OF
lUII.OO PDT AND WHOSE CHOJD HAllS S IS DIGRBBS 58'08' I A DJSJ'AMCJI OF 348.00
FBI!T;
5) S Gl DI!GRII!S 12'00" B A DISTANCI OF 313'.10 FBBT:
8) S 08 DI!Gli1!I!S 111'00" I A DJSTANCI! or 70UO JII!BT:
7) S 01 DI!Gli1!I!S 11'30" EA DJSTANCB OP 2111.00 JIBB'r:
IllS Gl DI!Gli1!I!S 53'00" B A DJSTANCB OP 2110.30 PDT;
at S 01 DBGIUII!S QI'OO" B A DJSTANCB OF 1417.80 FBBT;
TIIBNCJI LBAVING SAID WI!STBRLY IlCHT OP WAY LDIB S 80 DIGRBBS oo•oo• W A DISTANCE
OF 73.84 l'l!Bl' TO THII POINT OJI BI!GINNING. . .
.,t i.Giilii . I :WI. -I
'·· it
··---.. :u ......... ,..., --
(
'"
oat Order No: GW%50592-4
. '
LEGAL DE$CIUP1IOI
BXCEPTJNG FROM 'IHE ABOVE PARCEL: .
THB PROPERTY DESCRIBBD IN DOCUMBNT UCORDED A\IGUSI' 2, 19181N BOOK 1142 AT PAGB
Ml AND IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 24 , ze011N BOOK 1228 AT PAGB tOO.
COONTY or GARFIELD
SfATB OF CO~RADO
PARCBLB:.
A TRACT OPLAND smJA.TB IN LOTS l, 2. 3, 4, 8, 7 AND tor SECTION 18, LOTS 8, 4,
1, I AND 8 OF SBC110N 7. TOWNSIDP 7 SOVTK~ RANGE 88 WIST OP 11m SIXDI PRINCIPAL
MBRIDIAN AND IN lDTS l, t, 10, 11 , 17, 18 AND 25 OP SIC110N 1%, LOT )l OF
SIC110N 1, TOWNSIDP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OP TIIB SIX'I1f PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING WEST OP 11IB WBSTBRLY RIGJtt OP WAY lJNB FOR 111E
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRA.NSPORTA.TION COMPANY RAILROAD (DENVBJl AND IUO GRANDE~
RAILROAD) ASPIN BRANCH AND LYING NOR1H AND BASTOP'IHB CBN'I'ERLINB OP 11m
ROARING FORK RMR, BDro MORE PAR11CULARLY DESCRIBBD AS FOU.OWS:
CONMBNCING AT A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACB .FOR mE ·
WITNISS CORNBR TO '110! SOtmll/4 OORNBR OP SAID SBC110N 7, WHENCE A POUND .
GAUIILD COUNTY SUJtVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACB POR THE SOU'l'IIBAST CORNU fOil SAID
=J=J:,r:==~~~UOPKET, Wlrii.ALL .
11iP.NCB S 88 D!GIIBS 28'4r B ALONG 1HE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SBC110N 7 A DISTANCE
OF 821.01 FEEl' TO A POINT ON 1HB WBSTBRLY RIGHT OF WAY LINI FOR THB SOU1'HEI.N
PACIFIC TRANSJIORTA'DON COMPANY RAILROAD (ASPBN BRANCH) AND TRUE POINT O:F
BBGINNING FOR niB TRACT 08SCRIBPJ) HBIWN;.
·THBNCB ALONG SAID WI!S11IRL Y RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLQWJNG t COURSES:
1) S 09 DBGIU!IS 35'10•1! A DISTANCB OF 15U.87 FEET:
2) 121.05 JIIBT ALONG 1HE ARC OP A CURVE CONCAVE TO TK! NORTH.BAST, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1482.50 FBBT AND WHOSE CHORD BBARS S 21 DBGIBI!S 41'02• B A DJSTANCI
OP 121.41 FBIT;
3)'S 33 DBGRP.P.S a•s.t• B A DISTANCE OF 381.28 fEET;
4) 21N.S2 PDT 'ALONG THE ARC OP A CURVE CONCA VB TO THE SOUTHWI!ST, HAVING A
.RADIUS OF 2815.00 PEBT AND WHOSI CHORD BBARS S SO DEGRBIS 47'11" E A"DISTANCS
OF ZM.II FEET TO A POlNT ON THE CBN'I'ERLINE 011 SEcnON 18, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, .
RANGE • WI!ST;
111BNCB N a DBGRIBS 53'J&" W A DISTANCE OJI407.83 FEET TO 1HJ! CBN'I'BILJNE OF THE
.ROARING JIORK RIVBR: .
· 'DIBNCB ALONG '11IE CENTBRI.JNI! OF SAID ROARING FORX RIVER nm FOLLOWING 15 COURSES:
1) N 47 DBCREBS 1S'l4~ W A DISTANCE OP 122 .~ PBBT;
Z) N 57 DBGRIBS 54'58" W A DISTANCE OF H9. 02 li'EBT;
3j N 63 DIGRBBS az•ag• W A DISI'ANCB OF 3al .za FBBT:
4) N 55 DBCRIIS 41'54" W A DISTANCB OF 118.·67 PBBT;
5) N 35 DBGRDS 45'21" W A DISTANCB OP 225 .15 FBBT:
8) N 34 DICRBBS 08'17" W A DISTANCE OP 318.15 JIBBT;
1) N 13 DBGRHBS 3r07• W A DISTANCB OP 255.15 FBin';
8) N 4t DBGRBBS'39'S3" W A DISTANCB OF 175.85 PBHT:
9) N 51 DI!GUBS 48'tl" W A ~ANCB OP 882.78 PEBT:
f:t IUIIIII : .•. ,a II iiiMuti
18) N 30 DI!GP!!!!S 41'54' W A DISTANCB OP 183.28 PBif:
11) N 17 DI!GP!!I!S t&'37' W A IIISTANCB OP 173.221'1!11':
12) N 2S DIGRBI!S 15'35" W A DISTANCB OP 153.19lii!BT;
13) N 18 DJIOR!!!!S 31'50" W A DISTANCE OF 248.31 FI!BT;
14) N 28 DI!GIU!I!S 18'28' W A DISTANCE OP 815.00 FI!BT;
IS) N Zf DEGitiii!S 10'18' W A DrSTANCI OP 142.52 FUT TO A POINT ON 1IIB WEST UNE
OP LOT 18 OP SIICl10N 12, TOWNSIIJP 1 SOtrl'H, RANGE 18 WEST:
'nii!NC£ N 00 DI!GtiBI$ 04'33' W ALONG 1111 WEST LINB OF SAID LOT 18 A DrSTANCE OF
323.113 JIBET TO 1111 NOR'l11WBS'l' CORNIDl OF SAID LOT II:
l111!NCB N 00 DBGRIIIS 21'W W ALONG 11IE WIST LINE OP 1.01' 17 OP SAID SI!CTION 12 A
DJSTANCE OJI &&S.42 FI!BT TO 1'HB NOJmiWl!ST CORNIIR OP SAID LOT U:
TIIBNCINOIDEGIIEIIS 111'52" I!ALONGTREWEsrLINBOP LOTil OF SAID SECTION 12A
DISTANCE OF 74L05 JIBI!T TO THI NOJmlWISf COIINI!Il OF SAID LOT II;
·111ENCB N 00 DEGREES 24'U' W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 10 OP SAID SEC'I10N 12 A ·
DISTANCE OJI1423.80 JII!I!T TO 11111 NORI'II'WliST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10:
IHBNCB N 88 DEGRBBS 35' 31' W ALONG THE S01J'I1I LINE OF LOT I OP SAID SIICTION 12
AND BXIS1'ING JII!NCE A DISTANCB OJIII.fl TO 'I'HB SOl1I'HWIIST CORNIIR OP SAID LOT.
I; .
THIINCI! N liZ DIIGIIBI!S 15'0&' B ALONG 11111 WEST UNB OF SAID LOJ 1 AND BXISTING
Fl!NCI!A DJSTANCE OP t82.03 PJIBT.m THB NORTHWEST CORNBR OP SAID LOT 1;
111J!NcB N liZ DEGRIBS IS'O&l B ALONG 11IE WIST UNB OP LOT 81 OF SIICTlON 1,
TOWNSHIP 7 SOV1ll, RANGB Ill WEST AND I!XISTING FBNCI! A DISTANCE OP 7UI
FliT; . .
l111!NCB CONliNIJJNG ALONG 11111 WEST LINI! OF SAID LOT 31 AND BXIS'I1NG PBNCB N 02
DEGRW 88'21' B A DISTANCE OP 510.17 PIIBTTO 11111 NOR11lWEST COitNI!R OP SAID LOT
31:
1IIBNCI S 88 DEGREBS 43'30' B ALONG 11111 NOR'IH LINB OF SAID J:.4)T 31 AND IIXISTINC
PINCB A DISTANCE OF MI.BSI'I!BT lOA POINT ON 11111 WESTIII.Y RIGHt OF WAY UNE OF
SAID SOUTIII!RN PACIFIC 11WISPOaTA'DON COYPANYIWLROAD (ASl'BN BRANCH):
THIINCII ALONG SAID WI!S'D!RL Y RIGill' OP WAY LlNB 11111 JIOLLOWDIG 3 COUIISIIS:
1) S 18 DI!CRI!!!S 31'12' E A DISTANCE OP 31185.72 P11BT: ·
2) 8f.33 PBBT ALONG THE ABC OF A CURVB CONCAVE TO 11111 WIST, HAVING A RADIUS OF
281S.OOPI!BT ANDWHOSECHORDIII!ARSS 1fDI!GitDS 37'01' BA DISTANCBOF 4N.70
'PBB'I': --
8) SIll DEGRI!I!S 35'10' B A DISTANCE OP 582.43 PBBT TO THE POINI' OF ,
III!GINNJNG, .
TOCITIII!R wmt
ALL 'l'HAT l'IIOPI!RTY OF PABCEL B (WHICH PARCIIL B IS MORB PARTJCllLAIIJ.Y DISCRIBBD IN
'DIAT CERTAIN DliBD RBCORDED IN BOOK 5l1 AT PAGE 108 AS RBCBP'l10N NO. 218181 OP
1HI! GAIFIBLD COUNTY, COLORAI)(),IIJ!COJDS) LYING AND BBING AIIOVB AND IASI'I!RLY OP
1IIB CBHI1!RLlNB OF 11111 Gt.JiNWooD DITCH AS NOW J!XIS'l1NG AND IN PLACB.
PARCELC:
A TRAer OPLAND SITUATI! IN LOT 4 OF SI!CTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOVTH, RANGE 88 WEST
OF '1111! 8111 PRINCIPAL MERIDJAN, GAJIIIIIILD Co"UN'l'Y, COLORADO, LYING WIST OF 1H1!
WI!STIIILY RlGHTOFWAYLINB POR COLORADO STATI! HIGHWAY NO. UAND LYING I!ASTOP
1111 I!ASTIIIILY,IIIGIIT OF WAY LINE POR THB SOllTHI!RN PACJPIC TRANSPORl'A'DON COMPANY
RAILilOAD (DI!NVBR AND RIO CllANDB WPSI'BRN RAILROAD) ASPI!N BRANCH, BBING MORE
r,,. iGPJiit .Wii 1 tA I· ......
I.BIIL IIISCIIPTIOif
PARTICULARLY Dl!SCRIIIBD AS fOlLOWS:
COMMI!NCING AT A POIJHD CARPIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR IRASS CAP IN l'LI\CII FOR 11111
WI'I'NIISSCORNI!R !011111 SOtmll/4 CORNI!R OF SAID SI!CTION 7, WJIBNCBA I'OUHJ)
GAR1IIIILD COUNTY SURVIYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACI POll '11111 SOtFI'IIBAST aDINl!R OF SAID
S!C110N 7 B11A11S S 18 DIGIII!I!S 28'4r E A DISTANCE OF 1111.10 IIIBT, WlTJI ALL .
BBAIIINGS CONTAINED HI!RI!IN BI!ING RIILATJ\11! tHliRl!TO:
l1ll!NCI! N 83 DPGRJPS 81'23' £A DISTANCE OF 1132.41 FI!IT TO A POINT ON '11111
I!ASTBIILY RlCRT or WAY L1NB FOJt THB SOU1'IUIIH PACJPIC TRANSPOilTATION COMPANY
IADIIMD ASHN BRANCH AND TRUll POINT OF liiGINNINC 0111118 TRAer DI!SCIIBBD
HIIIIIIDI:
1HI!NCB LEAVINGSAIDI!ASTI!RLYIUGRTOJIWAY LINB N 10 DBCRI!IIS 10'00' E A
DISTANCB OF 4&.7411111!TTO A POINT ON 11111 Wl!S111RLY lUCHT OF WAY LINE FOR
COLORADO STATBJDGIIWAY ND. 82;
THI!NCIIS08 DPGJIJ!J!S 01'00' E ALONG SAID WIIS'I'I!RLY IlCHT OF WAY L1NB A DISTANCE OP
202. '18 P8I!T;
nll!NCII CONTINUING ALONG. SAID WI!STULY IlCHT OF WAY UNI S M DBCiti!IIS M'H' E A
DISTAHCB OP 280.'1811111!T'l'O'A POINT IN'lDSIIC'IlNG THB IIAS'l'IIIILY liGHT OF WAY LINI
OF SAID SOUTIIIIRN PACil'JC 'J'RANSPOllTATION COMPANY RAILROAD ASP11N IIRANCJ(;
TIII!NCB N 00 Jli!Giti!IIS'3$'10' W ALONG SAID IIASTBRLY lliGHT OF WAY LINB A DISTANCE OF
181.14 PIIJ'TO 11lliiiBCJNNING OP ACURVI! CONCAVE TO'DII WEST,HA.VINCAIIADllJS OP
&915.DO JIBIIT;
THI!NCII ALONG SAID WTBRLY liGHT OF WAY LINE AND ARC OP SAID CURVE 282.80 FI!IT,
THB aiOIID OP WHICil B11A11S N 12 DBCiti!IIS ZI'CI" W A DISTANCB OF 212.41 FBBT TO 'DIE
POINT OF IIIJ(liNNING,
COUNTY OP GARJIII!LD
STATBOFCOLOIIADO
PARCBLD:
A TRAer OF LAND smJATBD IN SBcriON 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOtml, RANGE 18 WEST OF 'DIE
1111 PRINQPAL Ml!l!JDio\N, SAJD TRAer OF LAND lli!ING MORB PARIICULARLY DBSCRIBIID AS POLI.OWS: .
COMMENCING AT 'DIE SB COIINBR OF SI!C'IlON I, T1S, I 89 W or THB 1111 P.M. (WI11I ALL
IIIWUNG COMT.\INBD HIIRBIN BIIINC IIELAnYB .TO A III!AIIINC OF N 00 DEGIIII!S 10' or E
11B'1'W1D!N THB SE COINBR AND 'DIE II: 1/4 COitNI!II OF SAID SBC'l10N I); 1HI!NCE N 00
l'!('..pQS 10' WE ALONG SAID SI!C'J'ION UNB 817.10 JIBBT, TO A i'OINT ON 'DIE
NORTHI!IILY BOIIHDARYUNB OF 1HAT PROPIIRIY SURVEY RBCOBDBD AS RBCBPTIOH NO. 305
IN 'DIE GAIIfDII.D COUNTY INDEX FOR INFbRMATIONAL LAND SURVEY PLATS, '11111 TRUE ·
POINT OF BEGINNING:.1HI!NCB CONTINiliN(; ALONG SAJD SIICTION UNB N 00 DICitllliS 10'
08" E M.o3 JIIIBTTO A POINT IN AN JIXISTING PINCE LINE; 1'HBNC1I LEAVING SAID ·
SBC'I10N LINB S 18 DBCitllliS 38' 14" I! ALONG AN I!XISTJNG FENCE LINE 292.82 JI.IIIT;.
1HI!NCE CONnNVING ALONG AN EXISTING PINCB LINB $18 DBCIIlliS 47' 11"1! 111.88
PUT; 11111NCE CONTIN1JlNC ALONG SAID FENCE L1NB S 30 DBGREIIS 81' 43" E M.ZI PI!IIT
TO A POiNT ON SAJD NOimiEIILY BOUNDARY; TIII!NCE LEAVING SAID BXISTINC FINCE UNI
N 80 DBCRIII!S 00' 00' W ALONG SAID NOR'DIBILY BOUNDARY .ta.IS J11BT TO '11111 POINT
OF IIJIGINNING. . . .
COUNTY or GARFIELD.sTATB OF COLOilADO
WI
.Q
.~ .,
..
ENGINE ERING,I N C
909 Colorado Avenue
Glel'lwoOO Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile
RIVER BEND
COLORADO, LLC
EXHIBITC
WATER RIGHTS LOCATION
Date: 12/0212009
File: 660-7.4
Drawn by: RKM
Approved by: JMC
IENlERWaterYea~ 2010 I
I 2 I 3
Ground Water
Montll Coryell
RIVER BEND, COLORADO, LLC
Sample Water Use AccounUng Fonn
Combined Case Nos. 01CW187 (08CW198) and 07CW164
I ENTER Number of I J I dnaloped EQRs 349.55 -
I • 5 10 I
Dillerotons consu Uoo Net Swam Do-
Surface Water Retumflow
13 ~~ Au on
River Call Release
Aopen Total #of Days Ranch RBC Well Raid Lawn Lagged Net GlenWds Lagged ........... Total lhe~ BWCD Con1rae1 Wells RBC Roaring ln-Houoe and Total Irrigation Shom S1r8am Return Re1Um Calls on Augmentation
Lagged Fork Diversion Diversion Ganlen Flow Return Flow Depletion Duling the RoiiiH
Diversions Diversions D ..... lono Stream Flow Month
Dlwnlons
Nov
Dec
Jan
Fob
Mar
A r
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oc1
T-1
General Noles Column Explanations
1)-3): Monlhly volume (AF) diverted from ground water sources allribu1ed to lhe River Bend, Colorado, LLC developmenL
1) This sample accounting sheet is 4): Lagged well diversions based on """'ed depletion factors determined by lhe Glover melhodology. Aspen Glen and Ca..,.U Ranch well diversions 81
iDustrative only. It Is intended to not lagged based on Graven analyses showing all stream impacts occuring in the same month as diveBions.
show the general accounting 5) Monthly volume (AF) diverled from surface water scuees.
methodology and to demonstrate thai 6) r columns 1. 2, 4, 5
accounting can be developed to 1} In-house consumptive use tor the number of developed EORs baaed on decreed demand and consumptive use values.
correctty track and administer the 8) t.a.m and gordon oomumptlve use based on decree values. lnigeted acreage pro-<aled based on number of developed EQRs: (#developed EQRo •
plans for augmentation. 1,200 total EQRs) X 7 acres.
9) I columns 7, 8.
2) Water usage for the first 349.55 10) WIIVTP retumftow based on decree values of: 5% CU and 350 gpciiEOR demand.
EQRs will be alooaled lo 01CW187 11) Legged lawn and garden retum flow based on decreed values of demand ·consumptive use Jogged by Glover analysis factors.
(OS madi&ed by 08CW198), 12) I: columns 10, 11.
Thereafter usage wil be alocated to 13) Column 6 -col~.mn 12.
07CWI64. 14) The monthly augmentation requirement is based on the number of days per month the water" rights ere out of priority to the Cameo call.
15) Column 15 X (column 16 +#days in the monlh) X 105%.
1212/2009 lliil!'! ~~.'?.1:-!. ':! ~ 1¥ Exhibit D
"·,·-;
Granted The moving party is hereby ORDERED
to provide a copy of this Order to any pro
se parties who have entered an
appearance in this action within 10 days
from the date of this order.
EXHIBIT
l_tJN
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION 5, COLORADO
Garfield County Courthouse
I 09 gth Street, Suite I 04
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I
James B. Boyd
District Court Judge
Date of Order attached
Telephone : (970) 945-5075 ~ COURT USE ONLY ~
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER Case No.:
RIGHTS OF CA RBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC , THE
ROARING FORK WATER AND SANITATION 08CW198
DISTRICT AND BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY
DISTRICT
IN GARFIELD, PITKIN , SUMMIT AND EAGLE
COUNTIES
FINDINGS AND RULING OF THE REFEREE AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF
THE WATER COURT
THIS MATT ER has come before the Water Refe ree on an Application for Change of
Water Right and to Amend Plan for Augmentation (the "Application"), orig inally filed by River
Bend Colorado, LLC (''River Bend "), for whom Carbondale Investments, LLC ("Carbondale")
ha s been substituted, the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (''Di strict") and the Basalt
Water Conservancy District ("BWCD ") as the Applicants in this case .
The Referee , having reviewed the Application and the other pleadings in this case, and
having made such investigation s as are necessary to determine whether or not the statements in
the Application are true, having con sulted with the Division Engineer, and having become fully
advised with respect to the subject matter of the Application in accordance with C.R .S. § 37-92-
302(4), C.R.S .. does hereby make the following Findings and Ruling of the Referee in this
matter.
I. INTRODUCTION
The water rights that are the subject of the Application are intended to serve the
development of280 acres of land located in Garfield County, Co lorado (the "Development"). A
map and legal description of such property is attac hed hereto as Exhibits A and B, re spec tively.
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al.
Case No. 08CW198
Page 2
Carbondale and the District are currently negot1atmg the terms of a pre-inclusion
agreement under which the District would provide potable water for the Development, or a
portion thereof. The maximum number of EQRs that could be developed on the Development is
1200, as defined in the policies of the District, including the irrigation of up to seven acres within
the Development as established under the decrees in Case Nos. OICWI87 and 07CWI64.
BWCD provides augmentation water pursuant to the decrees in Case No. OICWI87 and
07CWI64 through an Allotment Contract originally entered into with Sanders Ranch Holdings,
LLC, which was assigned to River Bend. Carbondale has obtained from the B WCD the
assignment of an amended water allotment contract that will provide sufficient augmentation
water for this decree, and the decrees in Case Nos. OlCWI88, OICWI89 and 07CWI64. This
amended allotment contract is referred to herein as the "Allotment Contract."
In Case No. OICWI87, Water Division No.5, River Bend obtained a decree for Change
of Water Right and for Approval of Plan for Augmentation including Exchange. The decree in
Case No. OICWI87 approves a water supply to provide potable water service through the
District for up to 349.55 EQRs as defined in the then-existing policies of the District.
Carbondale now owns the rights decreed to River Bend in that case.
In Case No. 07CW 164, Carbondale and District obtained a decree for Water Rights, for
Approval of Plan for Augmentation and for Appropriative Right of Exchange. The decree in
Case No. 07CW 164 approves a water supply to provide potable water service either through the
District or through Carbondale for an additional 850.45 EQRs as defined in the current policies
of the District.
Case Nos. 01 CW 187 and 07CWI64 combine to provide water service for a total of 1,200
EQRs to the Development by Carbondale, the District and BWCD. Upon inclusion of the
Development into the District, the Applicant will convey the water rights included in this
Application, the decrees in Case Nos. OlCWI87 and 07CW164 and will assign the appropriate
portion of the Allotment Contract to the District pursuant to the above-referenced pre-inclusion
agreement. If no pre-inclusion agreement is executed, Carbondale shall retain its interest in these
water rights and shall supply water to the Development at the structures decreed within the
Development (REC Roaring Fork Diversion and REC Well Field).
The purpose of this decree is to change the water rights decreed in Case No. 01 CWI87 to
add additional alternate points of diversion for the Basalt Conduit water right, to include the
additional alternate points as augmented structures, and to increase the augmentation water
supply to be consistent with current District policy. In this way, the decrees in Case Nos.
OICWI87 and 07CWI64 will be consistent.
II. FINDINGS
I. Name. address and telephone number of Applicants
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al.
A. Carbondale Investments, LLC
280 I Turtle Creek Blvd., Apt. 6E
Dallas, TX 75219
and
c/o Rockwood Shepard
Carbondale Investments LLC
243 Crescent Lane
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 l
970-456-5325
B. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
P.O. Box 1002
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
970-945-2144
C. Basalt Water Conservancy District
P.O. Box 974
Glenwood Springs. CO 81602
970-945-6777
Case No. 08CW 198
Page 3
2. History of Case: The Application in this case was properly verified and tiled with
the Water Clerk, Water Division No. 5 on December 31, 2008. On October 20, 2009, the
Division Engineer submitted a written Summary of Consultation in accordance with C.R.S. §3 7-
92-302(4) with respect to the Application, which the Referee has considered. On May 26,2010,
the Court ordered Carbondale substituted for River Bend as the Applicant in this case and the
caption amended accordingly.
3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Timely and adequate notice of the Application was
given in the manner required by law. See C.R.S. §37-92-302. Neither the land nor the water
rights involved in the Application are located in a designated groundwater basin. The Court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and over all persons who have standing to
appear as parties, whether they have appeared or not, all notices required by law having been
given and the Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Application. See C.R.S.
§§37-92-203 and 37-92-302.
4. Opoosition: No statements of opposition were filed in this case and the time for
filing statements of opposition has expired.
A. Additional Alternate Points of Diversion for Basalt Conduit
5. Decree<:! name of structures for which change is sought: Basalt Conduit
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC. et al.
A. From previous decrees
Case No. 08CWI98
Page 4
(I) Date entered: June 20, 1958, as modified by Supplemental Decree
dated August 3, 1959.
(2) Case No.: Civil Action No. 4613.
(3) Court: Garfield County District Court.
B. Decreed point of diversion: The headgate and point of diversion is located
on the left bank of the Frying Pan River at the head of the outlet tube for the Ruedi Reservoir
whence the SW Corner of Section 7, T. 8 S., R. 84 W. of the 6'h P.M. bears N. 79° 00' W at a
distance of2,017.1 feet, in Pitkin County.
C. Source: Frying Pan River, tributary to the Roaring Fork River, tributary to
the Colorado River.
D. Appropriation date: July 29, 1957.
E. Amount: 450 c.f.s.
F. Use: Generation of electric energy. domestic and municipal,
stockwatering, piscatorial and industrial uses.
G. Historic Use: N/A
6. Proposed Change:
A. The decree in Case No. OICWI87 changed 0.5 c.f.s. of the Basalt Conduit
water right described above to the Aspen Glen Wells 1-7, the Coryell Ranch Wells 1-14 and the
Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion, as alternate points of diversion. Applicants propose to
add the following as additional alternate points of diversion for the Applicants' interest in the
Basalt Conduit water right as described in the decree in Case No. 01 CWI87. All references in
the decree in Case No. 01 CWI87 to alternate points of diversion shall also include the following:
(I) Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement,
decreed in Case No. 07CWI64, with a point of diversion on the West bank of the Roaring Fork
River in the NEI/4 NEI/4, Section 29, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 61h P.M., at a point
whence the NE comer of said Section 29 bears North 53°18' East, a distance of 1.357.4 feet. The
point of diversion can also be described as being 846 feet from the North Section line and I ,068
feet from the East Section line of said Section 29.
(2) REC Well Field, decreed in Case No. 07CWI64, and which
consists of that portion of the Carbondale property, excluding the Conservation Easement area
granted to the Roaring Fork Conservancy, located in theW. Y, ofS. 7. T. 7 S., R. 88 W. of the
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments. LLC, et al.
Case No. 08CW198
Page 5
Sixth P.M., the E. y, ofS. 12, T. 7 S., R. 89 W. of the Sixth P.M., and theSE. Y. ofS. I, T. 7 S ..
R. 89 W. of the Sixth P.M. The legal description of the Carbondale property is attached as
Exhibit B. The Applicant may develop up to ten wells within the REC Well Field, as shown on
Exhibit C, and each of these wells is claimed as an alternate point of diversion with its source
being groundwater tributary to the Roaring Fork River.
(3) REC Roaring Fork Diversion, decreed in Case No. 07CWI64, with
a point of diversion on the East bank of the Roaring Fork River in S.18, T.7S., R.88W .. 6th P.M.,
1,206 feet from the North section line and 434 feet from the West section line of said Section 18,
as shown on Exhibit C, and with its source from the Roaring Fork River.
(4) Robertson Ditch, decreed in Case No. OOCW019, with a point of
diversion located on the Westerly bank of the Roaring Fork River at a point whence the SE
comer ofS. 12, T. 7 S., R. 89 W., Sixth P.M. Bears N. 27°56' W. 2,788.14 feet. This structure
can also be described as a point within the NW. Y. of theSE. Y., S. 18, T. 7 S., R. 88 W .. 6'h P.M.
1,509 Ft. from the South line and 1123 Ft. from the West line of said Section 18, as shown on
Exhibit C, with its source from the Roaring Fork River.
(5) Posy Pump and Pipeline, decreed in Case No. OOCWO 19, with a
point of diversion located in Government Lot 17 of Section I, Township 7 South, Range 89 West
of the 61h P.M. at a point whence the Northwest Corner of said Section I bears North 57.02'42"
West a distance of 3799.13 feet. This structure can also be described as a point within NW. Y. of
theSE. Y., S. I, T. 7 S., R. 89 W. of the 6'h P.M. 2300 Ft. from the South line and 2290 Ft. from
the East line of said Section I, as shown on Exhibit C, with its source from the Roaring Fork
River.
B. Name and address of owners of land on which structures are located: The
District has contractual or easement rights to the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River
Edge Enlargement. the Robertson Ditch and Posy Pump and Pipeline. The REC Well Field and
REC Roaring Fork Diversion are located on land owned by Carbondale.
B. Changes to Plan for Augmentation
7. Amendments to Plan for Augmentation: Applicants request to amend the Plan for
Augmentation decreed in Case No. 0 I CW 187 to include additional structures to be augmented
pursuant to that decree and to increase the assumed water use and related augmentation
requirements.
A. Names of structures to be augmented: Applicants propose to amend
paragraph 8 of the decree in Case No. 0 I CW 187 to include the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork
Diversion River Edge Enlargement, REC Well Field, REC Roaring Fork Diversion, Robertson
Ditch, and Posy Pump and Pipeline, described above, as structures to be augmented.
B. Water rights used for augmentation: Applicants propose to amend
paragraph 9 of the decree in Case No. 0 I CW 187 to include an additional 1.03 acre feet of
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al.
Case No. 08CW I 98
Page 6
Carbondale's interest in its Allotment Contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District,
which provides augmentation water trom Ruedi Reservoir, Green Mountain Reservoir, and/or
the Troy Ditch and Edith Ditch Water Rights as those rights are described in that decree.
C. Statement of Plan for Augmentation:
(I) Applicants propose to amend paragraph 9.D( I) of the decree in
Case No. OICWI87 to reflect the current EQR calculation policies of the District. This change
reflects an increase in assumed water use, which is more conservative and therefore more
protective of other water rights.
(2) Applicants propose to amend paragraph 9.0(4) of the decree in
Case No. Ol.CWI87 to reflect the increase in the amount of estimated augmentation water
requirements based upon the increase in the assumed water use.
(3) Applicants propose to amend Exhibit E to the decree in Case No.
OICWI87, and to amend paragraph 18 of the decree in Case No. OICWI87 to reflect an
estimated augmentation requirement of 12.95 a.f.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
8. The Water Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
proceeding and over all persons or entities affected hereby, whether they have appeared or not.
See C.R.S. §§ 37-92-203 and 37-92-302.
9. Timely and adequate notice of the Application was given in the manner provided
by statute. See C.R.S. § 37-92-302(2).
10. The Application filed herein is in accordance with the law and should be granted
subject to the terms and conditions of this decree. See C.R.S. §§ 37-92-302 and 37-92-305. No
injury to other water rights will occur as a result of the exercise of the requested change of water
rights or plan for augmentation and exchange in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
decree. See C.R.S. § 37-92-305(3).
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al.
Case No. 08CWI98
Page 7
IV. RULING OF THE REFEREE AND DECREE OF THE COURT
The foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law are incorporated in this decree by this
reference, and the Application is hereby granted, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in
this decree.
11. The change of water right and amendment of the decree in Case No. 01 CW 187 as
decreed herein will not affect in any material way the operation of said water right and plan for
augmentation, and therefore will not injuriously affect the owner of or persons entitled to use
water under a vested water right or a decreed conditional water right.
12. The requested change in point of diversion for the Basalt Conduit water right, as
described in Section II.A., is approved. The decree in Case No. 01CWI87 is hereby amended to
add the Coryell Ra.nch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement, REC Well Field, REC
Roaring Fork Diversion, Robertson Ditch and Posy Pump and Pipeline, as described in Section
II.A., as additional alternate points of diversion for the Basalt Conduit. All references in the
decree in Case No. 01CWI87 to alternate points of diversion shall also include the Coryell
Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement, REC Well Field, REC Roaring Fork
Diversion, Robertson Ditch and Posy Pump and Pipeline as described in Section ll.A. If the
District supplies water to the Development, it shall have the right to use all of the foregoing
alternate points of diversion. If Carbondale supplies its own water, it is entitled to use only the
REC Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion as alternate points of diversion, and the
District structures shall not constitute alternate points for those REC structures.
13. The requested amendment to the Plan for Augmentation decreed in Case No.
01CWI87, as described in Section II.B., is approved. The Plan for Augmentation decreed in
Case No. OICW187 is hereby amended in the following respects.
A. Paragraph 8 of the decree in Case No. 01CWI87 is hereby amended to
include the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement, REC Well Field,
REC Roaring Fork Diversion, Robertson Ditch. and Posy Pump and Pipeline, described above,
as structures to be augmented. If Carbondale supplies its own water, it is entitled to use only the
REC Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion as alternate points of diversion, and the
District structures shall not constitute alternate points for those REC structures.
B. Paragraph 9 of the decree in Case No. 0 I CW 187 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Pursuant to the Allotment Contract, Carbondale is entitled to use up to 74.9 acre feet,
total, of augmentation water from any of the three sources described below (Ruedi
Reservoir, Green Mountain Reservoir and the Troy and Edith Ditches). An estimated
amount of 12.95 acre-feet of the 74.9 acre-foot Allotment Contract water will be
·····----------,
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, eta!.
Case No. 08CWI98
Page 8
dedicated to augmentation of out of priority depletions pursuant to this decree from the
Aspen Glen, Coryell Ranch Wells, Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge
Enlargement, REC Roaring Fork Diversion, REC Well Field, Robertson Ditch, and Posy
Pump and Pipeline. Another portion of the 74.9 acre feet of water available under the
Allotment Contract will be dedicated to augmentation of out-of-priority depletions
pursuant to the decree in Case No. 07CWI64. A final portion of the 74.9 acre feet of
water available under the Allotment Contract will be dedicated to augmentation of
evaporation losses from Bair Chase Lakes Nos. I -5 pursuant to two separate decrees in
Case Nos. OICWI88 and OICWI89. The total quantity of water allocated under all of
these decrees is 71.42 acre-feet, leaving a surplus of 3.48 acre-feet available under the
Allotment Contract to be used for additional transit losses or other augmentation purposes
under these decrees. The quantity of augmentation water allocated under each of these
decrees is summarized below.
Quantity of Augmentation Water Allocated Under tbe Allotment
Contract
Decree Quantity of Water
Allocated (AF)
Case No. 07CW 164 25.17
Case No. 0 I CW I 87, as amended by Case I2.95 No. 08CWI98
Case No. OICWI88 6.5
Case No. OICWI89 26.8
TOTAL 71.42
C. Paragraph 9.0(1) of the decree in Case No. OICWI87 is hereby amended to
reflect the following EQR and depletion assumptions:
Gallons per day per residential EQR
Gallons per day per commercial EQR
Irrigated area, potable (sq. ft.)
% irrigation efficiency
% CU for domestic/commercial
Irrigation CU (af/ac)
350
350
I 30,680 (3 ac.)
80
5
1.83
D. Paragraph 9.0(4) of the decree in Case No. 0 ICW I 87 is hereby amended
to reflect the increase in the amount of estimated augmentation water requirements based upon
the increase in the assumed water use, to read as foi lows:
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al.
Case No. 08CWI98
Page 9
The domestic and municipal water requirements for the Development and the
estimated augmentation requirements are described in the table attached as
Exhibit E. The estimated amount of augmentation water required amounts to
12.95 acre teet per year, based on the projections described in Exhibit E,
including a 5% transit loss for water released from Ruedi and Green Mountain
Reservoirs. Estimated project monthly depletions and augmentation requirements
(including 5% transit loss) are set forth below.
Estimated Monthly Augmentation Requirements
349.55 EQRs
Month Augmentation
Requirement
January 0.6!
February 0.55
March 0.61
April 0.66
May 1.72
June 2.05
July 1.97
August 1.47
September 1.33
October 0.77
November 0.59
December 0.61
E. Paragraph 18 of the decree in Case No. OICWI87 is hereby amended to
reflect an estimated augmentation requirement of 12.95 a. f.
F. Exhibit E to the decree in Case No. OICW187 is hereby amended to read
as follows:
EXHIBITE
CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC WATER REQUIREMENTS
(For 349.55 EQRs and 3 Acres of Landscape Irrigation)
(All Values in Acre-Feet)
Demand Consumptive Use
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Month In· Irrigation Total In-trrigation Total Augmentation
House House Requirement
January 11.64 0.00 11.64 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.61
february 10.51 0.00 10.51 0.53 0.00 0.53 0.55
March I 1.64 0.00 11.64 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.61
April 11.26 0.09 11.35• 0.56 O.o7 0.63 0.66
May 11.64 1.31 12.95 0.58 1.05 1.63 1.72
June I 1.26 1.74 13.00 0.56 1.39 1.95 2.05
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al.
July 11.64 1.62 13.26
August 11.64 1.02 12.66
September 11.26 0.87 12.14
October 11.64 0.19 11.83
November 11.26 0.00 11.26
December 11.64 0.00 11.64
TOTALS 137.05 6.85 143.90
0.58 1.30
0.58 0.82
0.56 0.70
0.58 0.15
0.56 0.00
0.58 0.00
6.85 5.48
1.88
1.40
1.26
0.74
0.56
0.58
12.33
Case No. 08CWI98
Page 10
1.97
1.47
1.33
0.77
0.59
0.61
12.95
(I) In-house water demand in acre-feet based on 349.55 EQRs at 350 gallons per day per EQR
{2) Irrigation demand in acre~feet for 130,680 sq. ft. of irrigated area based on 80% application
efficiency, Col 5 + etllciency.
(3) Coli +Col2
(4) ln·house consumptive use based on 5% consumptive use through at a central wastewater
treatment plant
(5) Irrigation consumptive use 1.83 acre-feet per acre based on a modified Blaney Criddle analysis
(6) Col 4 + Col5
(7) Augmentation requirement includes 5% allowance for transit loss
14. Except as specifically changed and amended herein, the decree in Case No.
0 I CW 187 shall remain in filii force and effect. The terms and conditions of this decree and the
decree in Case No. 0 I CW 187 are adequate to assure that no material injury to any water rights
will result from the exercise of the water rights or the plan for augmentation set forth herein. All
of the terms and conditions relating to the use of the Applicants' interest in the 0.5 c.f.s. of the
Basalt Conduit water right set forth in the decree in Case No. OJ CW 187 shall apply to the use of
such water right at the new alternate points of diversion set forth above.
15. The Applicants shall give adequate notice to the Division Engineer prior to
operating the exchange decreed in Case No. OICWI87.
16. The plan for augmentation approved herein is sufficient to permit the continuation
of diversions when curtailment would otherwise be required to meet a valid senior call for water,
to the extent that the Applicants shall provide replacement water necessary to meet the lawful
requirements of a senior divcrter at the time and location and to the eKtent the senior would be
deprived of his or her lawful entitlement by the Applicants' diversion.
. .
Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, eta!.
Case No. 08CWI98
Page II
17. Before the plan for augmentation in Case No. OlCWI87 becomes operational, the
well subject to Penni! No. 23054-A shall be plugged and abandoned.
18. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-92-304(6), the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction
over the change of water rights and plan for augmentation decreed herein regarding the question
of injury to vested water rights or decreed conditional water rights of others, for a period of five
years after the Applicants provide written notice to the Division Engineer and the Court that the
augmentation plan has become operational. The augmentation plan shall be deemed operational
hereunder at the time of build-out of the initial phase of the Development (3 75 EQRs or such
lesser amount that is approved by Garfield County for development of the initial phase) and first
use of the augmentation supply. Such notice must confirm that the decreed augmenting sources
are in place, that the terms and conditions necessary to operate the plan as required by this decree
have been met, and that the augmented uses and augmentation have been initiated.
Dated: ~0/IJ O{DI/
(\ -A l::?./J.w ~~D/).tr,,~ B.fi!m
Water Referee*
Water Division No. 5 "~~..k...-'lf M:;.;~ w~ {J.J •••• \
THE COURT DOTH FINDTHATNO PROTEST WAS FlLED.!JtTHIS MAITER. "--r--'
THE FOREGOING RULING IS CONFIRMED AND APPROVED, AND IS HEREBY
MADE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THIS COURT.
Dated: ___________ _
Hon. James B. Boyd
Water Judge
Water Division No. 5
TbH docurnent comt1tute-~ a mlmg of'::he cour and should be rre<-~ted as mch
Court Authorizer
Comments:
Exhibits A through D to the ruling ofthe referee are incorporated into this decree.
E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945·1137 Facsimile
CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
Date: 09/08/2010
File: 660-7.4
Drawn by: RP/RKM
Approved by: MJE
EXBIBITB
PAIICELA:
A TRAer OF LAND Sl11llt.TIIN LOTS'· I, 7, lAND II OFSECnON 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOU1H,
IWIGJ! 18· WIST 01' THII 1111 PRINCIPAL MIIIUDIAN AND IN LOT 31 OP SI!CilON l,
TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGI! 18 WIIST OP THB em PRINCIPAL Ml!IUDIIt.N, Glt.RPW.D COUNTY,
COLORADO L YlNG WEST OF TH1 WI!STIIIL Y RJGHr OP WAY IJN1! FOR COLORAOO STATB
IUGHWAY NO. HAND LYING I!ASI' OPntl! IIASTI!RLY RIGHTOPWAYIJNJ! FORntl!
SOU'I1IIRN PACIFIC TaANSPOatlt.nON COMPANY IWUlOit.D (DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN
llU..ROAD) ASPEN BRANDl. BBING MORB Plt.Kl'ICULAIILY DESCitliiiD AS ·
l'OLLOWS:
COMMI!NCING AT A FOlJND GAIIFlEUJ COUNTY SURVIVOR BRASS CAP IN PLACI! FOR mE
WI1NBSS COIINBR TO 'Dill SOU111 Uf CORNEll OF SAID SECTION 7, WIIINCB A POUND
Glt.UII!LD CotJMTY SURVIVOR lllllt.SS CAP IN PLACB FOR THB sourHIIAST CoRNia OF SAID
SECTION fiii!AIIS S 18 DBCRJ!J!S 11'47" B A DISTANCE OF 2811.811 PI!I!T, wrm ALL
BBAIIlNGS CONI'AINI!D IIBRlllN IIIIING RI!IA11VB TIII!RB'I'O:
1HIINCI! N 71 DI!GRI!I!S 39'B" I. A DISTANCE OP UM. U PBI!T TO A POINT ON THB ·
BASTIUILY RIGHT OF Wlt.YUNBJIOR 'f11BSOUTIII!IIN Plt.CIPlc TRANSPORTit.noN COMPANY
JIAILIIOAD lt.SI'BN BIWICH AND THI TRUB POINT OF IIBGINNING OF THB TRAer DI!SCIII8J!D
III!III!IN:
11111NCB ALONG SAID l!ASTBRLY IIICIIl' OF WAY LINE THI FOU.OWING Z COURSI!S:
l) 71.12 FII.T ALONG t1IB ARC OF A ClliMI CONCA VB TO THB WEST. HAVING A RADIUS OF
2815.081'8111' AND WHosli CHORD Bl!lt.IIS N II DI!GIIl!ES 51'41" W /1. DISTANCB OF 71.12
.PBI!T:
2) N liDI!GIIl!ES 38'!2"W A DISTANCB OP :11Zf.47PBI!TTOA fOINTONTHINORlH UNB
OP LOT 31 OP SIIC110N 1, TOWNSIJIP 7" SOtmt. 1WIGB 18 WBST:
111BNCI S 18 DBGIEIIS U'W B ALONG THB NOll1ll UNI OP SAID LOT 3111. DISTANCE OF
100.80 PE11T TO THI NORTIIBAST COINJ!R OP SAID LOT U:
THI.NC;B S GO llBGIIIIIIS 10'01" W ALONG ntl! lAST LINE OF.SAID LOT IIA DISTANCE OF
84.01 PI.BTTOTHB NORTIIWI!STCORNBR OF LOT7 OF SBCI10N 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOIJJ'H,
RANGIIa WBST: . .
111BNCB S 110 DBGIII!IS 00'011' I ALONG 1HE NORTH LINB OF SAID LOT 7 A DISTANCE OP
873.15 PEIITTO lt.I'OINT ON THB WIISI'BliLY RIGHT OF WAY FOR COLORADO STATB IUGHWAY
N0.82;
111BNCI! ALONG SAID WBSTIIIILY RIGHT OF WAY UNB THE fOLLOWING 9 COUJISI!S;
1) S 38 IIJ!eRPSS WOO' I! A DISTANCE OF IMM PilEI';
2) 250.28JIB1!TAloHG ~lt.llCOP Jt.·CURVB CONCAVBTOTHBWEST,Iilt.VINGA RAiliUSOP
IMO.GO JrliBT AND WHOSE CHORD 8114RS S 28 DBGRI.I!S 18'011" B A DISTANCE OF 250.10
PIIEl';
3) S 11 DBCIUiliS 01'00" E A DISTANCE OP 87.80 PIIBT;
4) N8.52 PBI!T ALONG 1111! ARC OF A CURVB CONCA VB TO 'JHI WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF
liii.OU I'BII1' AND WHOSE CHORD BIWIS S IS DBGRI!l!S SI'QO" II A DISTANCE OP Na.OO
PIIEl';
S) S 08 DI!GJIEES 53'00" E A DISTANCE OF 31!J.I8 FliBT:
6) S 08 DBCREIIS D1 '011' I! A DISTANCII OF 7011.10 PI!BT:
7) S 011 DBCRIBS 18'111" BA DISTANCI! or 211.00 I"DT:
8) S 08 DBGRIIiS 53'00" B A DISTANCII or 280.30 I'EF:l';
Ill S 08 DBClii!I!S 01 '00" B A DISTANCE or 14&7 .811 FBI!T;
1111!NCB Ll!lt.VING SAID WI!STBIILY lliGif1' OF WAY UNil S .88 DIGRI.BS 011'00" W A DISTANCB
OF 73.84 FBBI'TO 11ill POINT OF Ba:INNING. . .
.,, IRilili :-I
Ollt Order No: GW250592-4
I!XCI!PI'ING FROM THE ABOVE PAJICI!L; .
THB PROPBRTV DI!SCRJBBD IN DOCUMI!NT RECORDED AUGUSJ' Z, 1818 IN BOOK 1142 AT PAGB
881 AND IN DOCUMI!NT R1ICORDl!D JANUARY U, 21!01 IN BOOK 1228 AT PAGB toO,
COUNTY OF GAIIFIELD
Sl'ATB OF CO~RADO
PARC.BLB:.
A TRACT OF LAJIID snt.IATB IN LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 7 AND I OF SECTION 18, LOTS 8, 4,
7, 8 AND 8 OF SBC110N 7, TOWNSIDP 7 SOU'nl; RANGE 88 WIST OF 11IE SIX1H PRINCIPAL
MUIDJAN AND IN LOTS 1, 9, 10, 11, 17,18 AND 2S OF SIC110N lZ, LOT 31 OF
SIC110N I, TOWNSIDP 7 SOUlll, RANGE 88 WJ!Sl' OF 11IE SDml PJUNCIPAL MIIRIPIAN,
GARFII!LDCOUNTY, COLORADO, LYING WESTOF11111 WESTBRLY RIGtrrOFWAY IJNB FOR 'DIE
SOtJTHI!RN PACJIIIC TRANSPORTA110N COMPANY RAILROAD (DI!NVBR AND RIO GRANDI! WI!S'I'BI!I'f
RAILROAD) A5P1!N BRANCH AND LYING NOR'lH AND BASI' OF 'l1IB CI!NTBIILINJI OF 11IE
ROARING FORK RIVBR, Ba.G MORE PAJ1'11CULARLY DI!SCRIIII!D AS FOLLOWS:
CONMIINCING AT A FOUND GAliFJJ!LD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACI! FOR 11IE ·
wrmESS COJINIIII TO 1111! 5011111114 CORNBR OF SAID SIC110N 7, WHBNCE A FOUND .
GARPIBLD COUNTY SURVBYOR BRASS CAP IN PIACB FOR 1111 SOUTHEAST CORNER I'ORSAID
:"c:===::c;~~~~1.10PI!IIT,Wlni.ALL.
TliBHCB S 881li!GIIIIIIS 21'tr E ALONG 1111! 5011111 LINE OF SAID SBC'I10N 7 A DISTANCE
011828.08 FI!BT TO A POINT ON 111E WI!Sl'BRLY RIGHT 01' WAY LlNB P01t THB SO"UTHBliN
PAcmC TIIANSI'ORTA1lON COMPANY IWUIOAD (ASPI!N BRANCH) AND TRUE POINT OF
IIBGINNING FOR 11IB TRACT DI!SCR!BJ!D III!REIN: .
·THBNCI! ALONG SAID Wl!S111RLY RJGJrr OF WAY L1NB THI! FOLLOWING 4 COUJISJ!S:
1) S 08 DJlGIU!FS 35'10' E A DISTANCE OF 1545.87111!1n':
2) 821.05 JIIIIIT ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO '1118 NORTHI!AST, HAVING A
RADIUS or 1482.50 J!I!BT AND WHOU CHORD BIWIS S 21 DEGREI!S 41'02' I A DJSTANCl!
OF 82U1l'I!ET: .
3)"$ 83 DBGRBIS 48'6t' II A DJSTANCII OF 381.28I'J!I!T;
4) 2N.32 PDr'ALONG THE ARC or A CUJIVI! CONCAVE TO 11IE 50UTHWIJST, HAVING A
1IADJUS 01' 2115.00 PEET AND WHOSB ~OlD II!A1tS S 10 DBGRJ!ES 47'11" B A liiSTANCB
OF 2N.19 JII!ET TO A POINT ON THE CIIN'I'I!ltLINE OF SIIC110N 18, TOWNSIDP 7 SOUTH, .
RANGE 88 WI!Sl';
THIINCE N 88 DIIGREBS 53'18" W A DISTANCE OF 407.83 FEET TO THB CBN'DIRLINE OF THE
IOARING FORK RIVEil: .
11111NCI ALONG Till! CI!NTI!RLINI!: 0P SAID ROARING FORK RIVER Till! FOLLOWING 15 COURSIIS:
I) N 47 DIICIIIIIIS 15'14~ W A DJSTANCIOP 122.21111!1n':
2) N 57 DIIGRIIES 6t'58' W A DISTANCI! OF 448. OZ FI!I!T;
3j N 83 DIIGREI!S 52'19" W A DISTANCE OF 3118.20 PIIJ!T;
4) N 55 DIICRJII!S 41'54' W A DJSTANCI! OF 188.47 FI!I!T:
5) N IS DIICRJII!S U'21" W A IIISTANCI! OF 225.15 PI!IIT:
S) N :t4 DIICIIIIIIS G8'17' W A DISTANCE OF S18.15l'III!T:
7) N 13 DIICRJII!S 37'07' W A DISTANCB OF 215.&5 FIIBT:
8) N 44 DJ!GRJII!S"38'S3" W A DISTANCE OF 175.85l'III!T:
9) N 51 DI!GRBBS48'41' ~ ADJSTANCBOF662.78l'lii!T:
ti! idtiill •••• lli!fiiiii
10) N 81 DI!CJIII!S 41'54' W A DISTANCB OP 1413.28 Jll!£I';
11) N 17 D8GlU!I!S 46'31' W A li!STANCI! OF 17UZ l'I!I!T;
13) N Z3 DJIGII!I!S 11'35" W A DISTANCB OF' 153.19 PElT:
13) H II DJ!('.!I!!IS 31'50" W A DISTANCI! OF 246.38 Jll!£I';
14) N 28 DI!GIU!JIS 11'18' W A DISTANCE OF 115.110 l'UI;
15) N 14 DI!CRI!I!S 10'18' W A DISTANCE OF tt2.52 FBIT TO A POINT ON 1118 Wl!ST UNB
OF LOT II OF SI!CTtON IZ. TOWNSHIP 7 SOIJI'H, RANGE 18 WBsT;
11UINCB N 00 DI!GUBS 04'33' W ALONG 1118 Wl!ST LINE OF SAID LOT II A DISTANCE OF
323.81 FI!IT TO 1111! NORTIIWilST CORNBI OF SAID LOT II:
11UINCB M 01 DI!Cliii!S 2l'W W ALORC 1118 WBST LINE OF LOT 17 OP SAID SI!C'IION IZ A
DISTANCE 01' 551.42 FJ!I!T TO 'l'HI! NOKI1IWI!ST CORNBR OP SAID LOT 17:
1HBNCB N 03 DEGIIEI!S 118'52' I! ALONG "I1IE WiST LJNI! OF LOT 11 OP SAID SECTION 12 A
DISTANCE OP 741.05 PDT TO Till! NOJmiWIST CORNBR OP SAID LOT 11;
'111IINCII N 110 DIIGIII!I!S 24'17' W ALONG Till Wl!ST LINE OF LOT 10 OF SAID SBCnON 12 A ·
DISTANCB OP 1423.811 FI!I!T TO 1m! NORI'IIWIIST CORNBR OF SAID LOT 10;
TIIIINCB Iii 88 DEGRII!S 81'31' W ALONG TIIB SOIJI'H LINE OF LOT I OP SAID SBCTION 12
AND I!XISDNG FI!NCB A DISTANCE UP 88.11 TO "I1IE S0011IW1!ST CGRNER OP SAID LOT.
I;
llJIINCE N 02 DECRII!S 15'08' B ALONG 1118 WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1 AND IIXISTING
FIINCI!.A DI3TANCB OP 482.113 FBI!T·TO THENORI'HWilSJ' CORNI!R OF SAID LOT I;
'I1IIINcB N 02 DEGRII!S 15'08! I ALONG 1m! WEST LINE OP LOT 31 OP SBcnON I,
TOWNSIIIP 7 SOUlll, RANGB 88 WEST AND I!XISTJNC PBNCB A DISTANCI! OF 75.t1 F.EBr: . .
11IIINCI COH'llNIJING ALONG '11111 WEST LINl! OP SAID LOT 31 AND BXlSTING PIIMCB N 02
DI!CRI!ISIO'U' SA DISTANCE OF HO.n PEI!TTO niB NOR'IHWIISl'CORNBROP SAID LOT
31;
1HIINCB S 88 DI!CREBS 43'311' B ALONe '11111 NOiml LINB OF SAID LOT 31 AND BXISTING
PBNCBA DISTANCE OF 883.85 FI!IT TOA POINT ON 'lHI! WJ!Sl'BRLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
~ SOUTHI!RN PACJli'JC TIIANSPORTADON COMPANY RAILROAD (ASl'BN BRANCII);
TH8NCII ALONG SAID WIISTI!RLY RIGHT OP WAY LINB 1118 FOLLOWING 3 COUIISBS:
I) S 18 DI!CIIBS 31'52' E A DISJ"ANCB OP 3885.72 P1!IIT:
2) 4tN.33 FI!IT AI.ONC T11B AIIC OF A CURYB CONCAVE TO 11IB WI!ST, HAYING A RADJUS OP
2111.00 FI!IT AND WHOSE CHORD Bl!ARS S 14 DBCREI!S 31'01' B A DISJ"ANCII OF 1413.70
·PBBT: .
8) S 08 DEGREES lt'IO' I A DISTANCE OF 512.43 FB11T TO THI! POINT OP .
IIJ!GINNING.
TOGJmii!R wmt
AIL 1HAT PROPERTY OP PAIIC!L B (WIDCH PARCEL B IS NORB PARTICULAlti.Y DISCRIBID IN
11IAT CERTAIN DBBD IIECOitDID IN 800X 511 AT PACB 103 AS UCIIP'I10N NO. 281181 OF
1HB GAIIFIIILD COUNTY. COIDIIADO, RBCORDS) LYING AND 1181MG ABOVB AND BASl'BRLY OF
1HB Clllm!RLOOI OF 'I'HB Ct.I!NWOOD DJTCH AS HOW I!XlS"llNG AND IN PLACE.
PARCI!LC:
A TRACJ" OF LAND SITUA'I'I! IN LOr 4 OP SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOVTH,RANGB 88 ~
OF 'lHI! 8TH PIIINCIPAL MI!II1DIAN, GARIIBLD CoUNIY, COLORADO, L 'i!NG WI!ST OF 'I'HB
WIISTIIIILY liGHT OF WAY UNB FOR COIOilUIO STA'I'I! HIGHWAY NO.I! AND LYING BAST OF
1118I!ASTIIIILYJUGR'l' OF WAY UNE POll 'Dill SOU'111ERN PACIPIC TRANSPORT AnON OOMPANY
RAILROAD (Dl!IM!lt AND RIO GIIANDE WESTI!RN RAILROAD) ASPI!N BlANCH, 8BlNG MORE
.. wu• , ... iiGCWDI
OW Older No: GW25058H
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBI!D AS FOU.OWS:
'COMMENCING AT A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLAC.II'OR 11IB
WITNISS CORNI!R TO mE SOtml U4 OOIINI!R OF SAID SBC1tON 7, WHBNCB A FOUND
GARFIIILD COUNTY SURVI!YOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR 1111 sotmmAST COI.NI!Il OP SAID
SIC110N 7 liARS S 80 DIGIIIII!S 29'4r E A DISTANCE OF 1871.10 PUT. WITH ALL .
IEAUI'GS COHI'AINI!D HI!III!IN IIBING RI!LA11VI! 11II!RI!TO;
nti!NCI! N 33 DI!GRIII!5 27'2S' I A DISJANCB Ol' lt3U1 FRET TO A POINT ON 11IB
IASTJIRLY lUGJn OF WAY LlNB I'OR111B SOUl'liiiRH PACJfiC TRANSPORI'AnON OCIMPANY
IWLROAD ASl'I!H BIIANCH AND 1RUB POINT OF BBCINNINC OF 110! TRAer DI!SCIOIHD
HIIIUIIN:
THI!NCl! U!AVIHG SAID EASI'IlJILY IUGJn OF WAY LINEN 80 DBGREBS 80'GII' E A
DISTANC! OF 48.74 PilEI' TO A POINT ON 1111 WBS'l1!RLY RIGHI' OF WAY IJNB POR
COLORADO STATB JUCIIWAY NO. 82:
111ENCB S 01 DIIGJIBIS 01 '011' E ALONG SAID WBSTBRL Y RIGHT OF WAY IJHII A DISTANCE OF
ZOU8 l'lii!T:
THI!NCI! CON11NUINC ALONG.SAID WIISTBRLY IlCHT OPWAY UNI! S 04 DIGRBIS 34'54' E A
DIST.AHCB OP 2110.78 fBI!T 'lOA POINT ~G '1111! BASI'IIRLY IIGJn OP WAY LIN!
OP SAID SOU'1'IIIIRN PACIPJC TllANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD ASPIIH BRANCJ{;
'I'HI!NCII N 89 DICIIIIIIS"31'10' W ALONG SAID I!AS1'ERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OP
180.14 1111!1' TO 111B BI!GINNDIG OF A CURVE CONCA.VlllO 'DIE WEST, HAWIG A RADIUS OP
ZtlS.DOI'IIKf:
THI!NCI! ALONG SAID IIASTBRLYIIGHI' OP WAYLINB ANO ARC OP SAID CURVJIJIUO FElT,
1111 CHORD or WHICI{ lll!,AliS N I! DBGRIOOl 21 'C8' W A DISTANCE OF IIZ.ca FllBT TO THI
POINT OP IQIGINNING.
COUNTY OP GARFIBLD
STATE OP OOlDRADO
PARCI!LD:
A TRAer OF LAND SITUATED IN SICIION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOtml, RANGB II WI!ST OF 11IE
11111 PRINCIPAL Ml!RIDIAN. SAID TRAer OF LAND BEING MORE PAimCIJLARLY DBSCRIB!D AS POLI.OWS: .
COMMENCING AT Till! Sl! CORNEl. OF SECllON I, T7S, R 89 W OP Till! ml P.M. (WI'Ill ALL
BEARING COHI'ItlNIID IIBIIIIIN BEING Rl!LATIYE.TO A III!AIIINC OP N 00 DEOIIII!S 10' Dl' E
lll!'l'WBI!N 1111! SE CORNER AND 1111! 1!: U4 CORNIII. OP SAID SICl'ION II: 1111!NCE N DO
DJC".RQS IU' W EALONG SAID SI!C'I10N LlNB 827.10 1'111!T, TOll. I'OJNT ON THE
NOBTIIBIIL Y BOUNDARY UNI! OF 111AT PROPERTY SURVEY RICORDBD AS IIIICI!PI10N NO. 305
IN THE GARfiiiLD COUNTY INDEX FOR INI'bRMA.TIONAL LAND SURVHY PLATS, 111B 'li.UE ·
POINT OP IIEGlNNING: TIII!NCE CONI'INUIN(l ALONG SAID SBCTION lJNR N DO DEORIIIS 10'
IS' E 11.113 FBEI' TO A POINT Df AN IXISTING PBNCE LlNB; nmNcll J..IIAVINO SAID ·
SIIC110N IJNB S D DEGREES 36' 14' E ALONG AN IIXISTING I'J!NCE LlNB 29Z.8Z 1!1!1!1':
111BNCE CON11NUING ALONG AN I!XISI'ING P'I!NCE LINE $ 88 DBGRI!IIS '7' II' E 118.341
FElT; 1111!NCE CONTIN1JlNG ALONG SAID I'J!NCE LINl! S 30 DEGRBIS 31' 43' E 14.28 PI!IIT
TO A POiNT ON SAID NORnll!IILY BOUNDARY; 111l!NCE U!AYING SAID EXISTING PBNCE LINE
N 80 liBGREilS DO' 00' W ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY 443.13 PilEI' TO THE POINT
OF IIBGINNJNG, .
COUNTY OF GARJIIBLD,sTATE OF COLORADO
RESOURCE
E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile
CASE NO. 08CW198
CARBONDALE EXHIBIT C
INVESTMENTS LLC WATER RIGHTS LOCATION MAP
Date:
File:
2/11/2011
660-7.4
Drawn by: RKM
Approved by: MJE
I ENTER Wate< Yea< I 2010 I
Month
_l 2
Aspen Glen
Wells
Ground Water
Coryell Ranch
Wells
3
CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC
Sample Water Use Accounting Form
Combined Case Nos. 01CW187 (08CW198) and 07CW164
ENTER Number of developed EQRs
4
Diversions
5
Surface Water Return Flow
I Lawn ondl I I Logged I REC Roaring Fork I To~! Lagged I Total lnR-Htouse Irrigation In-House
Diversion Div:::n
Garden ~= Return
Flow
REC Well Field
15
Augmentation
River Call Release
I Net l#ofDoys Total the Cameo
Stream Callis on BWCD ?ontract Return Depletion During the I Augmentatton Release Flow
Diversions Diversions Diversions
Lagged
Stream
Diversions
Month
Nov
o~
Jon
Feb
M"
Ap<
M-'>'
Jun
JUI
~
Sep
Oct
Total
!General Notes
1) This sample accounting sheet is
illustrative only.lt is intended to show
lthe general accounting methodology
and to demonstrate that accounting
can be developed to correctly track
and administer the plans for
augmentation.
0210912011
2) Water usage for the first 349.55
EQRs wiD be allocated to 01CWt87
(as modified by 08CW198). Thereafter
usage will be allocated to 07CW164.
Column Explanations
1)-3): Monthly volume (AF) diverted from ground water sources attributed to the River Edge, Colorado development.
4): Lagged well diversions based on lagged depletion factors determined by the Glover methodology. Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch well diversions are not
lagged based on Glover analysis showing all stream impacts occuring in the same month as diversions.
5) Monthly volume (AF) diverted from surface water sources.
6) ~columns 1, 2, 4, 5.
7) In-house consumptive use for the number of developed EQRs based on decreed demand and consumptive use values.
8) Lawn and garden consumptive use based on decree values. Irrigated acreage pro-rated based on number of developed EQRs: (#developed EQRs+ 1,200
:total EQRs) x 7 acres.
9) r column 7, 8.
10) WWTP return flow based on decree values of: 5% CU and 350 gpd/EQR demand.
11) lagged lawn and garden retum flow based on decreed values of demand-consumptive use lagged by Glover analysis factors.
12)! columns 10, 11.
13) Column 6-column 12.
14) The monthly augmentation requirement is based on the number of days per month the water rights are oot of priority to the Cameo call.
15) Column 15 X (column 16 +#days In the month) X 105%.
;;;;;RESOURCE
::::: ~ N"' "< ~" n'"" '"< c Exhibit 0
Summary of Supplemental Information
for BoCC
EXHIBIT
I CCJ
(Integrating Staff Requested Clarifications to PUD Guide/Map , PP and Updating AH
Plan and Agreement)
Owner/Appl icant:
Carbondale Investments , LLC
7999 HWY 82
Carbondale CO 81623
970-456-5325
Consultant:
1143 Capitol Street, Suite 205, x426
Eagle, CO 81631
866-934-8140
November 7, 2011
COLORADO
I. INTRODUCTION
This constitutes the official Carbondale Investments, LLC ("CI") response to staff
comments discussed with staff a meeting on October 19, 2011, phone conversations on
October 24, 2011, email communications, and comments received on October 27, 2011
on the PUO Guide. This supplement has been prepared in support of an application for
PUO Plan Review ("Rezoning") and Subdivision Review ("Preliminary Plan") for the
proposed River Edge Colorado ("Project", "REC", or "REC PUD") in accordance with the
requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 ("ULUR"), as
amended. This Response provides support to the documents submitted as part of the
REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications.
II. RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS
1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND AGREEMENT
Comment 1:
Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AH Plan) needs to be updated to
conform to ULUR as represented in the Planning Commission Hearing ..
Response:
The AH Plan has been updated to fully conform to the ULUR in all respects. This
is consistent with the representations made at the Planning Commission hearing
and incorporated as part of their recommendation. As we have stated,
Carbondale Investments has several years of activity to prepare the land for
final plat and may request to amend the AH Plan at a later date if Garfield
County modifies the AH regulations. The updated AH Plan has been included
with the November 7, 2011 supplement.
Response to Staff Clarification Comments
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
November 7, 2011
2. CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PUD GUIDE
Comment 2:
Staff identified several clarifications and corrections that staff believed would
make the PUD Guide easier to administer and better work within the framework
of the department's staffing and methods.
Response:
The PUD Guide has been revised based on the comments provided by staff to
clarify certain sections of the PUD Guide including Use and Dimensional Tables.
The regulatory standards and develop program promoted by the PUD Guide
remain fully consistent with the representations made to Planning Commission
as well as their recommendation. Wholesale reorganizational changes have not
been made to the document so as to remain consistent with the
recommendation of approval and issues of concern expressed by the Planning
Commission. Further, changes in standards have also not been made, although
clarifications have been included, so as to preserve the program recommended
by the Planning Commission in its entirety. The revised PUD Guide is included
herewith.
3. AMENDED PLAT FOR CREATION OF TWO-UNIT DWELLINGS
Comment 3:
Staff states that the the ULUR only allows the creation of attached units on
separate lots through an amended plat process. Staff requested that lots
providing for two-unit dwellings be reprogrammed on the plan and renumbered
so as to indicate that the development of two-family dwellings could only occur
through the amended plat process.
Response:
Although applicant disagrees with staff interpretation of the ULUR, applicant
has agreed to revise the PUD Plan, Preliminary Plan, and PUD Guide to conform
to this request. The plan sheets have been updated to respond to clerical and
clarity issues regarding the location of two-units dwellings further limiting to
some degree where those may be located within the Garden Home and
Attached Home Zoning Districts along with linking those lots to the County's
amended plat process. The change renumbers lots and provided A and B
annotations to identify two-unit dwelling lots. Tables and notes have been
updated based on the changes to PUD Guide and lot numbering. This action
appears fully consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation.
2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND AGREEMENT
FOR RIVER EDGE COLORADO
THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND AGREEMENT FOR RIVER EDGE
COLORADO (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this __ day of
==-===--==-==:--:--=-=-' 20_ (the "Effective Date"), by and between CARBONDALE
INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company registered to do business in Colorado
("Developer"), the GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY ("GCHA"), and the
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO (the
"BOCC") on behalf of GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, a body politic and corporate (the
"County"). For purposes of this agreement, a "party" shall mean Developer, GCHA, or the
County, as applicable, and the "parties" shall mean, collectively, Developer, GCHA, and the
County.
RECITALS
I. Developer proposes to construct 366 residential units (the "Project") on that certain parcel
of land that it owns in Garfield County, Colorado, having the legal description set forth on
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"), which
Property is subject to that certain River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development Plan,
recorded at Reception No. , in the real property records of Garfield
County, Colorado, together with the River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development Guide,
recorded at Reception No. , in the real property records of Garfield County,
Colorado, which documents (collectively, the "PUD Plan") were approved by Garfield County
Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. . The Property also is subject to
that certain River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan, recorded at Reception No. (the
"Preliminarv Plan"), in the real property records of Garfield County, Colorado, which
Preliminary Plan was approved by Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Resolution
No. , and that certain Development Agreement for River Edge Colorado Planned
Unit Development (the "Development Agreement"), recorded at Reception No .
...,.------'' in the real property records of Garfield County, Colorado, which Development
Agreement was approved by Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Resolution No.
----,-....,---..,.·· The PUD Plan, Preliminary Plan, and Development Agreement may be referred
to herein as the "Development Approvals."
2. The Property also is subject to that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions for River Edge Colorado, recorded at Reception No.
--.,...,-..,.-..,....,.-,--' in the real property records of Garfield County, Colorado (the "CC&Rs"),
which CC&Rs establish additional rights and obligations, among other things, of Developer,
owners of the Property, and the River Edge Colorado Property Owners' Association, Inc. (the
"POA").
3. Section 8-102 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of2008 (the "LUR")
requires that fifteen percent (15%) of the homes to be located within the Project satisfy the
affordable housing requirements of Article VIII of the LUR in effect as of the Effective Date (the
"Affordable Housing Reguirements"). Consistent with this requirement, the Development
13738\1\1485305. 3
I
Approvals require Developer to construct and make available for sale fifty-five (55) deed-
restricted affordable homes (the "AH Units" or "AH Lots").
4. The Development Approvals provide that the Property will be developed in eleven (II)
phases, wherein each phase will require County approval of a final plat (each a "Final Plat" and,
collectively, the "Final Plats"), with the first phase of construction contemplated to commence
sometime between 2013 and 2014, and subsequent phases to be constructed over an
approximately twenty (20) year period, as shown on the estimated phasing and construction
schedule included as Table 5 on the PUD Plan (the "Phasing Plan"). The Phasing Plan
contemplates that the Final Plats will be submitted, and construction will commence, in the order
set forth on the Phasing Plan; provided, however, that the sequence set forth in the Phasing Plan
may be altered if, among other things, the total number of AH Lots that are finally platted at the
time of recordation of each Final Plat shall equal or exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total
number of residential lots, including AH Lots, that have been finally platted within the Project as
of the recordation of such Final Plat.
5. The Development Approvals require that, at the time of each Final Plat approval for each
phase of the Project, the parties shall enter into a subdivision improvement agreement ("SIA'')
that specifies the public and private improvements required to support and serve such phase of
the Project, and establishes the terms, security mechanism, and schedule upon which Developer
shall be obligated to design, construct, and install the same.
6. By Resolution No. [ ], dated [ ], 2011, and recorded at Reception No.
'--::---:---::-:----='' the BOCC has considered and approved Developer's applications for approval
of the River Edge Colorado Final Plat Filing No. I and River Edge Colorado Final Plat Filing
No. 1B (collectively, the "Phase I Final Plat") in accordance with the LUR. The Affordable
Housing Requirements require, among other things, that Developer submit concurrently with the
Phase I Final Plat an affordable housing plan that meets the Affordable Housing Requirements,
which plan, upon BOCC approval, shall become the affordable housing agreement between
Developer, the County, and the GCHA. In satisfaction of this requirement, this Agreement was
submitted by Developer for review by GCHA and the County, and approved by the BOCC as
part of the application for approval of the Phase I Final Plat.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable
consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
I. Location of AH Units. Developer shall construct or cause to be constructed fifty-five
(55) AH Units within the AH Lots that are established as part of the final platting process. The
AH Lots will be located as part of the final platting process within those certain tracts identified
on the Preliminary Plan as Tracts AJ, AK, and BC. The specific locations of such AH Lots to be
located within Tract AJ of the Preliminary Plat shall be as set forth on the Phase I Final Plat, and
the specific locations of such remaining AH Lots to be located within Tracts AK and BC of the
Preliminary Plan shall be as set forth in the applicable future Final Plats.
1373811\1485305. 3
2
2. Number and Mix of AH Units. The number and mix of AH Units have been calculated
in accordance with the Affordable Housing Requirements, and shall be provided in accordance
with the following:
a. Each AH Unit shall be constructed with either two (2) or three (3) bedrooms.
b. The AH Units may take one (!) of the two (2) following forms at the sole
discretion of Developer:
(i) A detached garden home, which shall be a freestanding residential
structure with only one (1) dwelling unit located on one (1) AH Lot within the
Project. Each detached garden home shall be constructed with a minimum square
footage established by the LUR. All units shall have an attached garage suitable for
accommodating one (1) standard size automobile and one (I) asphalt surfaced
parking space located in tandem in front of the garage. Said asphalt surfaced parking
space shall be a minimum of 9' x 18' square feet.
(ii) An attached garden home, which shall be constructed as an
attached residential structure containing only two (2) dwelling units. Each dwelling
unit in an attached garden home shall be constructed with a minimum square footage
established by the LUR. All units shall have an attached garage suitable for
accommodating one (1) standard size automobile and one (I) asphalt surfaced
parking space located in tandem in front of the garage. Said asphalt surfaced parking
space shall be a minimum of 9' x 18' square feet. Attached garden homes also shall
be constructed in accordance with the CC&Rs and the following:
(a) Only one (1) dwelling unit shall be allowed within each AH
Lot;
(b) Only one (1) common wall shall be shared by the attached
dwelling units;
(c) The common wall shall be constructed along a side lot line
shared by two (2) adjacent AH Lots;
(d) A common or party wall agreement and maintenance
easement addressing the unit owners' respective maintenance and repair obligations
shall be entered into by the owner of each dwelling unit;
(e) Any such attached dwelling units shall be constructed as a
pair, and no certificates of occupancy shall be issued until both units are complete;
(f) No future enlargement or additions to an attached dwelling
unit shall be allowed without the prior written consent of the owner of the other
dwelling unit.
137381111485305. 3
3
c. Both detached and attached garden home AH Units:
(i) May include one (I) to two (2) stories;
(ii) Shall include a landscaped yard within the boundaries of the AH
Lots; provided, however, that the POA shall be responsible for maintaining all grass,
gardens, trees, shrubbery, flowers and other landscaping located within the
boundaries of the detached and attached garden home lots; and
(iii) Shall be constructed using materials and methods of comparable
quality as, and with fixtures similar to, surrounding market rate units within the
Project. Further, residents of the AH Units shall have the same rights as residents of
the market rate units within the Project to access and use common areas and common
amenities within the Project.
3. Schedule for Construction and Completion. AH Unit(s) shall be permitted.
constructed and completed in accordance with the requirements of the LUR.
4. Security for Construction of AH Units. Security for construction of the AH Unit(s)
shall be incorporated into the applicable SIA entered into by the County and Developer
concurrently with the BOCC's approval of the applicable Final Plat.
5. Categories of AH units. The average price for all AH Units to be provided within the
Project shall conform to the LUR.
6. Deed Restriction. A deed restriction and agreement in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit B shall be executed by the parties and recorded in the real property records of Garfield
County, Colorado against each AH Unit prior to the release of a building permit for the
construction of such AH Unit; provided, however, that at the time of issuance ofthe certificate of
occupancy for an AH Unit, the deed restriction recorded against such AH Unit shall be amended,
if necessary, to reflect any changes to the deed restriction that are approved by GCHA. The
original executed and recorded deed restriction(s), including any amendments thereto, shall be
returned to GCHA subsequent to recordation of the same. Each deed restriction for an AH Unit
shall be effective in perpetuity, subject to any early termination provisions provided for in the
deed restriction, or such shorter period of time agreed to in writing by the parties.
7. Initial Sales. The initial sales price for each AH Unit shall be calculated by GCHA in
accordance with the assumptions set forth in Section 8-302.8 of the Affordable Housing
Requirements. Developer shall work, in cooperation with the GCHA, to complete the initial sale
of each of the AH Units to an applicant determined by GCHA to be a qualified buyer in
accordance with the Affordable Housing Requirements, and selected by GCHA in accordance
with the lottery process set forth in the Affordable Housing Requirements. Developer shall
conduct the initial sale of each of the AH Units in accordance with the following:
a. Developer shall make available Developer's real estate agent to act as a
transaction broker for the sale of the AH Units;
137381111485305. 3
4
b. Developer shall provide GCHA with a marketing packet for the Project at least
one-hundred twenty ( 120) days prior to the estimated completion of each AH
Unit. The packet shall include descriptions, spec information, a copy of the
CC&Rs, estimated POA dues, and POA organizational documents and any rules
and regulations.
c. Developer shall hold at least one (1) open house at the AH Unit for sale or a
model AH Unit prior to the lottery to be conducted by GCHA in accordance with
the Affordable Housing Requirements.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, GCHA may, at
any time, subject to the rights of any tenant(s), choose to purchase an AH Unit for the initial
sales price established for such AH Unit.
8. Property Owners' Assessments. Pursuant to the CC&Rs, the AH Units and the owners
thereof shall be exempt from payment of Regular Assessments and Special Assessments, as such
terms are defined in the CC&Rs; provided, however, that Individual Purpose Assessments and/or
Default Assessments, as such terms are defined in the CC&Rs, may be levied against AH Units
and the owners thereof.
9. Leasing of AH Units by Developer. In the event an AH Unit is completed and GCHA is
unable to qualify and identifY a buyer for the initial sale within one hundred twenty (120) days
from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for such AH Unit, Developer may lease such
AH Unit in accordance with the LUR standards for rental of AH Units by owners.
10. Successors and Assigns. The obligations and rights contained herein shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Developer, the County, and
GCHA.
11. Contract Administration and Notice Provisions. The representatives of Developer, the
County, and GCHA, identified below, are authorized as contract administrators and notice
recipients. Any notices, demands or other communications required or permitted to be given in
writing hereunder shall be delivered personally, delivered by overnight courier service, or sent
by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the parties at the
addresses set forth below, or at such other address as either party may hereafter or from time to
time designate by written notice to the other party given in accordance herewith. Notice shall be
considered given at the time it is personally delivered, the day delivery is attempted but refused,
the day following being placed with any reputable overnight courier service for next day
delivery, or, if mailed, on the third day after such mailing.
TO DEVELOPER:
Carbondale Investments, LLC
Attn: Rockwood Shepard
7999 Highway 82
137381111485305. 3
5
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 456-5325
Fax:
With a copy to:
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Attn: Carolynne C. White, Esq.
410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: 303.223.1197
Fax: 303.223.0997
TO THE COUNTY:
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
Attn: Building and Planning Director
I 08 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8160 I
Phone: 970.945.8212
Fax: 970.384.3470
TOGCHA:
Garfield County Housing Authority
Attn:
Phone:
Fax:
12. Force Majeure. Any excusable delay in Developer's construction and installation of the
AH Units, including, without limitation, acts of God, war, terrorism, inclement weather, labor
disputes, building moratoriums or other governmental impositions, abnormal labor or material
shortages, or other similar matters or causes reasonably beyond the control of Developer shall
extend the time period during which this Agreement requires certain acts to be performed for a
period or periods equal to the number of days of such delay.
13. Severability. If any covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement shall, for
any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such
covenant, term, condition, or provision shall not affect any other provision contained herein, the
intention being that the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable.
14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall be deemed one and the same
instrument.
13738\111485305. 3
6
15. Venue and Jurisdiction. Venue and jurisdiction for any cause arising out of or related
to this Agreement shall lie with the District Court of Garfield County, Colorado, and this
Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Colorado.
16. Conflicts in Documents. In case of any conflict between this Agreement and the
Affordable Housing Requirements, this Agreement shall control. Except as otherwise provided
or modified by this Agreement or an applicable Deed Restriction, the AH Units shall be
constructed, maintained, sold, and leased in accordance with any applicable Affordable Housing
Requirements.
17. Modifications. This agreement may be amended only with the approval and written
consent of all parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective
Date.
ATTEST:
Clerk to the Board
STATE OF _______ ,)
) ss
COUNTY OF _______ )
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
By:
Chairman
Date: ______________ _
DEVELOPER:
CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC,
a Texas limited liability company
By:-----------Name:. _____________ _
Its: ____________ _
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ----,------' 201 __ , by
-----------------''an authorized signatory for _______ _
1373811\1485305. 3
7
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
STATE OF _________ )
) ss
COUNTY OF ________ )
Notary Public
GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY
By: -----------------------------
Authorized Signatory
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _ day of , 20 1_, by
::::---:--:--:---:----------' an authorized signatory for Garfield County
Housing Authority.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
13738\1\1485305. 3
8
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
137381111485305. 3
9
EXHIBITB
FORM OF DEED RESTRICTION
13738\1\1485305. 3
10
COLORADO
PUD DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
RIVER EDGE COLORADO
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
OWNER/APPLICANT:
CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC
7999 HWY 82
CARBONDALE CO 81623
970-456-5325
CONSULTANT:
8140 PARTNERS, LLC
PO BOX 0426
EAGLE, CO 81631
NOVEMBER 7, 2011
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
PUD DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
RIVER EDGE COLORADO
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PURPOSE AND INTENT ............................................................... .4
A. PURPOSE .............................................................................................. 4
B. INTENT ................................................................................................. 4
C. RELATED CONTROLS .............................................................................. 4
D. NOTICE TO BUYERS ................................................................................ 5
II. ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................... 5
A. INTERPRETATION ................................................................................... 5
B. RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER REGULATIONS ............................................... 5
1. LAND USE AND OTHER COUNTY REGULATIONS ........................................ 5
2. BUILDING PERMITS .................................................................................... 5
C. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FILINGS/AMENDMENTS ............................... 6
1. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION FILINGS (FINAL PLATS) ............ 6
2. AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED PUD ................................................... 6
D. ENFORCEMENT.. .................................................................................... 6
E. SEVERABILITY ........................................................................................ 6
Ill. ZONING DESIGNATIONS ............................................................... 7
A. ZONING CATEGORIES AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ................................. 7
1. RESIDENTIAL USE ZONING CATEGORY ....................................................... 7
2. COMMUNITY SPACE ZONING CATEGORY .................................................. 7
3. RIGHT-OF-WAY (TRACTS) ZONING CATEGORY ........................................... 8
4. UTILITY (TRACTS) ZONING CATEGORY ....................................................... 8
IV. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ......................................................... 8
A. ALLOWED USES ..................................................................................... 8
1. USE OF PLATIED LOTSANDTRACTS .......................................................... 8
2. USE OF UNPLATIED GROUND ................................................................... 9
3. TWO-UNIT DWELLINGS ............................................................................. 9
4. ACCESSORY USES ....................................................................................... 9
5. INTERPRETATION OF PERM !TIED USES ..................................................... 9
2
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
B. DIMENSIONAL AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ...................... 9
1. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS ..................................................................... 10
2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .................................................................... 10
3. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS ......................................................................... 15
4. STORMWATER .......................................................................................... 16
C. SPECIFIC USE, FACILITY AND ACTIVITY STANDARDS ............................... 16
1. ACCESSORY USES ..................................................................................... 16
2. ANIMAL RESTRICTION ............................................................................. 16
3. DAYCAREANDGROUPHOMES ............................................................... 17
4. ROAD AND TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS .................................................... 17
5. SIGNAGE .................................................................................................. 17
6. FIREPLACES .............................................................................................. 19
7. NOISE ....................................................................................................... 19
8. UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS UNDERGROUND .19
9. UTILITY FACILITIES ................................................................................... 19
10. TRASH STORAGE AND PICK-UP ................................................................ 20
11. HOME OCCUPATIONS .............................................................................. 20
12. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PLANS, USES AND STANDARDS .......... 20
V. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ............................... 23
A. GEOHAZARD AREAS ............................................................................. 23
B. SLOPE INSTABILITY AREA ..................................................................... 23
C. HERON ACTIVITY AREA ........................................................................ 24
D. FLOODPLAINS ...................................................................................... 24
E. WETLANDS .......................................................................................... 24
VI. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................ 24
A. WORD CONVENTIONS .......................................................................... 24
B. SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS ......................................................................... 25
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: ZONING, USE, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS TABLES
APPENDIX B: ROAD STANDARDS
3
I. PURPOSE AND INTENT
A. PURPOSE
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
The purpose of this River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development Guide ("PUD
Guide") is to establish development standards, supplemental regulations, and guidelines
for the development of land within the River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development
(the "REC PUD", "PUD" or "Project"). This PUD Guide was approved by the Board of
County Commissioners ("BoCC"), Garfield County, Colorado on 2011
pursuant to Resolution No. 2011-_.
The provisions of this PUD Guide constitute the zone district regulations for the REC PUD
and define the permitted use of land and limitations or restrictions on the use of real
property. All development within the PUD shall be administered by Garfield County,
River Edge Colorado Property Owners' Association, Inc. ("POA") and any other
appropriate authorities having jurisdiction in accordance with this PUD Guide.
This PUD Guide is supported by the River Edge Colorado PUD Plan (the "PUD Plan")
which is recorded in the official records of Garfield County. The PUD Plan illustrates the
general distribution of land uses, unit types and counts, and development framework
within the PUD.
B. INTENT
This PUD Guide and the PUD Plan intend to ensure that the REC PUD is developed as a
comprehensive planned community that will encompass such beneficial features as
providing a balance of residential, community and recreational uses; preserving
significant and important open space; enhancing safety; providing necessary
infrastructure; creating aesthetically pleasing man-made and natural features; and
promoting high standards of development quality through stringent planning and
development controls. The REC PUD is intended to establish a comfortable "clustered"
form of residential environment reflected in the proposed planning standards and
development styles, and to produce an environment which manages automobiles and
maintains a scale and set of linkages that promote pedestrian travel and human
interaction in community spaces within the PUD. The mixture of housing types is
designed to meet the range of housing needs of current and future Garfield County
residents. The REC PUD authorizes a maximum of 366 dwelling units and up to 30,000
square feet of community buildings including utility and maintenance facilities.
C. RELATED CONTROLS
It is acknowledged that the REC PUD is also governed by the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions for River Edge Colorado (the "CCRS") recorded in the official
records of Garfield County, as they may be amended from time to time by the POA; and
the River Edge Colorado Design Guidelines (the "Design Guidelines") administered by
the Architectural Control Board of the POA (the "ACB"). The REC PUD is further
governed by the REC PUD Development Agreement approved by the BoCC on
----~ 201_ pursuant to Resolution No. 201_-__ and the conditions and
considerations contained within said Resolution and all other associated documents
4
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
made a part of said resolution. The CCRS, Design Guidelines, Development Agreement,
Resolution No. 201_-__ and all other documents made a part of said resolution and
all subsequently filed Final Plats and resolutions approving said Final Plats are
collectively referred to herein as the "Project Documents".
D. NOTICE TO BUYERS
Buyers of lots or parcels within the boundaries of the REC PUD should be aware that
requirements more restrictive than those contained in this PUD Guide may be imposed
as a result of other Project Documents such as the CCRS or Final Plats that are recorded
separately, concurrently or subsequently to this PUD Guide. The most current Project
Documents should be consulted prior to formalizing development plans for construction
within the PUD or instituting a use on any lot or tract.
II. ADMINISTRATION
A. INTERPRETATION
The provisions of this PUD Guide and associated PU D Plan relating to the use of land and
development of property within the REC PUD shall be interpreted by the Director.
B. RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER REGULATIONS
1. LAND USE AND OTHER COUNTY REGULATIONS
The PUD Guide is intended to address all land use and development standards
of specific interest to Garfield County and to meet the intent of the regulatory
standards contained in the ULUR which promote the Garfield Comprehensive
Plan 2030 and the health, safety and general welfare of the public. This PUD
Guide, PUD Plan and the Project Documents are intended to serve as the
comprehensive regulatory framework for the REC PUD. The ULUR shall be
applicable to any conditions not provided for by the PUD Guide, PUD Plan or the
Project Documents as if the property were zoned Residential Suburban (RS).
Where a provision of the ULUR conflicts or the application of the ULUR would
result in a creating a conflict with any provision of the PUD Guide, PUD Plan or
the Project Documents, the later documents shall control. All other applicable
County regulations such as building codes and environmental health regulations
shall apply to activities within the REC PUD.
The PUD Guide references the CCRS and Design Guidelines for the REC PUD in
several places to provide clarity that a subject or regulatory standard has been
addressed as part of the REC PUD. Where the CCRS and Design Guidelines for
the REC PUDhave been identified as controlling by this PUD Guide, the
provisions of the ULUR shall not apply where said provisions would conflict with
the CCRS or Design Guidelines.
2. BUILDING PERMITS
Building permits shall be obtained from Garfield County in accordance with
County requirements for the construction of any buildings or structures within
5
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
the REC PUD or any other actions subject to the Building Code requirements.
Building plans for all buildings and structures constructed within the REC PUD
shall conform to this PUD Guide, PUD Plan or the Project Documents.
No building permit shall be issued within any area of the REC PUD for which a
Final Plat has not been approved by the BoCC and recorded in the Office of the
Garfield County Clerk and Recorder unless the proposed use requiring such
building permit is otherwise specifically permitted for by this PUD Guide on
unplatted land including pre-development site grading and reclamation and
temporary uses.
C. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FILINGS/AMENDMENTS
1. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION FILINGS (FINAL PLATS)
The PUD Plan identifies the boundaries of eleven filings in the REC PUD which
filings were approved concurrent with the approval of this PUD Guide and the
associated PUD Plan. Each phase of the REC PUD is required to submit specific
subdivision plans (i.e., Final Plat application) to Garfield County for review and
approval as detailed in the ULUR. Subdivision plans shall conform to the PUD
Guide, PUD Plan or the Project Documents
2. AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED PUD
It is anticipated that modifications or amendments to this PUD Guide, PUD
Plan, and Project Documents may be necessary from time to time as
development of the PUD progresses. Amendments to the PUD Guide, PUD Plan
or the Project Documents shall be processed in accordance with the ULUR.
D. ENFORCEMENT
Garfield County shall have responsibility for interpreting and enforcing this PUD Guide.
Nothing in this PUD Guide, however, shall be interpreted to require the BoCC to bring an
action for enforcement or to withhold permits, nor shall this paragraph or any other
provision of this PUD Guide be interpreted to permit the purchaser of a lot to file an
action against the BoCC.
Although the CCRS and Design Guidelines for the REC PUD are mentioned in several
places in this PUD Guide, Garfield County has no responsibility to reinforce the
provisions of the CCRS or Design Guidelines.
E. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this PUD Guide, PUD Plan and Project Documents, or its application to
any person, entity or circumstance, is specifically held to be invalid or unenforceable by
a Court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this PUD Guide PUD Plan and
associated documents and the application of the provisions thereof to other persons,
entities or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and, to that end, this PUD Guide,
PUD Plan and Project Documents shall continue to be enforced to the greatest extent
possible consistent with law and the public interest. Upon such a finding, this PUD Guide
6
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado1 Garfield County/ Colorado
and associated documents shall be modified as necessary to maintain the original intent
of the REC PUD.
Ill. ZONING DESIGNATIONS
All lots and tracts have been identified within a certain Zoning Category and Zoning
District on the PUD Plan. The lot and tract zoning designation tables [Table 2A and 2B of
the PUD Plan (Page 2 of 8) and Table 1 and 2 (Appendix A)) identify the Zoning Category
and Zoning District designations of all lots and tracts within the REC PUD. The use and
development of all lots and tracts shall be controlled by their designation.
It is recognized that the lot and tract boundary lines depicted on the PUD Plan are
approximate and based on preliminary engineering and are not field surveyed. As a
result, lot and tract boundary lines may be changed from those depicted on the PUD
Plan at the time of Final Plat.
A. ZONING CATEGORIES AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The lots and tracts within the REC PUD are designated into one of four Zoning
Categories and one of several Zoning District designations within each Zoning Category.
Zoning Categories represent broad use types and include Residential, Community Space,
Right-of-Way, and Utility Use Categories. Zoning District designations represent more
limited or restricted zoning classifications given to each lot or tract within the PUD. The
Zoning District designation of each lot or tract provides more specific regulatory
requirements under this PUD Guide.
The following Zoning Categories and Zoning Districts are established by this PUD Guide.
1. RESIDENTIAL USE ZONING CATEGORY
The Residential Use Zoning Category includes all Zoning District designation that
provide for various forms of residential use within the REC PUD. The Residential
Zoning Districts established by this PUD Guide include:
• Attached Home (Lots) Residential Zoning District
• Estate (Lots) Residential Zoning District
• Executive (Lots) Residential Zoning District
• Garden Home (Lots) Residential Zoning District
• Town (Lots) Residential Zoning District
• Village (Lots) Residential Zoning District
2. COMMUNITY SPACE ZONING CATEGORY
The Community Spaces Zoning Category includes all Zoning District designations
that provided for community activities and community outdoor spaces and
7
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
amenities within the REC PUD. The Community Space Zoning Districts
established by this PUD Guide include:
• Common Area (Tracts) Zoning District
• Garden/Orchard (Tracts) Zoning District
• Neighborhood Center (Tracts) Zoning District
• Open Space (Tracts) Zoning District
• Park (Tracts) Zoning District
3. RIGHT-OF·WAY (TRACTS) ZONING CATEGORY
The Right·of·Way (Tracts) Zoning Category includes the Zoning District
designations that provide for legal vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress
to all lots and tracts within the Project and, in concert with utility and drainage
easements, provide corridors for utilities to service the REC PUD. The Right-of·
Way (tracts) Zoning District is included within this Zoning Category.
4. UTILITY (TRACTS) ZONING CATEGORY
The Utility (Tracts) Zoning Category includes all Zoning District designations
created to provide for any required major utility facilities such as water
treatment plants and maintenance facilities that might be necessary to serve
the REC PUD. The Utility Zoning Districts established by this PUD Guide include:
• Irrigation and Maintenance (Tracts) Zoning District
• Water and Wastewater (Tracts) Zoning District
IV. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. ALLOWED USES
1. USE OF PLATTED LOTS AND TRACTS
The Use Table (Table 3 (Appendix A)] establishes the uses permitted by right as
principal use. The table further identifies certain accessory uses which are
permitted by right and Administrative Review or Limited Impact Review
pursuant to the ULUR.
Uses that are not specifically identified in the Use Table (Table 3 (Appendix A)]
shall be considered to be uses that are not permitted, except that any use that
is not specifically identified but is included within or consistent with the
definition of any uses permitted by right, and similar to or compatible with
other uses permitted by right within a Zoning District, shall also be permitted as
a use by right.
8
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Only one principal use shall be located on a lot. However, there shall be no limit
on the number of principal uses that may occur within any tract within the REC
PUD provided said uses and structures conform to the dimensional,
development and performance standards in this PUD Guide.
2. USE OF UNPLATTED GROUND
Unplatted ground may be used for horticultural, utility, stormwater, access
purposes as well as any temporary construction uses approved in association
with a final plat pursuant to Section IV.C.12 of this PUD Guide. All uses of
unplatted ground shall convert to permitted uses as soon as practicable
following platting. Horticultural uses may be permitted to be maintained until
the existing crop is harvested for use within the REC PUD or as may eb
otherwise approved as part of the construction plans associated with any final
plat.
3. TWO-UNIT DWELLINGS
Two-unit dwellings are permitted on certain lots within the Attached Home and
Garden Home Zoning Districts as identified on the PUD Plan. In all cases, lots
utilized for two-unit dwellings shall be split into two lots following construction
and prior to occupancy in accordance with the amended plat provisions of the
ULUR. A party wall agreement shall also be filed with said amended plat. Two-
unit dwellings shall not be permitted to be occupied unless each unit is located
on a separate lot created by amended plat and a party wall agreement has been
filed for recording.
4. ACCESSORY USES
Accessory uses shall be permitted in association with any principal use in
accordance with the ULUR.
5. INTERPRETATION OF PERMITTED USES
In the event of any question as to the appropriate use type of any existing or
proposed use or activity, the Director shall have the authority to determine the
appropriate use type. In making such determination, the Director shall consider
such characteristics or specific requirements of the use in common with those
uses permitted by right. A determination of the Director may be appealed
following the procedures established by the ULUR.
B. DIMENSIONAL AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following dimensional and general development standards shall apply to all lands
within the REC PUD.
9
1. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
a) General Dimensional Standards
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Table 4 (Appendix A) details the dimensional standards applicable to all
zoning districts within the REC PUD. All development within the REC PUD
shall conform to the dimensional standards specified herein. Development
is further subject to additional building location and dimensional standards
as provided for in the CCRS. Conformance with the dimensional standards
herein contained does not guarantee conformance with the CCRS.
b) Encroachments
Front porches shall be permitted to encroach up to eight (8) feet into the
front yard or side street yard. Bay windows and other architectural
projections shall be permitted to encroach up to three (3) feet into the front
yard or side street yard. No encroachment shall be permitted to encroach
within or interfere with any drainage or utility easement.
c) Garden Home Front and Rear Setbacks
The front setback for Garden Homes is measures from the exterior
boundary line of the Garden Home Tracts which is generally opposite the lot
line (rear lot line) between the lot and Right-of-Way Tract containing the
Garden Home Tract access road.
2, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All development within the REC PUD shall conform to the development
standards specified herein. Development is further subject to additional
development standards as provided for in the CCRS. Conformance with the
development standards herein contained does not guarantee conformance with
the CCRS.
a) General Development Standards
(1) Lighting
All exterior lighting shall be full cutoff or cutoff design so the light
source is not visible by adjacent property owners or lands upon any
adjacent Community Space Tracts. Direct source lighting is not
permitted (i.e., the actual light bulb is visible). See also specific
standards by Zoning Category.
(2) Fences
Wood rail fences that conform to the Design Guidelines are
permitted on rear/side lot lines of residential lots to provide
delineation of private space. Fences in front yards are prohibited.
10
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Wood rail fences may also be permitted by the POA in Community
Space Tracts to provide for protection of playgrounds and key or
important features or to enhance safety. Fencing shall be placed in a
manner that does not interfere with the ability of wildlife to cross
roads and move between Open Space Tracts. Fencing along roads
shall be prohibited unless necessary for safety.
Fences shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
{3) Drainage
Positive drainage shall be maintained from all buildings. Lots shall
be drained utilizing the designated drainage and utility easements.
No lot owner shall take any action which aversely impacts the ability
to utilize any drainage or utility easement located on their lot for its
intended use.
{4) Foundation Drains
Foundation drains shall be required for all deep foundations except
foundations which are slab-on-grade. Foundation drains shall be
drained to the designated stormwater channel or storm sewer
identified on the final plat.
{5) Landscaping and Reclamation
Disturbed soils shall be landscaped as soon as practical upon
completion of construction. BMPs shall be maintained until such
time as landscaping is established and ensures the retention of soils
during rainfall events. All landscaping and lot/tract reclamation shall
conform to the landscaping and reclamation standards in the CCRS.
{6) Clear Vision Triangle
No building or structure shall be located within a clear vision
triangle.
{7) Hazard Mitigation
All development shall conform to the Hazard Mitigation Plan filed
with the Final Plat and any plat notes.
b) Zoning Category/District Specific Development Standards
All development shall conform to the following development standards.
Where both zoning category and zoning district standards are provided, the
zoning district standards shall control.
(1) Residential Zoning Category
(a) Driveways
Driveways within the front yard shall be no wider than 10
feet. No driveway shall be permitted within the front yard
on any lot which has access to an alley or internal access
11
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
drive (i.e., Garden Home Lots). All lots shall only be
permitted one driveway access to a Right-of-Way Tract.
(b) Lighting
No fixture shall be placed more than 10 feet above the
surface it is intended to light.
(c) Parking Areas
A minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided
for each dwelling unit. The minimum dimensions for each
off-street parking space are 9 feet by 18 feet. All off-street
parking spaces shall be surfaced in asphalt or concrete.
(2) Neighborhood Center Zoning District
(a) Parking and Drives
One off-street parking space shall be provided for every 400
square feet of indoor floor area. Minimum dimensions for
each off-street parking space are 9 feet by 20 feet. Parking
accessibility including the ratio of required accessible
parking spaces shall conform to ULUR. Paved surfaces shall
be striped to demarcate the parking spaces.
Parking areas, loading areas, aisles, and access drives shall
be paved with asphalt, concrete, or paving blocks adequate
to support the intended traffic loads. Parking and drive
surfaces shall be graded, with a minimum grade of 2% for
asphalt, 1% for concrete, and 2% for paving blocks, or as
otherwise determined by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer.
Two-way drives accessing the parking areas and building
shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Turning radii of all
drives servicing the buildings shall conform to ULUR except
that such radii may include providing hard surface tracking
aprons and mountable curbs as well as require the use of
both travel lanes.
Parking area landscaping shall be controlled by the CCRS
and Design Guidelines which landscape plans may be
reviewed at the discretion of the County at time of building
permit.
(b) Lighting
Light sources shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
(3) Utility Zoning Category
(a) Parking and Drives
One off-street parking space shall be provided for every
2000 square feet of indoor floor area. Minimum dimensions
12
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
for each off-street parking space are 9 feet by 20 feet.
Parking accessibility including the ratio of required
accessible parking spaces shall conform to the ULUR. Paved
surfaces shall be striped to demarcate the parking spaces.
Parking areas, loading areas, aisles, and access drives shall
be paved with asphalt, concrete, paving blocks or "grass"
pavers adequate to support the intended traffic loads and
suitable to the uses to which the parking area will be put,
and are compatible with the character of the proposed land
use. Parking and drive surfaces shall be graded, with a
minimum grade of 2% for asphalt, 1% for concrete, and 2%
for paving blocks or "grass" pavers, or as otherwise
determined by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer.
Drives access the parking areas and building shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Turning radii of all drives
servicing the buildings shall conform to ULUR except that
such radii may include providing hard surface tracking
aprons and mountable curbs as well as require the use of
both travel lanes.
Parking area landscaping shall be controlled by the CCRS
and Design Guidelines which landscape plans may be
reviewed at the discretion of the County at time of building
permit.
(b) Lighting
Light sources shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
(4) Open Space Zoning District
(a) Buildings Limited
Buildings are limited to buildings associated with utility
placements including the Glenwood Ditch. Buildings shall be
limited in size to 100 square feet each.
(b) Roads
Roads are limited to utility maintenance roads. Roads shall
be designed as two-track roads or utilize "grass" pavers
adequate to support the required apparatus. Roads shall be
limited to the maximum extent practicable and landscaped
to limit the road's visual impact. Roads may be designed
where appropriate as soft trails.
(c) Parking and Drives
Parking shall be prohibited in Open Space Tracts except in
association with utility and open space maintenance and
construction.
13
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
(d) Lighting
Exterior lighting shall be prohibited in Open Space Tracts
except as necessary to meet Federal and State regulatory
standards in association with the placement of any utility
facilities but shall be applied in a manner that limits the
amount lighting and light spill from the areas required to be
lit to the maximum extent practicable ..
(5) Common Area Zoning District
(a) Buildings Limited
Buildings are limited to buildings associated with utility
placements including the Glenwood Ditch; small open-air
recreational structures such as pavilions; and restrooms less
than 1000 sq feet each. No utility building shall exceed 100
square feet.
(b) Roads
Roads are limited to utility roads. Roads shall be designed as
two track road or with "grass" pavers adequate to support
the required apparatus, but shall be limited to the
maximum extent practicable and landscaped to limit their
visual impact.
(c) Parking and Drives
On-street parking is generally considered adequate to serve
any potential Common Area Tract uses. No designated
parking spaces shall be permitted. Parking required for
utility facilities shall occur on maintenance roads.
(d) Lighting
No exterior lighting shall be permitted except ballard trail
head lighting or security lighting determined to be
necessary by the POA. Any lighting shall be full cutoff,
cutoff, or semi-cutoff fixtures, as may be most appropriate
for the intended purpose. Additionally lighting, as may be
required to meet State or Federal regulatory standards in
association with a utility facility, shall be permitted, but
shall be applied in a manner that limits the amount lighting
and light spill from the areas required to be lit to the
maximum extent practicable.
(6) Garden/Orchard Zoning District
(a) General Development Standards
Garden and Orchard Tracts shall meet the same
development standards as Common Area Tracts.
14
(b) Wildlife Controls
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Seasonal wildlife proof fences shall be used to protect active
garden and orchard areas from bears and other wildlife.
Com posting shall only occur in bear-proof containers.
(7} Right-of-Way Zoning District
(o) General Development Standards
Streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with the approved Final Plat and the road standards herein
contained (Appendix B). All Right-of-Way Tracts shall be
maintained in a manner that facilitates access to lots and
tracts within REC and provides for adequate emergency
ingress and egress throughout the REC PUD.
Landscaping shall be controlled by the CCRS and Design
Guidelines which landscape plans may be reviewed at the
discretion of the County at time affinal plat.
(b) Lighting Standards
Lighting shall meet the requirements of the Lighting Plan
approved as part of the final plat.
3. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS
This section details the landscaping requirements in both the public realm,
including the street character of the REC, and the private spaces. Landscaping
for individual lots shall be based on the landscape framework within public
spaces.
a) Landscaping Required
All land within the REC PUD, in both private and public landscape zones shall
be landscaped in accordance with this PUD Guide and the CCRS.
Landscaping shall be installed as soon as practicable after the land is
disturbed and construction has been completed which shall generally be
presumed to be no longer than 30 days following completion of
construction when construction is completed during the growing season
(i.e., May 1-0ctober 1) or June 1 of the following year unless otherwise
approved. As long as soil is in a non-vegetated state or in a disturbed
condition, erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained in
accordance with Section IV.B.4 of this PUD Guide.
All plant materials must be kept in a healthy condition. Dead plants must be
removed and replaced as soon as practicable which shall generally be
presumed to be the spring of the next growing season. Landscaping must
include a properly functioning automated sprinkler and/or drip irrigation
system, with individual zones for non-turf areas.
15
b) General Landscape Standards
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
All landscaping shall conform to the following general landscape standards.
(1) Fire Hydrants and Utilities
Landscaping shall not obstruct fire hydrants or utility boxes. Trees
and shrubs shall not be planted within 4 feet of existing overhead or
underground lines.
(2) Clear Vision Triangle
Landscaping shall be planted and maintained in a manner that does
not impact site distances at street and alley/court intersections. A
clear vision triangle shall be maintained at all street and alley/court
intersections. No shrubs greater than 30 inches high shall be
planted within a clear vision triangle. Trees within a clear vision area
shall be pruned of branches lower than 8 feet above the ground.
(3) Parking and Storage Prohibited
Areas required as landscaping shall not be used for parking, outdoor
storage and similar uses, but may be used for snow storage
provided drainage and potential pollutants are managed so as not
to impact stormwater water quality or flood adjacent properties.
4. STORMWATER
All construction and construction sites shall conform to the requirements of the
Colorado Water Quality Control Act and Clean Water Act. Owners are
responsible for ensuring that their property conforms with these requirements
at all times and that required CDPS Permits are obtained. Regardless of whether
or not a CDPS Permit is required for any proposed construction or on any
construction site, appropriate BMPs shall be maintained at all times and storm
drainage facilities including ditches, storm drains, drainage easements, roads
and sidewalks, and streams, rivers and ponds shall be maintained free of
sediment or other pollutant discharges. Any owner discharging sediment or
other pollutants to any storm drainage facilities shall be responsible for any
damage caused by such discharge and shall be responsible for clean up.
C. SPECIFIC USE, FACILITY AND ACTIVITY STANDARDS
L ACCESSORY USES
Accessory uses are permitted in association with all principal uses. Accessory
uses shall not be sited prior to the principal use and shall be clearly secondary to
the principal use in scale.
2. ANIMAL RESTRICTION
Animals are permitted on residential lots subject to Garfield County regulations,
with the exception that the keeping of horses, other livestock, or poultry which
is prohibited.
16
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
3. DAY CARE AND GROUP HOMES
Day care and group homes shall conform to the requirements of and be subject
to review under the ULUR as provided for by Section II.B.1 of this PUD Guide.
4. ROAD AND TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS
a) Roads
Roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards
in Appendix B. Pavement design shall be in accordance with the
recommendations of a geotechnical engineer at time of final plat.
b) Pedestrian and Trail System
A sidewalk system with 5 foot wide sidewalks on both sides of every street
within the REC PUD with the exception of alleys and courts shall be designed
and constructed in association with each final plat. This system shall be
100% ADA compliant and provide access to all the major amenities of the
community.
A soft trail system interconnects with the sidewalk system and forms an
approximate 1.5 mile secondary pedestrian network connecting the various
residential areas to each other and to the open space and recreation areas
shall be designed and constructed in association with each final plat.
The soft trail shall be constructed to meet the following criteria:
• 4' wide, compacted decomposed granite surface within 4"
minimum depth, sealed, over a weed barrier fabric and
compacted sub-grade.
• 8' wide easement for each path segment which can overlap
with utility easements.
• Up to 8% gradients but not fully ADA compliant, with stairs
and segments greater than 8%.
5. SIGNAGE
All signage shall conform to the requirements of the ULUR as provided for by
Section II.B.1 of this PUD Guide except that the following signage shall be
additionally permitted.
a) Community Identification, Wayfinding and Educational Signs
Community identification, wayfinding and educational signs shall be
permitted in accordance with the following standards. Community
Identification and Garden Home Identification Signs shall obtain a sign
permit from Garfield County in accordance with Article XI of the ULUR.
17
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Wayfinding and educational signs placed by the POA shall be exempt from
obtaining a sign permit from Garfield County.
(1) Community Identification Sign-Tract AV
Tract AY shall be permitted one ground-mounted
development/subdivision identification sign which shall not exceed
100 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. The sign shall be
setback a minimum of 10 feet from all lot/tract lines. The placement
and design of the sign and any associated plantings shall meet COOT
criteria for the clear vision triangle. The sign shall further comply
with the requirements of the RFTA Open Space Easement recorded
in Book 1143 at Page 1 and amended in Book 1217 at Page 593. The
sign may be unlighted or lighted in one of the following ways: (a)
backlit utilizing individual back lit letters or logos which are
silhouetted against a softly illuminated wall; (b) utilized individual
letters with translucent faces, containing soft lighting elements
inside each letter; (c) metal-faced box signs with cut-out letters and
soft-glow fluorescent tubes; or (d) sign face lighted with shielded
downcast lights. The signs shall be illuminated only with steady,
stationary, shielded light sources directed solely onto the sign
without causing glare. Light bulbs or lighting tubes used for
illuminating a sign shall not be visible from adjacent street or
residential properties. The intensity of sign lighting shall not exceed
that necessary to illuminate and make legible a sign from the
adjacent travel way; and the illumination of a sign shall not be
obtrusive to the surrounding area.
(2) Community Identification Sign-Community Space Tracts
One ground-mounted community identification sign shall be
permitted on each street frontage of any Community Space Tract.
No community identification sign except that permitted on Tract AY
and Tract AA shall exceed 30 square feet in area and 5 feet in
height. The ground-mounted community identification signs located
on Tract AA may be enlarged to 50 square feet to include tenant
information. Ground-mounted community identification signs may
be unlighted or meet the lighting standards for Community
Identification Signs in Tract AY.
(3) Garden Community Identification Sign-Garden Home Tracts
One ground-mounted garden home tract identification sign shall be
permitted at each entry to any Garden Home Tract. No garden
home tract identification sign shall exceed 30 square feet in area
and 5 feet in height. Ground-mounted signs may be unlighted or
meet the lighting standards for Community Identification Signs in
Tract AY. The ground-mounted garden home tract identification
sign, if utilized, shall include the range of addresses included within
the Garden Home Tract.
18
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
(4) Wayfinding and Educational Signs
Unlighted wayfinding and educational signs may be located on any
Community Space Tract. Signs shall be no taller than 8 feet and have
a sign area of no more than 10 square feet.
6. FIREPLACES
Open hearth, solid-fuel fireplaces shall be prohibited. Natural gas and any solid-
fuel burning stove (defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401 et. seq.) shall be permitted.
7. NOISE
Noise shall not exceed applicable State noise standards. Additional applicable
noise standards shall be applicable to all utility facilities and temporary
construction and development activities.
8. UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS UNDERGROUND
All utilities except control panels and boxes shall be located underground.
9. UTILITY FACILITIES
a) Vibration
All utility installations or facilities shall be so operated as not to create a
vibration which is perceptible without instruments by the average person at
or beyond any lot line of the lot containing such activities. Ground vibration
caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition
work is exempted from this standard.
b) Smoke
All utility installations or facilities shall be so operated as not to emit visible
smoke as dark as Ringelmann number 2 or its equivalent opacity for more
than three minutes in any one-hour period, and visible smoke as dark as
Ringelmann number 1 or its equivalent opacity for more than an additional
seven minutes in any one-hour period. Darker or more opaque smoke is
prohibited at any time.
c) Particulate Matter and Air Contaminants
All utility installations or facilities shall be so operated as not to emit
particulate matter of air contaminants which are readily detectable without
instruments by the average person at or beyond any lot line of the lot
containing such activities.
19
d) Odor
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
All utility installations or facilities shall be so operated as not to emit matter
causing unpleasant odors which are perceptible by the average person at or
beyond any lot line of the lot containing such activities.
e) Humidity, Heat, Cold, and Glare
All utility installations or facilities shall be so operated as not to produce
humidity, heat, cold, or glare which is perceptible without instruments by
the average person at or beyond any lot line of the lot containing such
activities.
10. TRASH STORAGE AND PICK-UP
All trash placed outdoors shall be in bear-proof trash containers.
11. HOME OCCUPATIONS
Home occupations shall conform to the requirements of and be subject to
review under the ULUR as provided for by Section II.B.l of this PUD Guide.
12. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PLANS, USES AND STANDARDS
Construction activities shall conform to the following standards and
requirements.
a) Construction Activities and Plans
{1) Phase 0 Site Reclamation
The property within the boundaries of the REC PUD was heavily
damaged by previous grading activities. In advance or concurrent
with the platting of any portion of the REC PUD, reclamation
activities are permitted to occur within the entirety of the REC PUD
boundaries. Prior to undertaking reclamation activities, detailed
plans for reclamation shall be submitted to the the Garfield County
Planning and Building Department which plans shall include the
locations of proposed activities and actions including equipment
storage and contractors offices and other facilities, grading, BMPs,
drainage, storage areas for materials, and locations of materials
processing along with standards for the proposed activities
including standards for dust control, noise, and hours of operation
consistent with this PUD Guide and the ULUR. The Phase 0 Site
Reclamation shall be administratively approved or disapproved by
the Director within 30 days of submittal and a grading permit and
any necessary building permits issued subject to approval of the
Subdivision Improvements Agreement and security guaranteeing
the completion of the work by the BoCC. The approved construction
plans shall include detailed plans concerning restoration activities
20
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
and BMPs and appropriate restoration and BMP security provisions
for areas where stockpiles will be maintained.
(2) Construction Activities in Association with a Final Plat
At the time of submission of final plat, detailed construction plans
shall be submitted and approved concurrent with the final plat. The
construction plans shall address all aspects of final plat
infrastructure, facilities and housing construction. Construction
activities may be permitted both within the boundaries of the final
plat and on unplatted lands within the REC PUD. The construction
plans shall detail the staging areas, fabrication areas, construction
and fabrication operations, equipment storage, location of
construction facilities such as construction office and equipment
and materials storage, construction BMPs, materials processing,
drainage, dust control, and noise along with standards of operation
and performance of all such activities so as to minimize impacts to
surrounding properties to the maximum extent practicable in
accordance with this PUD Guide and the ULUR. Activities located
outside the platted areas shall be appropriately secured to ensure
their removal and/or restoration upon completion of construction
in association with the final plat or such other time as may be
agreed to by the BoCC in approving the final plat. The plans
approved concurrent with final plat shall constitute the approved
construction plans. All approved construction plans shall include
detailed plans concerning restoration activities and appropriate
restoration security provisions.
b) Construction Uses
(1) Accessory Uses
In association with approved construction activities, accessory
construction uses include temporary restrooms, port-a-lets, break
or changing rooms, construction offices, model homes, mobile food
service wagons, and other buildings and facilities of a temporary
nature necessary to support construction activities shall be
permitted on both platted and unplatted ground within the REC
PUD in accordance with the approved construction plans.
(2) Materials Processing
Materials processing including crushing and concrete batch plants
shall be permitted in association with construction in accordance
with the approved construction plans. Dust control, screening,
hours of operation and noise abatement measures shall be
appropriately integrated into any approved construction plans.
(3) Construction Signs
Temporary construction signs denoting the architect, engineer or
contractor for a project under construction are permitted provided
21
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
there is only one sign per lot frontage, the sign area does not
exceed 24 square feet, the sign does not exceed 6 feet in height,
and the sign is removed within 7 days following after the issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
(4) Contractor's Equipment and Materials Storage Yard
Contractor's equipment and materials storage yards shall be
permitted in association with construction in accordance with the
approved construction plans.
(5) Infrastructure and Building Fabrication
Infrastructure and building fabrication areas may be proposed
within the REC PUD at time of final plat as part of the construction
plans on either platted or unplatted ground which may include
buildings. Appropriate standards for ensuring minimization of
impacts along with clearing and site restoration including
appropriate security to cover such activities shall be included within
the construction plans.
c) Standards
(1) Drainage and BMPs
Construction site drainage shall conform to all Federal, State and
local standards, regulations and laws. A Storm Water Management
Permit and required BMPs shall be maintained at all times through
restoration and revegetation.
(2) Fuel Storage Areas
Containment measures shall be provided for all fuel storage areas to
prevent release into any waterbody. Inventory management or leak
detection systems may be required. These measures shall be
addressed in the construction plans as part of the Phase 0 Site
Reclamation or final plat.
(3) Noise and Hours of Operation
Noise during construction shall meet Garfield County and State
standards and laws. Outdoor construction activities shall not occur
prior to 7:00 am or later than 7:00 pm. Reasonable additional noise
and timing conditions may be placed by the BoCC in approving any
final plat or Director in approving Phase 0 construction activities
consistent with noise and hours of operation standards in the ULUR.
(4) Machine Maintenance
Maintenance of vehicles or mobile machinery is prohibited within
100 feet of any waterbody. Emergency maintenance may be
conducted until the vehicle or machinery can be moved. These
measures shall be addressed in the construction plans as part of the
Phase 0 Site Reclamation or final plat.
22
(5) Spill Prevention
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Measures shall be implemented to prevent spilled fuels, lubricants
or other hazardous materials from entering a waterbody during
construction or operation of equipment and/or facility. If a spill
occurs it should be cleaned up immediately and disposed of
properly. These measures shall be addressed in the construction
plans as part of the Phase 0 Site Reclamation or final plat.
(6) Waste Storage
Areas used for the collection and temporary storage of solid or
liquid waste shall be designed to prevent discharge of these
materials in runoff from the site. Collection sites shall be located
away from the storm drainage system. Other best management
practices such as covering the waste storage area, fencing the site,
and constructing a perimeter dike to exclude runoff may also be
required. These measures shall be addressed in the construction
plans as part of the Phase 0 Site Reclamation or final plat.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES
The REC PUD includes some environmental hazards and resources of importance to the
development of the REC PUD. These hazards and resources include: geotechnical
hazards (Geohazard Buffer Area), slope instability areas, heron protection area, heron
activity areas, conservation easement access control area, and floodplains. The areas
are shown on the PUD Plan and any final plat on which standards or controls may be
applicable. These hazards and resources should be considered at time of final plat and
when undertaking the development of any lot or tract within the REC PUD.
A. GEOHAZARD AREAS
The Geohazard Buffer Zone is an 80 foot buffer area around geologic hazards identified
at the time of approval of the PUD Plan. These areas as well as areas identified during
Phase 0 Site Reclamation, within each final plat shall be investigated prior to platting
and any "geohazard areas" identified at that time shall be shown on the final plat. Each
final plat shall include a plat note requiring that no structures shall be located within
designated "geohazard areas" unless investigations are completed and appropriate
mitigation measures are proposed by a qualified engineer and such mitigation is
implemented as part of construction. Detailed mitigation plans of utilities and road
crossings of "geohazard areas" identified on the PUD Plan or on any final plat shall be
provided at time of final plat and implemented at time of construction.
Additionally, foundation drains are required in association with Section IV.B.2.a.(4) of
this PUD Guide. At time of final plat, lots on which deep foundations will be permitted
and the location of the foundation drain discharge shall be identified.
B. SLOPE INSTABILITY AREA
Slope instability areas are proposed for mitigation during Phase 0 Site Reclamation. No
structures shall be placed in areas identified as being subject to slope instability on any
23
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
final plat. Engineered plans stamped by a qualified engineer of all roads, pipelines,
utilities and other facilities crossing areas located within a Slope Instability Area shall
address the hazard and include specific and appropriate mitigation to ensure the
reasonable protection of life and property. All mitigation measures shall conform to any
hazard mitigation plan approved as part of a Final Plat.
C. HERON ACTIVITY AREA
At the time of final plat, the "Heron Activity Area" will be established on the face of the
final plat by plat note identifying which lots are subject to construction timing
restrictions. The "Heron Activity Area" shall be established by a site visit to active heron
nesting trees by an accredited wildlife biologist during the spring months prior to filing
of any final plat. Empty or unused nests or roost trees shall not be considered active
heron nesting trees. Any lots on the final plat located within 200 meters of an active
heron nesting trees as designated on the final plat shall be subject to a construction
season restriction which shall provide for no external construction activities for new
building erection between March 1 through August 1. After the initial construction of
subdivision infrastructure required under any subdivision improvement agreement and
initial home construction within the boundaries of a final plat, the construction
restriction shall no longer be applicable. The PUD Plan identifies the boundaries of the
"Heron Activity Area" that would exist as of the date of the filing of the PUD Plan for
purposes of illustration and shall have no regulatory effect.
The restrictions associated with the "Heron Activity Area" are only enforceable by the
POA (or its assigns). Garfield County shall have no responsibility to enforce but shall
have the right to enforce the restrictions placed upon the final plat.
D. FLOODPLAINS
No structures or fill shall be placed within an identified floodplain on the PUD Plan or on
the applicable Flood Insurance Rate Map except as specifically provided for by the REC
PUD to facilitate utility and bridge crossings of Cattle Creek. Work within any floodplain
shall require approval by Garfield County in accordance with Garfield County's
floodplain regulations.
E. WETLANDS
Wetlands shown on the PUD Plan were mapped in 2010 and represent the jurisdictional
wetlands present on or immediately adjacent to the REC PUD at that time as defined by
State and Federal laws. All activities within wetlands shall conform to Garfield County
regulations and State and Federal law except as provided by specific modifications
approved by the BoCC as part of the PUD and Preliminary Plat approval.
VI. DEFINITIONS
A. WORD CONVENTIONS
The following guidelines and conventions shall be used in interpreting this PUD Guide:
24
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
• In general, words used in the present tense shall include the future; the
singular shall include the plural; and the plural the singular.
• The words 11 Shall/1 "must/1 "will/1 "shall not/1 "will 11
1 "may not/1 11 no ...
may," and "no ... shall" are always mandatory. The word "should"
indicate that which is recommended but not required. The word "may"
indicates a use of discretion in making a decision.
• The word "used" includes "designed, intended, or arranged" to be used.
• The masculine gender includes the feminine and vice versa.
• References to "distance" shall mean distance as measured horizontally
unless otherwise specified.
• When used with numbers, "Up to x," "Not more than x" and "a
maximum of x" all include x.
• Unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, conjunctions have the
following meanings: (1) "And" indicates that all connected items or
provisions apply; (2) "Or" indicates that the connected items or
provisions may apply singularly or in combination; and (3) "Either ... or"
indicates that the connected items or provisions apply singularly, but
not in combination.
• All definitions which reference the C.R.S. and Building Code are
generally intended to mirror the definitions used and in effect on the
effective date of this PUD Guide or as they may be subsequently
amended. If a definition in this PUD Guide conflicts with a definition
under State statute or regulation, the State definition shall control over
the PUD Guide definition except where a definition in this PUD Guide
has further limited the size, number, or other specific parameter
associated with a defined use.
• The dimensional standards herein are considered mandatory. However,
the diagrams and illustrations that accompany the dimensional
standards are illustrative. Where a conflict between any dimensional
standard and diagram or illustration occurs, the dimensional standard
shall control.
• Uses shall be interpreted in accordance with this PUD Guide.
B. SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS
The following are the definitions for the terms contained in this PUD Guide. Words
defined herein shall have the specific meaning assigned, unless the context clearly
indicates another meaning. Words used in this PUD Guide shall have the definitions
contained in the ULUR unless they are specifically defined herein or their dictionary
meaning if defined neither herein or in the ULUR.If it is determined that any definition
25
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
contained in the ULUR is applicable to the REC PUD and is in whole or partially in conflict
with a definition set forth herein, the interpretation will favor consistency with the
definitions and provisions in this PUD Guide.
The definitions are organized alphabetically.
1. ACCESSORY USE
A use located on the same lot or tract as the principal building, structure or use
to which it is related and that is supportive, secondary, and subordinate to and
customarily found with the principal use of the land.
2. ACTIVE RECREATION AND SERVICES
Active recreation refers to a mix of recreation uses that includes the following
facilities or facility types: athletic fields, building or structures for recreational
activities, concessions, community gardens and orchards, restrooms, sport
courses or courts, children's play area, dog play areas, bike and walking paths,
trails and associated facilities and may provide for supervised or unsupervised
recreational activities. Neighborhood Center Tracts may also include community
or recreation centers, pools, and accessory uses such as Community Service
Uses. Such accessory services shall be designed and scaled to serve the
residents of the REC PUD and their guests and recreationist utilizing any
adjacent and internal public recreation facilities.
3. ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES
Metropolitan district or property owners' association offices including
contractors providing administrative, clerical or public contact services that deal
directly with the citizen and governmental functions, together with the
incidental storage and maintenance of necessary vehicles.
4. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT (AHA)
An agreement between the applicant and Garfield County based upon the
Affordable Housing Plan as required by Article VIII of the ULUR for the REC PUD.
5. ALLEY
A roadway designed to serve as access to the side or the rear yard of those
properties whose principal frontage is on a street or Community Space.
6. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL BOARD ("ACB")
The Architectural Control Board of the REC PUD established by the CCRS.
7. ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION
Any projection that is not intended for occupancy and that extends beyond the
face of an exterior wall of a building, including, without limitation, a porch, roof
26
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
overhang, mansard, unenclosed exterior balcony, marquee, canopy, awning,
pilaster and fascia, but not including a sign
8. ATTACHED HOME (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT
A zoning district intended to provide large lots for medium sized attached or
detached homes with limited private outdoor space. Attached Home Lots
provide for zero lot line development with at least 10 feet between buildings.
Attached Home Lots may be developed with attached homes on adjoining lots
or coordinated with adjacent detached homes to provide larger side yard areas
by offsetting homes to one side or the other on each lot. The intent is that
attached homes be designed to mimic the look of a large single-unit dwelling.
Attached Home Lots generally should be located internally to the development
and front streets or Community Spaces. Attached home lots provide for
somewhat limited architectural variation but substantial lot layout variation due
to the variety of attached and detached arrangements that may be constructed.
Attached Home Lots are alley loaded. Only one home is permitted per lot.
9. BERM
Berm means a strip of mounded topsoil which provides a visual screen.
10. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)
The specific management practices used to control pollutants in storm water.
BMPs are of two types: "source controls" (nonstructural) and "treatment
controls" (structural). Source or nonstructural controls are practices that
prevent pollution by reducing potential pollutants at their source, such as
proper chemical containment construction sites, before they come into contact
with stormwater. Treatment or structural controls, such as constructed water
quality detention facilities, remove pollutants already present in storm water.
Best Management Practices can either be temporary, such as silt fence used
during construction activity, or permanent detention facilities, to control
pollutants in stormwater.
11. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ("BOCC")
The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County whose authority and
procedures are described in the C.R.S. and ULUR.
12. BUILDING
Any structure built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or
property of any kind. Portions of buildings connected by fully enclosed
attachments that are useable by the buildings' occupants shall be treated as one
building
27
13. BUILDING CODE
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
The Building Code adopted and enforced by Garfield County, Colorado at the
time a permit for construction of a building or structure, or other activity
requiring a building permit from Garfield County is required.
14. BUILDING COVERAGE
Building Coverage means the total area of a lot or tract covered by a building or
buildings, measured at the ground level. Building Coverage is measured from
outside of all exterior walls at ground level and shall include stairways,
fireplaces, all cantilevered or supported building areas, ground level covered
porches and decks, garages, and swimming pools. Building Coverage does not
include roof overhangs; unenclosed walkways; usable areas under above-grade
porches and decks, uncovered decks, porches, patios, terraces and stairways,
less than 30 inches high; or similar extensions.
15. BUILDING ENVELOPE
The portion of a lot or tract depicted and designated as a "Building Envelope" on
the PUD Plan and whose boundaries are legally defined on the Final Plat. The
specific purpose of all proposed building envelops is identified within this PUD
Guide. All buildings must be located entirely within the Building Envelope,
provided however that driveways, entry/address monuments, parking lots,
utilities, grading, irrigation and drainage systems, retaining walls, water
features, sports courts, playgrounds, landscaping and such other similar facilities
may be located outside the Building Envelope unless otherwise specifically
restricted within this Guide.
16. BUILDING HEIGHT
The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished grade
adjoining the building to the highest point of the roof surface, if a flat roof; to
the deck line of mansard roofs; and to the mean height level between eaves and
ridges for gable, hip and gambrel roofs. The height shall be measured as the
averaged maximum height of any building segment from finished grade at any
point directly above that grade location. Architectural projections including
towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, observation towers, and flagpoles may
extend above the maximum building height not more than 10 feet.
17. BUS STOPS, BENCHES, AND SHELTERS
Roadside pullouts or signed areas with street furnishings and small bus shelters
used as a staging location for travelers to transfer between pedestrian and
bicycle modes and transit.
18. CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE
The area created by drawing an imaginary line between points 20 feet back
from where the curb lines of the intersection quadrant meet.
28
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
19. COMMON AREA (TRACT) ZONING DISTRICT
A zoning district intended for a variety of community uses. These tracts are
generally located within residential areas of the development to be left open to
break up residential areas with landscaping and allow for pedestrian circulation
connections to occur between the community spaces. Community gardens and
orchards or other community-oriented uses desired by the residents within the
REC and not involving the construction of buildings can be permitted in the
Common Area Tracts unless specifically restricted. Common Area Tracts such as
at the entry to the REC and at entry points to the trail may include identifying,
educational, and direction/wayfinding signage. Drainage facilities and buried
utilities and associated appurtenances are provided for in Common Area Tracts.
The use of Common Area Tracts will evolve over time as there is need for
improvements. The intent is to reserve flexibility for community uses desired by
the residents into the future. Generally, however, these spaces will remain open
and be planted with a mixture of native and cultivated species and serve as
transitions to Open Space Tracts.
20. COMMUNITY GARDEN OR ORCHARD
A vegetable garden and/or orchard that is communally cultivated and cared for,
which use shall be permitted on the Garden/Orchard Tracts. Subject to the
CCRS, Garden/Orchard Tracts may consist of individual plots, multiple caretaker
areas, sitting areas, small-scale children's play areas and other accessory
horticultural related uses, and may be used for community festivals and
celebrations.
21. COMMUNITY IDENTIFICATION, WAYFINDING AND EDUCATIONAL SIGN
A sign placed by the POA (or its assigns) identifying the REC community or
features therein, providing location and directional information within the
community, or providing educational or other necessary information to
residents and visitors.
22. COMMUNITY MEETING FACILITY OR RECREATION HALL
A facility for public gatherings and holding events such as weddings, wedding
receptions, community meetings and meetings and events sponsored by
individuals, groups, or organizations having an ownership interest in the REC
PUD.
23. COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITIES
A facility for government, special districts, quasi-governmental or property
owners' association maintenance and service vehicles, equipment, supplies,
office and staff to serve the REC PUD area.
29
24. COMMUNITY SERVICE SPACE(S)
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Leasable space within the Neighborhood Center, which space may be used for
Community Service Use(s). Community Service Space(s) shall be owned by the
POA or their assigns.
25. COMMUNITY SERVICE USES
Not-for profit or for-profit uses that may, subject to the PUD Plan and the CCRS,
be operated within the Community Service Space(s), if any. Community Service
Uses shall be operated by a Community Service Tenant for the benefit of
residents of the Community and may include, without limitation, a day care
facility, a sandwich/coffee shop, and/or a health club.
26. COMMUNITY SERVICE TENANT
A tenant or concessionaire of any Community Service Space operating a
Community Service Use.
27. COMMUNITY SPACE ZONING CATEGORY
Those areas identified as Open Space, Common Area, Garden/Orchard, and
Neighborhood Center Zoning Districts by the PUD Guide and PUD Plan and
created as Tracts by a Final Plat. Community Spaces are provided as a means of
establishing areas for community activities and providing community outdoor
spaces and amenities.
28. CONSERVATION EASEMENT
A certain Grant of Conservation Easement, dated February 3, 2000, by and
between Sanders Ranch Holdings, LLC, its successors and assigns, as grantor,
and Roaring Fork Conservancy ("RFC"), as grantee, recorded at Reception
Number 559036 and survey map, dated December 24th, 2008, defining the
boundaries of said easement recorded at Reception Number 804200 in the real
property records of Garfield County, Colorado, as the same has been or may be
supplemented or amended from time to time.
29. CONSTRUCTION
To make or form by combining or arranging building parts or building elements,
to include but not limited to examples such as road construction, community or
recreation facility development, utility facility development, home construction,
or parks development, and including the initial disturbance of soils associated
with clearing, grading, or excavating activities or other construction-related
activities (e.g., stockpiling offill material).
30. CONSTRUCTION SIGN
Construction sign means a temporary sign announcing development,
construction or other improvement of a property by a building contractor or
30
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado1 Garfield County, Colorado
other person furnishing services, materials or labor to the premises, but does
not include a "real estate sign."
31. CONSTRUCTION SITE
Any location where construction or construction related activity is occurring.
32. CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
A specific individual construction plan that describes the Best Management
Practices (BMPs), as found in the current SWMM, to be implemented at a site to
prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants. The purpose of a SWMP is to
identify possible pollutant sources to stormwater and to set out BMPs that,
when implemented, will reduce or eliminate any possible water quality impacts.
33. CONSTRUCTION USES AND ACTIVITIES
Construction-related uses include those uses necessary, supportive or incidental
to the construction of the REC PUD or construction of homes, buildings or
facilities within the REC PUD during the development period.
34. CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS STORAGE YARD
The temporary use of land for the purpose of storing machinery, equipment and
supplies including office and repair facilities for use in supporting construction
activities associated with the development of REC PUD infrastructure or
housing, buildings or facilities within the REC PUD and approved as part of the
construction plans at time of final plat.
35. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ("CCRS")
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for River Edge Colorado (the "CCRS")
recorded in the official records of Garfield County, as they may be amended
from time to time by the POA.
36. DAY CARE CENTER
A non-residential facility licensed by the State of Colorado for the care and
supervision of more than 8 children or adults for periods of less than 24 hours
per day. Day care centers include preschools and nursery schools.
37. DAY CARE HOME
A private residence used for the care of 8 or fewer children other than the
operator's own children for a period of less than 24 hours per day and the
operator of which possesses a license from the State of Colorado.
38. DESIGN GUIDELINES
River Edge Colorado Design Guidelines as defined in the CCRS. The Design
Guidelines establish architectural and building material standards, landscape
31
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
design requirements, site design criteria, and a design review process for
development within REC PUD and are adopted by the POA and may be
amended from time to time. The Design Guidelines shall not be administered by
Garfield County.
39. DEVELOPER
Developer means any person who seeks a permit or approval for the
construction of a development from Garfield County.
40. DEVELOPMENT
Any change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, without
limitation, constructing, relocating, rehabilitating, reconstructing or expanding
or enlarging (but not maintaining) a building or other structure or portion
thereof, or establishing or changing a use, or mining, dredging, filling, grading,
paving or excavation.
41. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The agreement entered into with the BoCC detailing any commitments made
between a developer and Garfield County for the REC PUD.
42. DIRECTOR
The Director of the Garfield County Building and Planning Department, or
authorized representative, or such other person who may be named by title by
the Garfield County Board of Commissioners to administer Garfield County's
Unified Land Use Resolution (ULUR) or other such code intended to govern land
use in Garfield County.
43. DWELLING UNIT
One or more rooms designed to function as a single living facility and containing
only one kitchen plus living, sanitary and sleeping facilities.
44. DWELLING, SINGLE-UNIT
A dwelling unit located on a lot with no physical or structural connection to any
other dwelling unit.
45. DWELLING, TWO-UNIT
A dwelling unit within a structure containing two dwelling units, each of which
has primary ground floor access to the outside and are attached to each other
by party walls without openings, and where each dwelling unit is located on its
own lot, and which may include interest in common areas, land and facilities
appurtenant to the dwelling units. A Two-Unit Dwelling does not share common
floor/ceilings with another dwelling unit.
32
46. EXECUTIVE (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
A zoning district intended to provide semi-private residential lots for the
development of large custom single-unit dwellings. These lots provide areas for
custom homes and allow for the architectural variation. Executive lots may or
may not front a street or alley (i.e., Right-of-Way Tract) and may be accessed via
long private driveways located within designated access and utility easements.
47. ESTATE (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT
A zoning district intended to provide large street-oriented residential lots for the
development of large single-unit dwellings. These lots generally should be
located along the western and southern edge of the development area. These
lots provide areas for custom and semi-custom homes, allow for substantial
architectural variation, and provide generous private outdoor spaces. Estate
Lots are front loaded.
48. FILING OR SUBDIVISION FILING
A final plat within the REC PUD.
49. FINAL PLAT
A map with supporting statements of certain described land prepared in
accordance with the ULUR and approved by the BoCC and recorded in the
Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's office. (C.R.S. 30-28-101 (5))
SO. FLOOR AREA
The total square footage of all levels of a building except a basement, as
measured at the inside face of the interior walls. Excluded from the definition of
floor area are balconies and terraces, decks and patios whether covered or not,
covered walkways, other roofed facilities which are not enclosed, basements
and crawl spaces, mechanical rooms, garages or other enclosed parking areas,
and attic spaces.
51. FRONT LOT LINE
The boundary of a lot located along a street (i.e., Right-of Way Tract). On a
corner lot, the Front Lot Line is the line which best conforms to the pattern of
the adjacent block faces. In the case of alley accessed and loaded lots, the Front
Lot Line shall be boundary of a lot which is most nearly opposite and most
distant from the Rear Lot Line.
52. FRONT SETBACK LINE
The imaginary line extending across the full width of a lot, parallel with the
Front Lot Line between which no building, structure, or portion thereof shall be
permitted, erected, constructed, or placed except a front porch, bay window, or
architectural projections.
33
53. FRONT YARD
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
The area between the Front Lot Line and Front Setback Line.
54. GARDEN HOME TRACT
A tract of land generally designated for development of Garden Home Lots.
Portions of the Garden Home Tract may be designated, zoned and platted as
Right-of-Way Tracts or Common Area Tracts. The tract designation is used only
as a means of providing cross-references and general standards for Garden
Home lot platting and development and does not serve as a formal designation.
55. GARDEN HOME (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT
A zoning district intended to provide locations for smaller two-unit dwellings or
single-unit dwellings with almost no private outdoor space for those people who
desire to limited yard maintenance and who focus their outdoor activities within
the Community Spaces within the REC PUD. Garden Home Lots are located
within pods within designated Garden Home Tracts. Garden Home Lots provide
for zero lot line development with at least 10 feet between buildings. Garden
Home Lots generally should be located internally to the development near or
adjacent to Park Tracts. Homes should be generally laid out near the exterior
edges of the Garden Home Tracts with small common areas and alleys (located
within Right-of-Way Tracts) focused toward the core of each Garden Home
Tract. Garden Home Lots provide for limited architectural and lot layout
variation and architectural themes within each Garden Home Tract should be
consistent throughout. Garden Homes shall be internally loaded from alleys
with garages located to the interior side of the Garden Home Tract facing the
alley or court providing access to the Garden Home Lot. No Garden Home Lot is
permitted direct access to a street through the exterior Garden Home Tract
boundary line.
56. GARDEN/ORCHARD (TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT
A zoning district intended to be areas specifically set aside for cultivating fruit
trees and fruit and vegetable gardens. The production may be shared amongst
the community for consumption or utilized by individual participants, while
excess may be sold at local farmers markets, as determined by the residents in
accordance with the CCRS. The Garden/Orchard Tracts are intended to become
an identifying element for the REC community and distinguishing amenity
around which festivals, celebrations, traditions, can be organized and revolve.
Structures are generally limited to garden sheds or similar facilities necessary to
support cultivation and agricultural fences meeting the Design Guidelines and
the requirements of this PUD Guide. Drainage facilities and buried utilities and
associated appurtenances are permitted in Garden/Orchard Tracts. Soft trails
and identifying, educational, and direction/wayfinding signage are also
permitted.
34
57. GROUP HOME
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
A facility providing custodial care and treatment in a protective living
environment for the handicapped or the aged person. This category of facility
includes, without limitation, group homes for persons who are sixty years of age
or older, group homes for the developmentally disabled or mentally ill, drug or
alcohol abuse or rehabilitation centers, and facilities for persons with acquired
immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
infection.
58. HOME OCCUPATION
Any business or service of limited scope, conducted entirely within the dwelling
and which is clearly incidental and secondary to the principal use and which
does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the residential character of
the neighborhood.
59. HORTICULTURAL USES
Horticultural uses include the planting, cultivating, harvesting, and storage of
hay and horticultural stock or ornamental plants for use within the REC PUD for
landscaping or revegetation and erosion control activities on platted and
unplatted land. Horticultural activities on platted ground shall cease as soon as
the crop in place at time of platting is harvested. Horticultural uses do not
include community gardens or orchards which are permitted in specific
Garden/Orchard and Common Area Tracts defined within this PUD Guide and
PUD Plan, or home gardens or other similar uses which are permitted as an
accessory use on all residential lots.
60. INFRASTRUCTURE AND BUILDING FABRICATION
The temporary use of land for the purpose of fabricating REC PUD infrastructure
and building components. Building and infrastructure fabrication may be
conducted inside temporary buildings constructed for the purpose of fabrication
or outside. Temporary buildings may be utilized and removed or converted to a
Use by Right if said conversion would conform to this PUD Guide.
61. IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE {TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT
A zoning district are intended to serve as areas set aside for facilities necessary
to treat and distribute raw water for irrigation within the REC PUD area and
provide facilities for POA maintenance facilities and equipment for maintaining
infrastructure, Community Spaces, and Right-of-Way Tracts within the
development. All Irrigation and Maintenance Tracts are to be owned, operated
and maintained by the POA or other its assigns. These areas are provided for the
benefit of the owners within the REC PUD for the specific uses provided for by
this PUD Guide. Drainage facilities and buried utilities and associated
appurtenances are permitted within Irrigation and Maintenance Tracts. Soft
trails and identifying, educational, and direction/wayfinding signage are also
permitted.
35
62. LANDSCAPED AREA
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Any land set apart for planting grass, shrubs, trees or similar living materials,
including, without limitation, land in an arcade, plaza or pedestrian area, and of
which fences and walls may be a part.
63. LANDSCAPING
Materials, including, without limitation, grass, ground cover, shrubs, vines,
hedges or trees and nonliving natural materials commonly used in landscaped
development.
64. LOT
A parcel that has been subdivided pursuant to a legal subdivision approval
process and is precisely identified by reference to a filing, block and lot.
65. LOT LINE
The property lines defining the exterior boundaries of a lot or tract.
66. MATERIALS PROCESSING
The processing of onsite sand and gravel deposits, claimed as a result of site
development conducted in accordance with the approved reclamation, grading
or development plan, for use in the construction of REC PUD infrastructure and
housing, buildings or facilities within the REC PUD including the screening,
crushing, stockpiling, washing and creation of concrete from processed sand
and gravel resources.
67. MODEL HOME
A dwelling temporarily used as a sales office or demonstration home for
residential units under or proposed for construction, said dwelling being used as
an example of a product offered for sale. The dwelling may be furnished and be
used as a sales facility and office while being used as a model home. A model
home may be occupied provided an occupancy permit or final inspection
authorizing occupancy has been approved by the building official.
68. NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER (TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT
A zoning district intended to provide meeting, gathering, recreational, and
service facilities for residents of REC. Multiple Civic and Community Uses may
occur on these tracts to meet the needs of REC residents as permitted by this
PUD Guide and as may be approved by the POA. These services may include
community service uses with incidental merchandise sales or community
activities such as community garage sales. Drainage facilities and buried utilities
and associated appurtenances are permitted in Neighborhood Center Tracts.
Soft trails and identifying, educational, and direction/wayfinding signage are
also permitted.
36
69. NOXIOUS WEED
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
An alien plant or part of an alien plant that has been designated by Colorado
state regulations as being a state Noxious Weed
70. OPEN SPACE TRACT ZONING DISTRICT
A zoning district intended to provide an area of the community that is
naturalized with limited use that helps to buffer environmentally sensitive areas
and RFTA trail from the development areas within the REC PUD, while allowing
limited passive uses including walking, running, hiking, wildlife and scenery
viewing. The primary purpose of Open Space Tracts is to provide natural spaces
within the Project. As, such, landscaping of Open Space Tracts is to be
predominantly native and drought tolerant species. Improvements within Open
Space Tracts are very limited and include only portions of the soft trail system;
seating/viewing areas; identifying, educational, and direction/wayfinding
signage; drainage facilities; and buried utilities. Access roads for the utilities
including the Glenwood Ditch may be provided as well as small utility buildings.
71. OWNER
An individual, corporation, partnership, association, trust or other legal entity or
combination of legal entities which is the record owner of an undivided fee
simple interest in one or more lots, parcels, or dwelling units.
72. PARK (TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT
A zoning district intended to provide for active recreation activities including
organized sports and play activities. Playgrounds, tot-lots, hard courts, and
multi-use fields for organized recreation, games, and play are permitted in Park
Tracts. Buildings are generally limited to picnic shelters, and small pavilions and
amphitheaters. Drainage facilities and buried utilities and associated
appurtenances are permitted in Park Tracts. Soft trails and identifying,
educational, and direction/wayfinding signage are also permitted.
73. PASSIVE RECREATION
Recreational activities that do not require prepared facilities like sports fields,
playgrounds or pavilions. Passive recreational activities place minimal stress on
a site's resources and are highly compatible with natural resource protection.
Passive recreation include, but is not limited to, hiking, wildlife viewing,
observing and photographing nature, picnicking, walking, cross country skiing,
bird watching, bicycling, running/jogging, and fishing. Passive recreation may
include benches and seating areas, picnic tables, viewing areas, and
interpretative and directional signage. Generally, areas under passive recreation
serve as habitat areas, and therefore passive recreations uses shall be limited to
those recreational uses not detrimental to habitat uses. Uses such as camping,
motorized vehicle recreation, or any similar activity shall not be considered
passive recreation uses.
37
74. PERMITTED USE
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
A use which is permitted to occur on a lot or tract, or on unplatted land as a use
by right without requiring Administrative, Limited Impact or Major Impact
Review under the ULUR by Garfield County.
75. PHASE 0 SITE RECLAMATION
Reclamation of the entire REC PUD in advance of platting. Phase 0 Site
Reclamation includes grading and certain facility placement in order to restore
the site with soils and vegetation, complete a majority of the required materials
processing, undertake strategic geotechnical investigations, restore habitat,
place utilities and structures such as Glenwood Ditch and grade separated
crossing of RFTA trail, and prepare the site for future development.
76. PORCH
Porch means a covered, unenclosed (except for railings) structure that projects
from the exterior wall of a principal building, has no floor space above, and is
intended to provide shelter to the entry of the building and supplemental
outdoor living area.
77. PRINCIPAL USE
The activity(ies) on the lot or parcel which constitute the primary purpose or
function for which the land and any principal structure is intended, designed, or
ordinarily used.
78. PROJECT DOCUMENTS
The CCRS, Design Guidelines, Development Agreement, Resolution No. 2011-
--and all other documents made a part of said resolution along with all
subsequently approved Final Plats.
79. RIGHT-OF-WAY (TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT
A zoning district for tracts intended to provide legal vehicular and pedestrian
ingress and egress to all lots and tracts within the REC PUD and, in concert with
utility and drainage easements, provide corridors for utilities to service the REC
PUD. Right-of-Way Tracts also provide areas for development of landscaped
areas, street lights, directional sign age, and street furnishings to help establish a
sense of place in accordance with this PUD Guide and the Design Guidelines.
Right-of-Way Tracts are intended to be owned, operated and maintained by the
POA or its assigns. These tracts are provided for the benefit of the owners
within the REC PUD for ingress and egress to all lots and tracts within the REC
PUD.
38
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
80. RIVER EDGE COLORADO PUD ("REC PUD", "REC", OR "PROJECT")
The Planned Unit Development zone district authorized by the Garfield County,
Resolution No. 2011-_. and containing the property described on the PUD
Plan, and including the PUD Guide, PUD Plan, and Project Documents.
81. RIVER EDGE COLORADO PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. ("POA")
The association formed to manage and maintain property in which lot and tract
owner within the REC PUD own an undivided common interest; manage,
maintain and deliver services identified in the CCRS to properties within the REC
PUD; and control the use and development of properties within the REC PUD
pursuant the PUD Guide, PUD Plan, CCRS, and Project Documents.
82. REAR LOT LINE
The boundary of a lot which is most nearly opposite and most distant from the
Front Lot Line. Where an alley abuts a lot, the Rear Lot Line shall be the
boundary of the lot abutting the alley (i.e., Right-of-Way Tract).
83. REAR SETBACK LINE
The imaginary line extending across the full width of a lot, generally parallel to
the Rear Lot Line between which no building, structure, or portion thereof shall
be permitted, erected, constructed, or placed unless specifically permitted
pursuant to this PUD Guide.
84. RESIDENTIAL ZONING CATEGORY
The Residential Zoning category is the Zoning Category within which all
residential zoning districts are classified. All residentially zoned lots and tracts
within the Residential Zoning Category may be utilized for residential use and
are subject to similar standards governing development. The intent of these lots
and tracts within this category is to provide for the development of single family
detached and two-unit dwellings.
85. SAFETY SERVICES FACILITIES
Safety services facilities are for the conduct of safety and emergency services
including police and fire protection services and emergency medical and
ambulance services which may include fire stations or police stations.
86. SIDE LOT LINE
Any boundary of a lot which is not a Front Lot Line, Rear Lot Line or Side Street
Lot Line, and generally perpendicular with the Front Lot Line.
87. SIDE YARD SETBACK LINE
The imaginary line extending across the full depth of a lot, generally
perpendicular with the Front Lot Line, and parallel to the Side Lot Line between
39
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
which no building, structure, or portion thereof shall be permitted, erected,
constructed, or placed unless specifically permitted pursuant to this PUD Guide.
88. SIDE YARD
The area between the Side Lot Line and Side Setback Line.
89. SIDE STREET LOT LINE
The boundary of a lot located along a street (i.e., Right-of-Way Tract), generally
perpendicular with the Front Lot Line, which is not a Front Lot Line or Rear Lot
Line. A lot having two street frontages has both a front lot line and side street
lot line.
90. SIDE STREET SETBACK LINE
The imaginary line extending across the full depth of a lot, parallel with the Side
Street Lot Line and most nearly perpendicular to the Front Lot Line between
which no building, structure, or portion thereof shall be permitted, erected,
constructed, or placed unless specifically permitted pursuant to this PUD Guide.
91. SIDE STREET YARD
The area between Side Street Lot Line and Side Street Setback Line.
92. STORMWATER FACILITIES
Detention and conveyance facilities required for the treatment of water to
enhance water quality to acceptable levels before discharge to lakes, rivers,
streams or groundwater; or to provide storage volume to enable reduction of
stormwater runoff flow rates.
93. STRUCTURE
Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground above
grade, but the term does not include poles, lines, cables or other transmission
or distribution facilities of public utilities
94. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
An agreement approved by the BoCC in association with Phase 0 and each final
plat detailing and securing the obligations of all parties.
95. TEMPORARY SALES OFFICE
An office established temporarily on a property to make the initial sale of real
estate products located on the property. Said office may be located in a model
home or within a permanent building built for future Civic and Community Uses
or a temporary building placed specifically for the purposes of providing a sales
office.
40
96. TOWN (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County1 Colorado
A zoning district intended to provide reasonably sized lots for larger tract or
semi-custom homes with greater private outdoor space than in the Village Lot
Residential Zoning District. Town Lots generally should be located along the
western and southern edges of the development area and back Open Space
Tracts, but may also be located internally to the PUD and back Park,
Garden/Orchard, or Common Area Tracts. These lots provide for limited
architectural and lot layout variation. Town Lots are street or alley loaded.
97. TRACT
Any physical portion of the REC PUD which is designated on the PUD Plan as a
Tract as opposed to a lot, and the boundaries of which are depicted on the
applicable Final Plat.
98. ULUR
The Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as it may be
amended.
99. UTILITY DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Any below ground facilities used for the transmission, distribution, delivery,
collection, or storage of water, sewage, electricity, natural gas, communications,
electronic or electromagnetic signals, or other services which support the
development of the REC PUD and any uses within the REC PUD including
associated above ground accessory structures and facilities to support such
below ground facilities.
100. UTILITY FACILITIES
Any above ground structures or facilities used for the production, generation,
treatment, transmission, distribution, delivery, collection, or storage of water,
or sewage which support the development of the REC PUD and any uses within
the REC PUD including without limitation water and sewage treatment
works/facilities.
101. UTILITY ZONING CATEGORY
This zoning category in includes those zoning districts established to provide for
any required major utility and maintenance facilities such as a water treatment
plant or POA maintenance facility that might be necessary to serve the REC PUD.
The category includes Irrigation and maintenance Zoning District and Water and
Wastewater Zoning District.
102. UTILITY AND SAFETY SIGNS
Signs required alerting people to dangers or providing service or safety
information associated with utility placements or facilities or safety issues
associated with a location or site.
41
103. VILLAGE (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
A zoning district intended to provide small lots for medium sized tract or semi-
custom homes with limited private outdoor space. Village Lots generally should
be located along the eastern edges of the development area and internally to
the development. They generally back small Open Space Tracts, or Park,
Garden/Orchard, and Common Area Tracts. These lots allow for very limited
architectural and lot layout variation. Village Lots may be street or alley loaded.
104. WATER AND WASTEWATER (TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT
A zoning district within the Utility Zone Category intended to provide areas for
facilities necessary to treat and distribute potable water including the
construction of water treatment plants and transmission facilities, or collection
and treatment facilities for wastewater including lift stations and wastewater
treatment facilities. Unlike the water and wastewater facilities located within
Right-of-Way and Community Spaces or utility easements, Water and
Wastewater Tracts are identified for more significant water and wastewater
facilities than traditionally accommodated in public spaces and easements
including facilities necessary to serve the REC PUD and other development areas
within the region. These tracts are intended to be owned, operated and
maintained by the POA or its assigns. These areas are provided for the benefit of
the owners within the REC PUD for the specific uses provided for by this PUD
Guide. Drainage facilities and buried utilities and associated appurtenances are
permitted in Water and Wastewater Tracts. Soft trails and identifying,
educational, and direction/wayfinding signage are also permitted provided they
do not conflict with the primary use at the discretion of the owner.
105. WATER IMPOUNDMENTS
Detention, equalization, and pressurization facilities required to treat and store
water prior to distribution to raw water or potable water customers
106. ZONING CATEGORY
A classification used to group Zoning District designations into a broader class of
uses under which the specific Zoning District designation falls.
107. ZONING DISTRICT
A specifically delineated area within which regulations exist to govern use,
placement, spacing, and size of lots, parcels and buildings.
42
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
APPENDIX A: ZONING, USE, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
TABLES
Table 1 and 2 provide the Zoning Category and Zoning District designations for all proposed
lots and tracts approved as part of the PUD Plan. The use designations identified hereon
represent the intended use designation of each lot and tract for purposes of applying the
provisions of this PUD Guide. Table 2 is sorted by Filing, Block, Lot/Tract.
Table 3 identifies the principal and accessory uses permitted in each Zoning District within
the REC PUD.
Table 4 identifies the dimensional standards applicable to each Zoning District.
A-1
Residential Use
i
0
m c
'2
~
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Table 1. Zoning Districts Table by Zoning Category and District
Zonmg Category F11ing# Block# LotfTract #
1 83 1·10
Attached Home (39 Lots/Units) 2 87 13·18
2 88 6·10
Estate (8 Lots/Units) 6 819 1·8
Executive (1 LoUUnit) 6 822 1
1 84 1·9
1 85 1·5
1 86 1·25
2 88 1·5
3 89 1, 3·18
3 810 1·18
Town (167 Lots/Units) 4 811 1·16
4 813 1·11
4 814 1·5
4 815 1-12
5 81 1·18
5 82 1·9
6 820 1·13
6 821 1·4
2 87 1-12
3 89 2
Village (56 Lots/Units) 4 812 1·8
6 816 1·11
6 817 1·13
6 818 1·11
1A 825 1·11
18 826 1·7
Garden Home (95 Lots/Units) 2A 824 1·15
4A 823 1·10
5A 827 1·8
A-2
Communltv Uses
"' E
.~ c
m c
'2
0
N
Riaht·of·Wav Uses
i
m c
'2
~
Utilih Uses
:.>l'l
·-'1:: c-~cS
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Table 1. Zoning District Table by Zoning Category and District {Continued)
Zoning Category F11ing# Block# Lot/Tract#
1 AH, AP, AU
2 BH1, BH2
Open Space (11 Tracts) 3 BB
4 BN, 80
5 AN
6 AQ, CE
1 AC, AE, AV, AY
2 80, BE, BF, BG
Common Area (20 Tracts) 3 BT,BU,BV
4 BK, BL, BQ, BR, BS
5 AL,Al
6 AT,CD
1 AB
Garden/Orchard (3 Tracts) 2 BA
5 AM
Neighborhood Center (1 Tract) 1 AA
1 AI
Park 2 81
3 BJ
6 AX
1 RC,RF
2 RB
3 RD
4 RA, RH
5 RG
Right·of·Way (14 Tracts) 6 RE
1A AD1
18 AJ1
2A BC1
4A BM1, 8M2
SA AK1
lrrigaUon and Maintenance ( 1 Tract) 1 AG
Right-of-Way (14 Tracts) 1 RC, RF
6 AR
A-3
F1lmg #
1
1A
1B
2
2A
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Table 2. Zoning District Table by Filing, Block and Lot'·2
Block# Lot!Tract# Zonmg D1strict 1
B3 1-10 ATTACHED HOME
B4 1-9
B5 1-5 TOWN
B6 1-25
AA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
AB GARDEN/ORCHARD
AC,AE COMMON AREA
AG IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE
AH OPEN SPACE
Tracts
AI PARK
AO WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY
AP,AU OPEN SPACE
AV,AY COMMON AREA
RC, RF RIGHT-OF-WAY
Residential Lots/Units 59
Filing 1 Totals
Tracts 14
B25 1·11 GAROEN HOME
Tracts AD1 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Residential Lots/Units 21
Filing 1A Totals
Tracts 1
B26 1-7 GARDEN HOME
Tracts AJ1 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Residential Lots/Units 13
FJ/Ing 18 Totals
Tracts 1
B7 1-12 VILLAGE
B7 13-18 ATTACHED HOME
B8 1-5 TOWN
B8 6-10 ATTACHED HOME
BA GARDEN/ORCHARD
BD, BE, BF, BG COMMON AREA
Tracts
BH2 OPEN SPACE
RB RIGHT-OF-WAY
Residential Lots/Units 36
FJ/Ing 2 Totals
Tracts 7
B24 1-15 GARDEN HOME
Tracts BC1 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Residential Lots/Units 28
Filing 2A Totals
Tracts 1
A-4
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Table 2. Zoning District Table by Filing, Block and Lot (Continued)
F11ing # Block# Lot/Tract# Zomng D1stnct1
89 1 TOWN
89 2 VILLAGE
89 3-18
TOWN
810 1-18
3
88, 8H1 OPEN SPACE
81 PARK
Tracts
8T,8U,8V COMMON AREA
RD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Residential Lots/Units 36
Filing 3 Totals
Tracts 7
811 1-16 TOWN
812 1-8 VILLAGE
813 1-11
814 1-5 TOWN
815 1-12
4 BJ PARK
8K, BL COMMON AREA
Tracts BN, 80 OPEN SPACE
BQ, BR, BS COMMON AREA
RA, RH RIGHT-OF-WAY
Residential Lots/Units 52
Filing 4 Totals
Tracts 10
823 1-10 GARDEN HOME
4A
Tracts BM1, 8M2 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Residential Lots/Units 19
Filing 4A Totals
Tracts 2
81 1-18
TOWN
82 1-9
AL COMMON AREA
5 AM GARDEN/ORCHARD
Tracts AN OPEN SPACE
p;z COMMON AREA
RG RIGHT-OF-WAY
Residential Lots/Units 27
Filing 5 Totals
Tracts 5
A-5
PUO Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Table 2. Zoning District Table by Filing, Block and Lot {Continued)
F1lmg# Block# Lotrrract# Zomng District1
5A B27 1·8 GARDEN HOME
5A Tracts AK1 RIGHT·OF·WAY
Residential Lots/Units 14
FJ/Ing 5A Totals
Tracts 1
Bl6 I· II
Bll 1·13 VILLAGE
Bl8 I· II
Bl9 1·8 ESTATE
B20 1-13
TOWN
B21 1·4
B22 I EXECUTIVE
6
AQ OPEN SPACE
AR WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY
AT COMMON AREA
Tracts AX PARK
CD COMMON AREA
CE OPEN SPACE
RE RIGHT·OF·WAY
Residential Lots/Units 61
FJ/Ing 6 Totals
Tracts 7
A-6
p p
Facilities N N N N N p N
Stops, Benches, and Shelters N N N N N p N
Garden/Orchard N N N N N N N
Identification Signage N N N N N p p
!community Meeting Facility or Recreation Hall N N N N N p N
Service Facilities N N N N N p N
N N N N N p N
L L L N N N N
Home L L L N N N N
A A A A A N N
Uses N N N N N N N
p p p p p N N
!Recreation and Services, Active N N N N N p N
!Recreation, Passive N N N N N p p
~afety Services Facilities N N N N N p N
p p p p p p p
Unit Dwelling N N N p p N N
Distribution and Collection Systems p p p p p p p
l> .:.. Facilities N N N N N N N
Impoundments N N N N N N p
Land Use Symbols: P-Permitted as a Principal Use; N -Not Permitted; A-Administrative Review (ULUR), L-Limited Impact Review (ULUR)
p p p
N N N p
p p p N
p N p N
p p p p
N N N N
N N p p
N N N N
N N N N
N N N N
N N N N
N N N N
N N N N
p p p p
p p p p
N N N N
p p p p
N N N N
p p p p
p N p p
p p p p
p p
p N
N p
N N
p N
N N
p N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
p p
p p
N N
p p
N N
p p
p N
p N
<;!
~
!'-'
:;;:
<\)
<;!
o-
ib
, <.
~
m
0.
'ill
n
0
0
~
0.
S>
"'~ ~~ o.ro
n< o ro
~.g
"' 3 nro
0 ;::.
OG>
0:: !:.
0. 0. o ro
Table 4. Dimensional Standards
Max1mum
M1mmum Minimum Building Maximum Front
Lot S1ze Lot W1dth Coverage Floor Area Setback
Zomng Category and District (ft') (ft) (%) (It') (It)
Residential Use
Attached Home 3200
4500 50 60 (5000)' 25
Estate 9000 50 50 6000 25
Executive 43560 100 30 12000 15
Garden Home 3600
2100 20 80 ISOOOl' 10
Town 5900 50 50 3600 15
Village 5000 50 60 3200 10
Community Uses
Common Area NA NA 10 NA 10
Garden/Orchard NA NA 10 NA 10
Neighborhood Center Building
NA NA Envelooe 10000 1Q10
Open Space NA NA NA NA 10
Park NA NA NA NA 10
Rlght·of·Way Uses
Right-of-Way NA NA NA NA NA
Utility Uses
Irrigation and Maintenance Building See PUD
NA NA Envelope Plan3 5
Water and Wastewater Utility Building See PUD
NA NA Envelope Plan 3 5
Notes:
1 Rear setback shall be reduced to 7 feet when lot is alley loaded.
2 (XXXX) indicates total square footage of both dwelling units when dwellings are attached.
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
Rear Side Side Street Maximum
Setback Setback Setback Building
(It) (ft) (It) Height (ft)
7 0 10 35
10 5 15 35
15 15 15 35
18 5 5 25
10 (7)' 5 10 35
10 (7)' 5 5 25
10 10 10 15
10 10 10 15
1Q10 1Q10 1Q10 35
10 10 10 10
10 10 10 25
NA NA NA NA
5 5 5 25
5 5 5 25
3 Limited to 20000 square feet total on alllrrioation and Maintenance and Water and Wastewater Utility Tracts combined.
A-8
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado
APPENDIX B: ROAD STANDARDS
All roads, alleys and courts within the REC PUD shall be constructed in accordance with the
standards and specifications contained in this appendix.
8·1
FILE NAME: P:\CARBONOALE INVESTMENTS\06.00 DESIGN TASKS\06.02 -TASK 02 PRWU PL.AT\ENGINHRING & DESIGN\CAO\EXHIBITS\MISC REPORT FIGURES\PUO-STREETIYPSEC.OWG
PLOT DATE/TIME: 8/5/2011 12:16 PU
PLOTTED BY: CHRIS SNYDER
PLOT STYLE: 8140CAD_MSTANDARO.cTB
0 !1!~1 !!'~?.. n /)' ~
g ! 0 ~ .g i!!~1' oo
•• CQ ,, CD' ~~ ez g:!! •
coO\' ;;oE! ~-:l o• ROAD DESIGN TABLE .....
o@ )> ~
~~ c ENTRY ALLEY GARDEN EMERGENCY
::l. c CRITERIA ROAD LOCAL I HOME VEHICLE
:I COURT ACCESS ACCESS (EVA) CD m
~ en DESIGN CAPACITY (ADT) 8,000 ·"' 5,DOO <500 <500 N/A
G> DESIGN SPEED (MPH) 25 25 N/A N/A N/A ,... ,... z POSTED SPEED (MPH) 25 25 N/A N/A N/A 0 -1 PAVEMENT WIDTH (FT) (LANES) 24 (2)' .35 (2)2 24 (2)' 20 (2)4 20
)> MIN. HORIZONTAL RADIUS (FT) 185 80 50 50 N/A Ill DESIGN VEHICLE WB-50 WB 4D BUS 40 BUS 40 BUS 40 r m CURB RETURN RADII (FT) 30' 20' N/A N/A N/A
MAX. GRADE (,-;) 8 8 8 8 8
CROSS SLOPE (%) 2 2 2 N/A N/A
SURFACE ASPHALT ASPHALT ASPHALT ASPHALT ASPHALT
' TWO 1 2' TRAVEL LANES PLUS RAISED MEDIAN (VARYING WIDTH) AND NO ON STREET PARKING.
2 TWO 10" TRAVEL LANES AND ON-STREET PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
, TWO 10" TRAVEL LANES AND 2' SHOULDERS.
• TWO 1 D' TRAVEL LANES.
m 0 • • ~ [ 5'
1'!'
~ -~
~ i!3 )> 0 "0 ~ ,
~
~
FILE NAME: P:\CARBONDALE IIW(STU(NTS\06.00 DESIGN TASKS\06.02 -TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT\ENGIN[(RING & 0[SIGN\CA0\EXHIBITS\MISC REPORT FIGURES\PUD-STREETTYPSEC.DWG
PLOT DATE/TIME: 1/17/2011 11:11 AM
PLOTTED BY: DAVE HOPTA
PLOT STYLF: llt40CAD I.!STANDARD_CTR
(") .... (") .., 0 • •• !rlt' ~
m ~-~c-:~ ~ ·'" "',. "'-) I <
n"':r(J / ~
0 ~ 0 ~ ~ q~§rl? ~
~0
~·
coOl' ~· ...,;: o• ~
-c~
0)-:c::
::l.
::1
C!>
jl
,...
h
)>
"C
N
" "' w
m ;
~
~ -1m ii' -< ><" ,en
--~ o_
l>z
'G> en en
m::I:
Ooo
-IN o:e Z-
0 m z
z
G>
~ -~
~
0
~
~
~
~
... ?>:\ .
VARIES -EXIST. COOT ROW
4.00"
PAVED 12.00' 12.00' 12.00' VARIES 12.00' VARIES VARIES
IS<D~:.ERI --~~Di~ I --"~j~----~----~'!NE ___ rOe MW1w2~ '~~NE I ~'t~ ____ l ____ "'tNE I
WU~JVAf~?PdiJ-___________ , _____________ j]-lbw:rw~!4J -_________ : ____ ========~~->I<_>L"'
01
EXISTING SH82 WIDENING
(DCRUSHED SURFACING
TOP COURSE
TYPICAL SECTION
(DHOT MIX ASPHALT Q.~FT
r
(
CD CRUSHED SURFACING J
BASE COURSE
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MAY BE
REQUIRED DEPENDING ON SOIL
CON01TIONS
DETAIL A
SCALE: N.T.S.
_l_
\
{x\
L!!__j
NOTES:
CD THIS STREET ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL 1\SPHALT
CONCRETE ROAD SECTION.
® SEE TABLE D-2 FOR SlOE SLOPE REQUIREMENTS.
3. GRADES:
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
0.5%
8.0%
FILE NAME: ?:\CARBONDALE INVESTI.lENTS\06.00 DESIGN TASKS\06.02 -TASK 02 PRELII.t PLAT\ENGINEERING & OESIGN\CAO\£XKIBITS\I.IISC REPORT riGURCS\PUO-STREETTYPSEC.OWG
PLOT DATE/TIME: 1/17/2011 11:11 Al.l
PLOTTED BY: DAVE HOPTA
PLOT S"NLE: 8140CAO_~STANMRD.CTB
-, ~ o•o !rlr 'l •
m ~-w ,-...,x ~ g.:;Ht ')I!!!. -·~~ n /k, <l 0 < 0 •
0 • ( ). " ~~5 --71
;; ~ $:~11 ;.o so
·~ cg oo ..... •• ..
i~
co~ ~· ..,.11 -I 0 ~ -< 0 .. o• ~
"tl~ ., ..
s-
(1)
_;!
r-r-
0
c.>
)>
"0
"0
"' ...
m • ~
~
"tlr -r om
)>0
r-1 cno m:;a
0(/)
::!-1
O:;a zm
m
-1
~ ::;:
~
0
~
~
i
5.00'
~
5.00'
~
{]CRUSHED SURFACING
TOP COURSE
G_)HOT MIX ASPHALT o.~FT
= )
CD CRUSHED SURFACING
BASE COURSE
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MAY BE
REQUIRED DEPENDING ON SOIL
CONDITIONS
DETAIL A
SCALE: N.T.S.
COLLECTOR STREET
TYPICAL SECTION
fx\
l___o_j
.2!!
I I o.·o ·1
LO_o_o4.....__DRY UTILI"N
NOTES:
0) THIS STREET ILLUSTRATES A "NPICAL ASPHALT
CONCRETE ROAD SECTION.
® SEE TABLE 0-2 FOR SIDE SLOPE REQUIREMENTS .
.3. GRADES:
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
0.5%
8.0%
TRENCH "NP
FILE NAME: P:\CARBONOALE INVESTMENTS\06.00 DESIGN TASKS\06.02 -TASK 02 PRELIM PLAl\HIGINEERINC & DESICN\CAD\EXHIBITS\MISC REPORT FIGURES\PUD-STREETIYPSCC.DWC
PLOT DATE/TIME: 1/17/2011 11:11 AlA
PLOTTED BY: DAVE HOPTA
PLOT STYLE: 8140CAD_MSTANOARO.CT6
II ~~~~~~ j g ~o" /)' 6-. '(, ~ "' .. t""' <!> ~ ! ~ ).9!1 " 50cr ~ CfS·
" " "
co'l' ~· ..,.;: o• ~ -cor "' .. ::I.
:I
"' jil
r r
(')
)>
"' "'
~
(n
....
m
X
" ~
~
-1m;;: -< z ..
"tl-1
0~ ~z cno m!!! ocn
-t::I: -co o..., z-z
-1 m
~ m
0
-1
0 z
~ -~
~
0
~
~
c
~
6.00"
~
ENTRANCE/SH82 INTERSECTION
TYPICAL SECTION
G)cRUSHED SURF/ICING
TOP COURSE
G)HOT MIX ASPHALT o.~FT
G) CRUSHED SURFACING
BASE COURSE
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MAY BE
REQUIRED DCPENDING ON SOIL
CONDITIONS
DETAIL A
SCALE: N.T.S.
fx\
L..!LI
~
<7.
NOTES:
G) THIS STREET ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL ASPHALT
CONCRETE ROAD SECTION.
0 SEE TABLE 0-2 F"OR SIDE SLOPE REQUIREMENTS.
3. GRADES:
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
0.57.
8.07.
0 DITCH SECTIONS AND/OR LOCATIONS MAY VARY TO
MEET REQUIREMENTS.
FILE NAME: P:\CARBONDALE INV(STIAENTS\05.00 DESIGN TASKS\06.02 -TASK 02 PR[LII.t PLAT\ENGINEERING & DESIGN\CAD\EXHIBITS\I.tiSC REPORT FIGUR(S\PUO-Sll<EETTYPSEC.OWG
PLOT DATEjTIME: 1/11/2011 11:11 AM
PLOTTED BY: DAVE HOPTA
PLOT STYLE: B140CAO_MSTANDARD.CTB
n n ° • • !'r'lr" •
l i ~~:~I os-n /:':1 1 2.. o~O;;; .g "" "'t-' <I> ;; l'o '/,1? ,
w ~~~/ 50
.CQ ~ (1)
~ ~
co~ ~· .... ~ 0~
"tl~
1»':<:
-1 r"' -< 0"
~.
5.00"
EASEMENT
1. ;I
5.00"
SIDEWALK 5.00"
2r.
1··:<>·.0
" I--....._ DRY UTILITY
Lo_o_O_J TRENCH TYP.
'" ALTERNATE LOCATION/
WHEN ROAD CAN NOT
ACCOT.IIMODATE GAS
8.00'
1150
·~~·
m
~~
SANITARY
55.00' -ROW
10.00'
_E.,--,
I
I
~\ ~a: ~ ~t
10.00"
,.
STORM
SEWER
a.oo·
1.50" CURB &
GUTTER TYP. I
"~~
~~ .,;;::,;
~POTABLE t'-" WATER
5.00"
5.00'
SIDEWALK
2%
I
I o O· I
Lo_o_o.J
5.00'
EASEMENT
..~
~~ o> , . ~WATER
:::1.
:I
J!O
o)>
)>r
rcn
cn-1 m;;o om -lm
BURY DEPTH TO
BE DETERMINED BY
GAS ...1. SEWERA i 5.00" MIN. I to.oo· MIN. 1 1 to.oo· MIN.
(!)
.9l ,... ,...
(')
(II
l>
"0
"0
"' in
m
X
~
~
--I 0 z
~ -~
~
0
~
~
0
~
GAS COMPANY TYP.
(!)CRUSHED SURFACING
TOP COURSE
LOCAL STREET
TYPICAL SECTION
(!)HOT t.JIIX ASPHALT O.~FT
G) GROSe ED SCREAC<NG J
BASE COURSE
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MAY BE
REQUIRED DEPENDING ON SOIL
CONDITIONS
DETAIL A
SCALE: N.T.S.
:1-"
fx\
l___><_j
NOTES:
G)
@
THIS STREET ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL ASPHALT
CONCRETE ROAD SECTION.
SEE TABLE 0-2 FOR SIDE SLOPE REQUIREMENTS.
3. GRADES:
MINit.JIUM
MAXIMUM
0.5%
8.0%
FILE NAME: P:\ChRBONOALE INV[STMENTS\06.00 DESIGN TASKS\05.02 -TASK 02 PR(UM PLAT\(NGIN((RING & 0ESIGN\CAO\£XHIBITS\I.IISC REPORT riGURES\PUD-STREEHYPSEC.DWG
PLOT DATE/TIME: 1/17/2011 11:11 AU
PLOTTED BY: DAVE HOPTA
PLOT SlYLE: B140CAD_MSTANOARD.CTB
0 , ~ m ~~~~.-~ ~ g.-=<:~ 't ) I !!. "~' n ~ 4l 0 , 0 •
0 m r-< ;'! ~ ~~§f~r ;.a oo
~~ ~'
oo ..... t:;; •z ~R
co~ ~· ... ~ o• ~
~~
::1.
" ..
~
_UJ ,... ,...
(')
,.
'C
" "' .:,
"'
~
~
-1 )> g -< r" "'tlr -m 0-< )>
rcn
cn-1 m;u om -lm --I
0 z
~ -~
i!3
0
~
~
0
it
I '0 '-1 ,<00 -I ~~. I 12.00· I 12.00·
~~''' ~ ! _,--,_~ '~I
I
I o o ,:I
LO_O_O.J
I -.... """ i~l@
SANITARY
SCWER
5.00' MIN. 10.00" MIN.
(i)CRUSHED SURFACING
TOP COURSE
ALLEY STREET
TYPICAL SECTION
(i)HOT MIX ASPHALT O.~rT
_l_
I
(i) CRUSHED SURFACING J
BASE COURSE
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MAY BE
REQUIRED DEPENDING ON SOIL
CONDITIONS
DETAIL A
SCALE: N.T.S.
_.l
J,
{x\
LLJ
-~~
~>
POTABLE
WATER
NOTES:
(i) THIS STREET ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL ASPHALT
CONCRETE ROAD SECTION.
0 SEE TABLE D-2 FOR SIDE SLOPE REQUIREMENTS.
3 GRADES:
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
0.5%
8.0%
PUD Development Guide
River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado