Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.00 Response to Rev Agency Comments 06.30.2011COLORADO RESPONSE TO REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS 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 JUNE 30, 2011 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado RESPONSE TO REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS RIVER EDGE COLORADO GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 7 II. RESPONSE TO REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS ................................... 7 A. COUNTY ENGINEERING REVIEW-MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. 7 1. SOURCE OF WATER .................................................................................... 7 2. ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................ 8 3. GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS ......................................................................... 9 4. FLOODPLAIN PERMIT FOR BRIDGE .......................................................... 1D 5. SUBDRAINS .............................................................................................. 11 6. WAIVER OF STORMWATER DETENTION FOR PEAK FLOW ....................... 12 7. WAIVER OF ROAD STANDARDS ................................................................ 12 8. SINGLE ACCESS ........................................................................................ 13 9. ACCESS PERMIT ....................................................................................... 14 10. ACCESS DESIGN ........................................................................................ 14 11. OFF-SITE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ...................................... 14 12. RAW WATER SYSTEM DESIGN .................................................................. 15 13. IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTROLS .............................................................. 15 14. IRRIGATION AROUND BUILDINGS ............................................................ 15 15. FORCE MAIN MANHOLE ODORS ............................................................. 16 16. DISCHARGE TO WETLANDS ..................................................................... 16 17. 404 PERMIT ............................................................................................. 17 18. TRAFFIC IMPACTS FROM HOME OCCUPATIONS ...................................... 17 19. PARKING FOR PARKS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 1) ................................. 17 20. LOCATION OF PARK FACILITIES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 2) .................. 18 21. TRAFFIC CALMING ISLAND (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 3} ........................ 18 22. CONNECTIONS TO RFTA TRAIL (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 4) .................. 18 23. ROAD GRADES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 5) ........................................... 19 24. ROUNDABOUT RETURNS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 6} .......................... 19 2 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 25. PAVEMENT DESIGN (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 7) ................................... 19 26. SITE GRADING ALONG NORTH SIDE (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 8) .......... 20 27. CHANNEL MATERIALS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 9) ............................... 20 28. CHANNEL LOCATIONS AND SLOPES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 10) ........ 20 29. RELEASE STRUCTURE DESIGNS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 11) ............... 21 30. INLETS AT INTERSECTIONS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 12) ...................... 21 31. CHERT COURT DRAINAGE (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 13) ....................... 21 32. COORDINATION OF UTILITIES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 14) ................. 22 33. STORM INLET INSTEAD OF TEES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 15) ............. 22 34. LOW SPOTS AT LOT (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 16) .................................. 23 35. BENCH ON GLENWOOD DITCH (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 17) ............... 23 36. WATER ON BRIDGE (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 18) ................................. 23 37. ACCESS TO HIGHWAY GRADING (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 19) .............. 23 38. ACCESS TO EXECUTIVE LOT (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 20) ..................... 24 39. ENERGY GRADE AND MANHOLE (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 21) ............. 24 40. STORM DRAIN GRADE (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 22) ............................. 24 41. PARALLEL STORM DRAINS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 23) ....................... 25 42. FORCE MAIN CORROSION (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 24) ....................... 25 43. ADJACENT MANHOLES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 25) ............................ 25 44. RFWSD APPROVAL (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 26) .................................. 26 45. SERVICE LINES STUBBED (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 27) ......................... 26 46. BRIDGE ABUTMENT AND UTILITIES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 28) ........ 26 47. WATER LINE FREEZING (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 29) ............................ 26 48. ORE COURT LINE ELEVATIONS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 30) ................. 27 B. RESPONSE COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE (CDOW) ......................... 27 1. GENERAL WILDLIFE COMMENT ............................................................... 27 C. RESPONSE TO USACOE. ........................................................................ 28 1. 404 PERMIT ...........................................................................................•. 28 D. RESPONSE TO USFWS .......................................................................... 29 1. UTE LADIES TRESSES ORCHID AND 404 PERMIT ...................................... 29 E. RESPONSE TO CARBONDALE AND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ...• 30 1. FIRE ACCESS ROADS ................................................................................. 30 2. WATER SUPPLY ......................................................................................... 30 3. IMPACT FEE .............................................................................................. 31 3 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado F. RESPONSE TO GARFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF ........................................... 31 1. EMERGENCY ACCESS ............................................................................... 31 2. INGRESS AND EGRESS AT HIGHWAY 82 ................................................... 31 G. RESPONSE TO GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE ........................... 31 1. WATER TANK ............................................................................................ 31 2. COMMERCIAL SPACE AND TRAFFIC ......................................................... 32 3. LOCATION OF LOTS AND TRACTS ............................................................. 32 4. HIGHWAY 82 DESIGN AND APPROACH .................................................... 32 5. HIGHWAY 82 SHOULDER AND ISLANDS ................................................... 33 6. HIGHWAY 82 EAST ACCESS ...................................................................... 33 7. ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVES FOR INTERNAL INTERSECTION ................ 34 H. RESPONSE TO CDOT COMMENTS .......................................................... 34 1. ACCESS APPLICATION PROCESS ............................................................... 34 I. RESPONSE TO RFTA COMMENTS .......................................................... 35 1. CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ACCESS TO TRANSIT ... 35 2. RIO GRAND TRAIL CROSSING ................................................................... 35 J. RESPONSE TO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES COMMENTS ................. 36 1. EQR VALUE ............................................................................................... 36 2. ADEQUATE WATER ................................................................................... 37 K. RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT COMMENTS ..... 37 1. WATER SUPPLY PLAN ............................................................................... 37 2. MAINTENANCE OF COMMUNITY AMENITIES ......................................... 38 3. USE OF AUTOS AND DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL .......................... 39 4. COST OF MAINTENANCE ......................................................................... 39 L. RESPONSE TO COUNTY VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUPERVISOR COMMENTS .................................................................................................... 40 1. EXISTING WEED MANAGEMENT ............................................................ .40 2. WEED MANAGEMENT BEFORE DEVELOPMENT ..................................... .40 3. WEED MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN CCRS ..................................... 40 4. WEED MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN OSMP ................................... 41 5. REVEGETATION PLAN ............................................................................... 41 M. RESPONSE TO CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS COMMENTS ..................... 42 1. DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS ..•.................................................. 42 2. DEVELOPMENT OF OVERALL PARCEL ...................................................... 42 3. CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/HOUSING DEMAND ..... 42 4 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 4. FISCAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................... .43 5. ELK IMPACTS ........................................................................................... .44 6. TRAFFIC .................................................................................................... 44 7. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE.. ................................................................. 44 8. INTERACTION WITH RFTA ROW ............................................................... 45 9. REMAINDER OF PROPERTY ..................................................................... .45 N. RESPONSE TO GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMENTS .... 45 1. RELEASE OF REQUIREMENTS ................................................................... 46 2. INCOME QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................... 46 3. RENTAL .................................................................................................... 46 4. AMENDMENT OF AFPA ............................................................................ 47 5. SINGLE FAMILY VS. ATTACHED HOMES .................................................... 47 6. AF HOME DELIVERY AND PHASING ........................................................ .48 7. HOME IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................... 48 0. RESPONSE TO COLORADO GEOLOGIC SURVEY COMMENTS .................... 48 1. SECURING MITIGATION ........................................................................... 48 2. AVOIDANCE BASED ON NEW FINDINGS .................................................. 49 3. CRITICAL ROAD SECTIONS ....................................................................... 49 4. STEEP ESCARPMENT ................................................................................ 49 5. SELECTION OF ROAD AND UTILITY MITIGATION ..................................... 50 6. MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 50 7. RISKS ........................................................................................................ 51 P. RESPONSE TO SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1 COMMENTS ............................... 51 1. SCHOOL SITE DEDICATION ....................................................................... 51 ATIACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A: EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS ATTACHMENT B: ROUNDABOUT RADII ATTACHMENT C: RELEASE STRUCTURES ATTACHMENT D: EXECUTIVE LOT ACCESS ATTACHMENT E: CDOW RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 5 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado AITACHMENT F: RESPONSE TO WATER ADEQUACY COMMENTS (DWR) 6 I. INTRODUCTION Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado This constitutes the official Carbondale Investments, LLC ("CI") response to agency comments ("Response") and has been prepared in support of an application for PUD 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 REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS A. COUNTY ENGINEERING REVIEW-MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. 1. SOURCE OF WATER Comment: The Applicant proposes two options for providing water to the subdivision: either connection to the Roaring Fork 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 with 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. Response: The Applicant is currently in the process of negotiating an agreement with RFWSD for water and sewer services. RFWSD's commitment to serve the development with these services provides that they have determined that the well capacity in their fields is adequate to serve the Project. RFWSD has determined during these negotiations that their wells have adequate capacity as they currently exist to serve the Project and will not require that new wells or a surface water treatment plant be constructed. If Cl fails to reach an agreement with the RFWSD and is required to construct a public community surface water treatment plant ("SWTP"), various parameters will need to be further investigated to support the design of the proposed public community potable water supply system including water quality testing. 8140 Partners, LLC has investigated the proposed diversion location and determined that diversion from the Roaring Fork River is feasible within the stretch identified in the Water Treatment and Distribution Report. Further, 8140 Partners, LLC has reviewed the available water quality data for the Roaring Fork River and the design and function of the SWTP at Carbondale. Based upon its review, 8140 Partners, LLC has determined that surface water quality in the 7 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Roaring Fork River is adequate to provide for the use as a potable water supply for the Project using "off-the-shelf" or traditional treatment technologies. Further detail concerning the design of the public community SWTP is premature until the land use framework for the property is approved by Garfield County. Adequate information is available and has been reviewed to date which justifies the source and SWTP's feasibility. If Cl must provide its own public community water supply, CDPHE approvals of the water supply system will be obtained prior to final plat. 2. ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY Comment: Depending on if the Applicant provides their own sewer and water connections, the Applicant will need to adjust their potable water analysis to use EQR values congruent with 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 would be expected, if any. Response (Also see response to DWR Comments): The ULUR specifies an adequate water supply (Article VII, Section 7-104) must be provided based on 350 gpd per residential unit. However, the ULUR also states that the water distribution system shall be designed for peak demand (Article VII, Section 7-106). "Adequate water supply" should not be confused with water treatment and delivery capacity or actual residential use. Adequate Water Supply is defined by the ULUR as: "A water supply that will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development in terms of quality, quantity, dependability, and availability to provide a supply of water for the type of development proposed, and may include reasonable conservation measures and water demand management measures to account for hydrologic variability. Water quality shall be demonstrated by complying with the Colorado Department of Public Health." The availability of a "water supply" meeting the minimum required 350 gpd per residential unit is documented in the Water Supply Report including the Micheal Erion report therein, and is explained further in the documentation presented by Wayne Forman as part of this response to comments. In keeping with Section 7-104 and Section 7-106, the total water available, potable and non-potable sources, to support indoor and outdoor peak use exceeds 350 gpd per residential unit. No attempt has been made by Cl to assert that the EQR basis for determination of "Adequate Water Supply" is 189 gpd per residential unit as claimed by the DWR. Actual potable water usage estimates, including information provided by RFWSD (72 gpd per residential unit) and Town of Carbondale (52 gpd per capita) representing total household use within their district as well as demands documented in several studies, indicate that potable indoor water demand is much lower than 350 gpd. By way of example, the American Water Works 8 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Association Research Foundation (AWWARF) Residential End Uses of Water Study {REUWS), the mean indoor residential per capita consumption for the North American cities in the study was 69.3 gpcd (with a range from 57.1 to 83.5 gpcd between cities). This per capita water use was determined by REUWS through one of the most comprehensive water use metering programs ever completed and included 1,188 households in 12 U.S. communities. Cl believes that Article VII, Section 7-104 of the ULUR is being misinterpreted by the MCE by suggesting that 350 gpd per residential unit is a reasonable baseline for water delivery system design and that peaking factors must additionally be considered for a delivery system under Section 7-106. The combination of these two sections would result in substantial overdesign of the potable water system, not to mention the sewage treatment system, and result in operational inefficiencies and system deficiencies due to insufficient flows. 8140 Partners, LLC has used documented design parameters consistent with industry practices and RFWSD standards for the design of the water treatment and delivery, as well as the sewage collection and treatment systems. Based on 8140 Partners, LLC'c calculations, 350 gpd per residential unit may be an appropriate design number when considering peaking factors and outdoor use, but not as a baseline for potable water system design for indoor use. While Cl agrees, that 350 gpd per residential unit is an appropriate basis for determining "adequate water supply" in terms of both legal right and source of supply, it is inappropriate to utilize this rate for water system design purposes and inconsistent with industry practices. In the event that the Project's water and sanitation needs are provided by RFWSD, any new facilities will be designed to meet RFWSD standards. If Cl provides central water and sewer services, the water and sewer system will be designed for appropriate demand and treatment conditions based on CDPHE guidelines and industry standards as detailed in the Water Treatment and Delivery Design Report. It is understood that a change in the existing water rights decree (case no. 01 CW187) is necessary to divert water through a surface water intake along the Roaring Fork River. The change in water decree has been requested, although, Cl currently believes that potable water will be delivered through RFWSD sources. Cl has significant concerns if Garfield County continues to maintain that the indoor potable water system treatment and delivery system must be designed based on 350 gpd per residential unit. 3. GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS Comment: 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. Response {See also response to CGS Comments): 9 4. Re sponse to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado It is impossible to guess at the nature of any changes to lot layout or site density that might result from further geotechnical investigations. The site has been reasonable assessed to date and the plan built upon that assessment. Therefore, no substantial modifications are anticipated. Cl, based on the advice of HP Geotech, has taken an extremely conservative design approach. The current plan generally avoids areas impacted by geotechnical hazards, corrects certain hazards during reclamation to avoid further deformation, and identifies m itigation measures to be employed where hazards cannot be avoided. Based on the work completed to date, significant plan modifications are not anticipated. Carbondale Investments, LLC has proposed conducting site specific and comprehensive geotechnical evaluations during Phase 0 Reclamation solely as a precaution . As the site is re-graded, mitigation measures will be implemented, as appropriate as detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan . Where, based on the findings of said further investigations, mitigation is not practicable or would not provide the safety required as determined by the geotechnical and design engineers, plan modifications would be necessary. If the plan modifications are considered Substantial Modifications under the PUD Guide, an amended PUD application will be submitted to provide for these modifications. FLOODPLAIN PERMIT FOR BRIDGE ~. Comment: The proposed bridge crossing of Cattle Creek may require a floodplain permit and/or LOMR from FEMA depending on its impact to the floodplain. The Applicant will need to address this issue . Response: Since the Project is currently in the preliminary phase of design, no permits have been pursued . Cl recognizes that all floodplain activities must conform to County's adopted floodplain regulations and approvals must be obtained. Numerous development activities, including potentially the proposed bridge across Cattle Creek, will likely involve floodplain permits from Garfield County . It is not anticipated, based on a preliminary assessment and modeling, that any of De'( ~~ the proposed activities will result in requiring a LOMR. This issue is most l - appropriately further addressed at final design/final pia ( Th e current designs ~~. n would meet all floodplain development standards contained in the ULUR . As ~ designs are refined during final design, impacts to floodplains will be minimiz~d p{W ~ to the maximum extent practicable so as to ensure that a LOMR is not require ~+ be, o'v.W. \M..(~ c."). ?v,of --ru -r r 10 5 . SUBDRAINS Comment : Respon se to Agency Comments Ri ver Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 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 infiltration. Infiltrating water on top of the site soils, most notably the Evaporite, would increase the t ~ likelihood for potential damage due to settling. The Applicant should consider a '('-} project wide method for suitable gravity outlet for foundation drains.~Jf: ~~ Response (See also response to CGS Comments): .r. c._ L .... c. ~: e jc..t::*-~~~rt I.J ()O~ \~1( Basements are generally not proposed except walk out basements along the western edge of the site . Drainage can be directed towards open spaces by means of gravity flow. A detailed approach will be developed at final plat when final grading is prepared and a full understanding of residential unit types is developed. A statement will be added to the Use and Performance Standards section of the PUD Guide to ensure that this will be further addressed at time of platting or at time of home design and construction . It should be noted that the site is generally well drained and subsurface water is deep (,>2.01 fe v t Uic~oss t t:!_1 bv£f-- developable portion of the proposed PUD . fY6J..1 ti, ~ CJ1'""0\W\.Cl'21\.1 • ? ~~lzavt ~lM.ou.s . L L _ --'-J..r'~tn.? t-Subdrains are generally employed to protect foundations from wetting and J{twu(;li'V'\ ~If h-"' .JI'I~ hydrostatic forces. As noted by HP Geotech, these conditions do not generally "r{IJ(l "'l~ WV1CN~ exist on the site except in lower lying areas which are all within open space ln\' I f_,J" U .. 6 r& tracts, at the southern end of the site, and potentially in association with clay • v ~V~;1r"' rr ~ A. lenses . The water, if any, that exists in the soil at the elevations at which homes ~ 'JI.,t, ~ W' will be constructed under the plan does not impact or come into contact with ,.;./~ f the Evaporite since the Evaporite is located at some depth below the \IIi'\ · -• , foundations. Although it appears that Mountain Cross Engineering and CGS that subdrains represent a mitigation measure for Evaporite, subdrains in this location do not provide protection from or significantly alter impacts of groundwater on the Evaporite which, not only lies at depths well below foundations, is likely below seasonally high groundwater already. The surficial soils at the site are composed of large cobble and rock colluviums which are subject to "piping" and collapse when flows are allowed to J.-.. *"~~(,( ft'\S concentrate. Avoiding concentrated flows around and under foundations is rlP r #!--important to the surficial deposit's stability, as can be seen along the edge of ~~~ 1 . f,tJ.' the Conservation Easement at the northern extent of the site. The PUD includes r~~~(.eN\~ -··'?. measures to collect excess runoff and convey it offsite via lined channels. Runoff vvr • ..(1,UU'"" from home sites should generally be collected and conveyed or infiltrated away from home foundations. It is unlikely that storm runoff from home sites themselves is likely to be significant enough to result in piping provided water is not allowed to concentrate at specific pointsy Positive drainage around homes, releasing roof stormwater discharges away \ from foundations, and avoiding \Sf' • f ,}k ( <) -1'~ 1 :!J 1 W~l\ ~I'~~ rJ,aWt.s ~"lf\\1~--L..nv.? I r<JYI~~ ~oc· \~\~~ ~ ~7~ \({L(}' --·· • Response to Review Agency Comm e nts Ri ver Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado excessive irrigation adjacent to building foundations are appropriate precautions to take on all residential sites including on this Project. 6 . WAIVER OF STORMWATER DETENTION FOR PEAK FLOW Comment: 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 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. Response : Support for not providing stormwater detention for peak flow attenuation is appreciated. 7. WAIVER OF ROAD STANDARDS Comment: Similarly, the Applicant is requesting a waiver for some of the road standards as described in the application materials . Ultimately th is waiver will need to be given by the BoCC but this office ha s no concerns regarding this provided the following are addressed: • 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. • 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 width . The Applicant should verify that inlet spacing is congruent with the spread of water on the proposed narrow narrow travel lanes. Response: Support for the alternative road design standards is appreciated. With respect to the concerns identified : • The turning radius of each alley was tested using the emergency response vehicle utilized by the Carbondale Fire Department, specifically a fire truck. This exercise has verified that access to alleys is feasible. The appropriate design parameter will be added to the Road Design table in the appendix to the PUD Guide. BUS-40 consistent with the finding. 1 2 Re sponse to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfi eld County, Colorado • An evaluation of pan width increase from 12" to 24" will be performed during final design . An increase of pan size will not affect the road cross-section; rather it would further encroach into the parking lane . Preliminary calculations for a standard 5- foot COOT TypeR inlet were performed per Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) guidelines to determine inlet spacing . Gutter flow spread was determined for both the minor (2-year) and major (100-year) storms . Gutter flow spread was restricted to 5-feet for the minor ev ent and 8-feet for the major event. These restrictions returned an approximate inlet spacing of 300 feet which is reflected in the current design. However, the majority of the roadways are classified as very low volume local roadways . Therefore, UDFCD would allow for flow spread to the crown of the road (with no curb overtopping) for the minor storm and no damage to property during a major event. Furthermore, the REC roads contain on street parking on both sides. Consequently a 5-foot flow spread does not encroach in to the travel lane as currently designed . This approach was taken to ensure a conservative estimate for inlet spacing was obtained . In addition, if the 300 foot spacing cannot be met due to conflicts, larger spacing can be used while still meeting UDFCD standards. More rigorous calcul ations will be conducted at final design to ensure all standard s and criteria are met. 8. SINGLE ACCESS Comment: 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 con cerns with only one public access for a project of this size. Response : The traffic assessment contained in the Impact Report shows that a single access is mo re than adequate to provide access to the site for the number of residential units served. In fact, signal warrants are not met until nea r Project buildout. While a second access might be desirable, it is not fea sible due to site constraints and distances between highway accesses on Highway 82 , and the lack of an adequate number of residential un its to support or justify a second access to Highway 82. An access over the river is not feasible due to prohibitive cost and lack of connecting rights-of-way. Access through the north is not currently feasible as existing accesses are private, under designed and no property owners have indicated a willingness to provide such a through connection. Emergency access is available and is depicted in Attachment A. 13 9. ACCESS PERMIT Comment: Re sponse t o Review Age ncy Comments Riv er Edge Colora do, Garfield County, Colorad o The Applicant has begun discussions with CDOT but has not obtained an access permit at this time. Thus access permit will need to be obtained. Response: Discussions with CDOT and Garfield County for permanent access are currently underway. The applicant has proposed taking responsibility under the Development Agreement for leading the planning and design process and constructing the entire intersection, with the County taking the lead to acquiring necessary right-of-way on the east side of Highway 82 to resolve existing issues . 10. ACCESS DESIGN Comment : 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 thefrontag ~~;:a·;~~~~~~.~~OOY.hst0f'x,; 17 a ~·f!. Respot"se:-f,'~ O;Ji~Ked? }btJ I.·Vdl~ I~;J; ~ur~raffic Assessment included as part of the Impact Report indicates ( 0 _) that the intersection does not meet warrants for a signal at this time and is ~' unlikely to meet signal warrants until near or after buildout of the Project. As noted in in response to Comment #9 above, discussions are underway wit ~S l ~ COOT and Garfield County. As part of the analysis proposed to be funded and 'D) performed by Cl and documented as the next step in the process by COOT and~ \ r the Impact Report, a Tier Ill Study in accordance with COOT requirements would \ L/ 1 VJ be undertaken to determine the nature of the intersection design and ~ signalization. Determination of signalization is made solely by COOT in ---- accordance with their standards. Cl is prepared to signalize or participate in the signalization as determined appropriate by COOT. 11. OFF-SITE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Comment: 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, pipel ines, sewer plants. water tanks, etc. 14 12. Respon se to Agen cy Comment s Ri ver Edg e Co lorado, Garfie ld County, Co lorado Response : ~ /Jf lS r- lt is currently expected that R FWSD will serve the Project ith water~fwe~ ~J." CA.. S, However, if an agreement is not reached with RFWSD the necessary des ign ~ information will be su p 1e as part of the !£cation and Extent Review associated with the alternatively proposed public community water system Additional conceptual design information can be supplied as part of the 17 A./ PUD/Preliminary Plan application, if necessary. However, it should be noted that \ -\A.4 (JY designs may differ under each service provider. ~ ~~'0 lA~ RAW WATER SYSTEM DESIGN ~-" ~ ~ Comment: The Applicant proposes a raw water irrigation system for resid ence s that would be pressurized by a pumping system provided by the Applicant. The materials provide preliminary pe rformance specifications of the pumping system but not an engineering de sign of the anticipated system. Response : Jk ~ 1 t\R) ~ j f_r eliminary design in fgrmatiruJ.or the raw water pumping station is provided in the Raw Water Supply and Distribution Plan , submitted with the PUD, and supports the feasibility of construction of a raw water system . Once piping layouts, elevations, etc have been finalized during final design, th e pump station and associated facilities will be designed based on applicable standards . 13. IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTROLS Comment: ould include any regulations necessary for the irrigation systems the individual lots such as sprin kling systems, controllers, and conne ction to the irrigation system . Regulations for irrigation systems were submitted in the PUD Development Guide Section IX .F.4. As reque sted by the Garfield County Pl anning Staff, these ations will be removed from the PUD Plan and instead included in the CC&R . IRRIGATION AROUND BUILDINGS Comment: The CC&Rs and the Landscape Plan should include the 10' irrigation restriction in landscaping around buildings per the recommendations of HP Geotech . 15 Response: Response to Re v iew Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado The statement "10' irrigation restrict ion in landscaping around per recommendations of HP Geotech" is incorrect. HP Geot.ech report states: "To limit infiltration into the bearing soils next to buildings, exterior backfill should be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of at least 10 feet. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill and landscape irrigation should be restricted ." (Pg. 21, HP Geotech, App. J, Impact Report). The standards proposed in the PUD Guide and CC&Rs provide for reasonable protection against impacts from water ? from infiltration . Positive drainage around all structures ~i ll ~lso be. re ~u i~d by thePUDandCC&Rs. -M-V\0 l0' (f~ ' 15. FORCE MAIN MANHOLE ODORS Comment: 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. Response: In both wastewater treatment scenarios (REC owned or RFWSD inclusion) a wastewater lift station will be required. Odor levels can be mitigated by controlling residence time in the wet well as well as designing a properly ventilated system that includes odor control systems as necessary (bio filters, chemical scrubbing, etc). Specific odor control methods will be evaluated du r ing final design of the project. Odor control measures are contemplated . 16. DISCHARGE TO WETLANDS Comment: The Applica n t 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 Appli cant 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 . Response: It is currently expected that RFWSD will supply sewer services for the Project . Therefore, all treated effluent will be discharged through the existing RFWSD system . In the case that RFWSD does not treat the Project's sewage, various discharge alternatives for the independent system will be evaluated through the CDPHE process prior to final plat. It is anticipated that any discharge will occur in a series of wetlands and drainages on and adjacent to the Property. Treatment 16 Re sponse to Agen cy Comments Riv er Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado wetlands are often used as an amenity. The wetland is used to "polish" effluent that is already cleaned to an appropriate level and could be used for irrigation or even potentially discharged directly to the Roaring Fork River. 17. 404 PERMIT Comment: 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 . Response : Act ual project disturbances are currently not specifically known . Once determined based on further analysis and final design consideration, all required permits will be obtained . At present, Cl believes that all proposed activities will be completed under a nationwide permit. However, depending on the nature of sewer and water connections, the level of disturbance may result 9 in the need to obtain an individual permit. Thi s is a final design consideration.~ U..,j-. 18. TRAFFIC IMPACTS FROM HOME OCCUPATIONS Comment: It appears that home occupations would be allowed but the traffic report does not appear to include these in the calculation of trip generation . The Applicant should address any impacts . Response : Although Cl fee ls that traffic impacts are insignificant and have been accounted for in the background residential trips calculations, Cl has elected to allow Garfield County to regulate home occupations under the ULUR as opposed to the allowances provided under the PUD. The PUD Guide will be updated to remove this specific allowance. 19. PARKING FOR PARKS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 1) Comment: Respon se t o Rev ie w Agency Com ments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colo rado parking spots available for units as well as two garage parking spaces at most houses. Creating more impervious areas for private neighborhood parks is excessive and does not encourage walking and bicycling or serve any particular demand that Cl has been able to identify. 20. LOCATION OF PARK FACILITIES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 2) Comment : The playgrounds should be located closer to the adjacent stre ~t ~nd pro parking areas than the ball fields. ~ L(}..J! ~ Response J7fP ~~ ? (}'( {j The reasons for and against locati playground ~d ball fields near or away be balanced as determined appropriate by Cl. There is no right or wrong approach, each offers certain advantages and disadvantages. Cl appreciates .,....---- your opinion on the subject. ~ 21. TRAFFIC CALMING ISLAND (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 3) Comment: The traffic calming island of the round-about eliminates the turning movement into Moraine Court from Riverside Loop Drive. The Applicant should evaluate this. Response : In final design the island will be re -evaluated and may be shortened to allow for all turning movements in and out of Moraine Court from Trailside Drive. Based on Project -related traffic volumes, this left turn movement does not need to be restricted. However, if traffic volumes increase as a result of connections to the north and east through Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC property, the left turn movement may need to be maintained or added . 22 . CONNECTIONS TO RFTA TRAIL (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 4) Comment: At present the sidewalks and internal project trails show no connection to the Rio Grande Tra i l. 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 determ ine how to connect these to provide pedestrian access in the most safe and efficient manner. 18 Res po nse t o Age ncy Co m ment s River Edge Colo ra do, Ga rfield County, Colo rado Response: ~o.CC(_~ It'\~ Trail access is controlled by RFTA . One acces ;wit~~ce~~t a place where trail users are transitioning is provided near the proposed grade separation near the entry to the Project. Additional acce ss points to the Rio Grande Trail will be explored with the RFTA prior to final p lat and may be explored by the community in the future. We anticipate that RFTA will approve additional connections at some point to facilitate safety and conn ectivity. The PUD Plan provid es locations through Common Space tracts for additional accesses . Extension of sidewalk to the intersection will be considered during intersection design in discussion with COOT and Garfi eld County. 23. ROAD GRADES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 5) Comment: The proposed plans show some road grade s of 0 .5%. Thi s i s v ery flat and often proves to be ve ry difficult to maintain constant curb and gutter flow-line grades. The Applicant should consid er varyin g or steeper grades. Response : Urban Drainage Flood Control District (UDFCD) stand ards are used for the project. UDFCD prescribes a minimum grade of 0.4% for stree t and gutter sloping (UDFCD Draina ge Cr iter ia Manual, Chapter 6 Section 2.3.1). This is a common ly con structed design . Slope s steeper than 0.5% are designed throughout the project, wherever practical. However the overall design criteria maintain a min i mum allowable slope of 0 .5% for road g r ading. Addition al grade will be sought at final de sign during fine grading. 24. ROUNDABOUT RETURNS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 6) Comment: The round -abouts on the north and south end s of the projects should have radi i on the curb and gutter return s with the intersections of the project streets. Response : A figure showing the north and south round -about, including the radii on the curb and gutter returns, can be found in Attac hment B. 25. PAVEMENT DESIGN (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 7) Comment : An eng ineered pavem ent des ign should be provided based on project speci f ic soils. 19 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Response: An engineered pavement design will be completed as part of final design as it is site specific and will differ from current conditions since the site will be regraded and reclaimed in Phase 0. 26. SITE GRADING ALONG NORTH SIDE (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 8) Comment: 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. Response: A right to establish any necessary easements exists in an agreement with Garfield County Commercial Investments. The specific necessary easements will be acquired under the agreement at final design. 27. CHANNEL MATERIALS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 9) Comment: The proposed drainage channel has slopes all grades as flat as 0.5%. The channel also proposes materials of riprap, 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. Response: Agreed. The plans show a menu of options that will be selected based on slopes, flow velocities, and maintenance at final design. Drainage channels will be designed based on UDFCD guidelines for slope, material, flow, etc. UDFCD Drainage Criteria Manual states "slopes for channels with vegetative linings should not exceed 0.6% and should be less than 1% for channels with reinforced concrete linings" (Chapter 7 Section 3.2.3.1). The proposed grades are appropriate. Drainage channels will also be lined to limit infiltration. Concrete trickle channels may also be utilized to help reduce ponding in vegetated channel during small events. 28. CHANNEL LOCATIONS AND SLOPES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 10) Comment: The drainage plan shows inlets daylighting between lots and flowing along the side yards before getting to the common 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 20 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado the very flat slopes that are proposed. The Applicant should investigate alterative. Response: Once the final design is completed, Cl will confirm that all drainage swales meet UDFCD design standards. It is understood that drainage between lots can be problematic for the POA to maintain, but provisions are in place to provide for such maintenance. Alternative drainage options will be considered at final design where appropriate or possible to eliminate conflicts. However, drainage easements between lots will be maintained to facilitate lot drainage. 29. RELEASE STRUCTURE DESIGNS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 11) Comment: The Applicant should design the release structures and routing for discharges from the water quality ponds. Response: Outlet structures will be properly sized once the detailed design is complete and the total acreage of impervious areas is finalized and final routing analysis can be conducted. The outlet structure design will be similar to those provided by UDFCD. A design similar to those shown in Attachment C will be implemented. 30. INLETS AT INTERSECTIONS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 12) Comment: The Applicant should verify the location of inlets at intersections for drainage of low spots or provide valley pans for crossings. Response: The grading plan does not represent final design conditions. The current design depicts general over lot grading. All detailed lot grading items including intersection grading will be addressed in final design. Inlets and pans will be employed as necessary to meet UDFCD criteria. Certain outlet structures will also need to be coordinated with RFC. 31. CHERT COURT DRAINAGE (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 13) Comment: Chert Court does not show a connection to the culvert beneath it for drainage. 21 Response: Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Upon further review, Chet Court does require an inlet for drainage. A drainage inlet will be added in final design and be designed to gravity flow and discharge into the nearby swale. 32. COORDINATION OF UTILITIES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 14) Comment: 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. Response: It is agreed that this is a complex area of the Project. The best option was selected and will be refined at final design. Various options were assessed in Project layout and design. Glenwood Ditch is limited by elevation to maintain a minimum positive slope and thus became a controlling influence in the overall layout and design. Modifications to the alignment have significant influences since the grade is very shallow across the property. Alternate layouts are unavailable for the utilities located at the intersection of Cattle Creek and Mica Court. Mica Court requires sanitary and potable service with limited space available requiring them to be placed in the road. Minimum offsets between all utilities and the retaining wall are maintained through this section of the Project. 33. STORM INLET INSTEAD OF TEES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 15) Comment: Storm inlets should be designed to connect to storm manholes instead of connecting with a tee directly into the storm main line piping. Response: Use of manholes versus junction boxes will be further evaluated during final design. UDFCD specifies that manholes are required at a change in pipe size, alignment and slope as well as pipe junctions and stretches of straight pipe. Storm inlets function as a minor lateral connection to the storm sewer. It is an accepted industry standard to design a storm sewer using both junction boxes as well as manholes. Junction boxes are used where possible to reduce the number of required manholes to produce an effective as well as cost effective layout. 22 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 34. LOW SPOTS AT LOT (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 16) Comment: 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. Response: The current grading plan does not represent final design conditions; rather it shows general over lot grading. All detailed lot grading items, such as the jog at the front of the lots, will be addressed in final design. 35. BENCH ON GLENWOOD DITCH (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 17) Comment: 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 and/or access road along the top of the ditch. Response: The existing Glenwood Ditch profile does not include a bench. However, a 10- 12' bench over the relocated sections of the Glenwood ditch or other necessary maintenance provisions will be included as part of final design. 36. WATER ON BRIDGE (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 18) Comment: 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. Response: In final design inlets will be positioned to catch any run off prior to the bridge. It is not anticipated that any water will be conveyed to the bridge in the future. In the event that water must be conveyed across the bridge over Cattle Creek, it will be reviewed by a structural engineer. 37. ACCESS TO HIGHWAY GRADING (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 19) Comment: Grading and damage from the Rio Grande Trail to the intersection with Highway 82 has not been designed. 23 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Response: Fine grading such as intersection grading will be done when final approval of the intersection has been established with COOT and RFTA. As discussed previously, the intersection design will be prepared in coordination with COOT, Garfield County and RFTA. Producing the grading at this location at this time would have been premature. This will be completed as part of the COOT access permit process. 38. ACCESS TO EXECUTIVE LOT (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 20) Comment: An access easement is provided into the proposed Estate Lot but no design is provided to verify that the access can be constructed within the easement provided. The Applicant should verify the access grading. Response: A plan and profile including access grading to the Executive lot can be found in Attachment D. 39. ENERGY GRADE AND MANHOLE (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 21) Comment: The Applicant should perform an energy grade line analysis on Storm Manhole N-7 to verify that the water would not bubble up during high flows. Response: Per UDFCD, storm sewers are typically sized to convey the minor storm without surcharging using normal flow techniques. During final design, all energy grade lines will be verified to meet these standards as defined in the Drainage Criteria Manual. 40. STORM DRAIN GRADE (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 22) Comment: The 48" storm drain line is ill a 0.3% slope. This is very difficult to construct and maintain. The Applicant should investigate alternatives. Response: The hydraulic capacity of the storm drain system will be evaluated prior to final design. While a slope of 0.3% is typical design and commonly constructed, all slopes will be designed per UDFCD for proper hydraulic capacity. If greater grades can be achieved at final design they may be utilized. 24 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 41. PARALLEL STORM DRAINS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 23) Comment: 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. Response: The layout of the sanitary sewer will be reviewed prior to final design to assure the most efficient layout is utilized. Where sewer lines appear to be adjacent and redundant, the redundant line is provided to accommodate flow from future development outside the current project. These trunk lines do not have lateral connections to any currently proposed residences. 42. FORCE MAIN CORROSION (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 24) Comment: Rookery Street force main discharges into a manhole on Riverside Loop Drive. Discharges into these manholes are subject to corrosive gases and odors. The Applicant should determine any special considerations that may be necessary for this manhole. Response: Corrosion protection and odor control will be evaluated and provided for during final design. The Rookery Street force main serves only a limited number of residences and thus minor flows will be pumped in to the manhole. 43. ADJACENT MANHOLES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 25) Comment: The multiple adjacent manholes on Heron Court should be verified with RFWSD and/or alternative arrangements investigated. Response: This alignment will be evaluated during final design to confirm that the proposed layout is the most effective design and variances sought from the RFWSD, if appropriate. Due to the short radius of Heron Court, multiple manholes are needed to provide a sanitary sewer connection to each residence. 25 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 44. RFWSD APPROVAL (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 26) Comment: The plans and specifications will need to be approved for construction by RFWSD if that option is pursued. Response: Cl is currently in negotiations with RFWSD for water and sewer services. If this agreement is finalized, all applicable designs must be approved by RFWSD. 45. SERVICE LINES STUBBED (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 27) Comment: Utility connection should be designed and stubbed out for the future connection of the Estate lot to irrigation, sewer, and water utilities. Response: During final design, service lines will be stubbed along the access easement to just beyond the EVA. The Executive Lot is responsible for extending the services from that point to the lot. 46. BRIDGE ABUTMENT AND UTILITIES (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 28) Comment: 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 case of maintenance and eventual replacement. Response: The previous development of Bear Chase proposed that utilities be constructed under the bridge abutments. This design was approved by the Garfield County. Hanging the utilities from the bridge itself and adding a second lift station will be further considered in final design. We agree that offsetting the utility line could also be possible. Both options have been and will continue to be pursued. 47. WATER LINE FREEZING (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 29) Comment: The offsite water line connection is shown as being constructed in the existing box culvert. The Applicant should design this to mitigate freezing or determine an alternative. 26 Response: Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Agree, if the pipe is exposed to open air, freeze protection will need to be provided at this location. Options such as pipe insulation or heat tracing will be evaluated and detailed during final design. 48. ORE COURT LINE ELEVATIONS (PLAN SHEETS COMMENT 30) Comment: 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. Response: It does appear that the sewer and water lines have been placed at similar elevations at Ore Court. During final design, the sewer line will be lowered to ensure sufficient minimum spacing as defined by CD PH E. B. RESPONSE COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE (CDOW) 1. GENERAL WILDLIFE COMMENT Comment: 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. Response: The DOW comments were based on a development plan of significantly greater magnitude, density and development extent than the current Project. IN addition, a number of site conditions have changed since the time of these reviews. As a result, it is unclear whether all comments are applicable to the Project. However, Cl designed the Project in consideration of the previous CDOW comments referred by the CDOW reviewer. Eric Peterson, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc., has prepared a more detailed response to the agency's comments which is included as Attachment E. 27 C. RESPONSE TO USACOE 1. 404 PERMIT Comment: Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 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. Response: As identified in the Impact Report, the Project avoids impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and water bodies in all respects except the proposed utility crossing of Cattle Creek and potential water and sewer line crossings of the Roaring Fork River or alternatively the water diversion and sewer outfalls associated with public community water and sewage operated by the POA. A Section 404 Permit will be required in association with the Project and must be obtained prior to disturbance of any jurisdictional wetlands. As part of the permit process, the feasibility of alternatives which avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands must be assessed and the alternative best meeting the criteria of Section 404.B.l of the Clean Water Act (CWA) selected. For wetland disturbance classified under a Nationwide Permit, the Project is subject to a more abbreviated form of alternatives analysis. Currently, the work contemplated in association with the Project is likely to fall under a Nationwide Permit. Currently, the utility crossings associated with Cattle Creek are designed to require temporary disturbance of Cattle Creek wetlands. This design will be reviewed at final design and options reviewed to determine avoidance in accordance with Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404.B.l Guidelines. An option may exist for hanging the utilities from the proposed bridge structure. This option would result in the addition of a second lift station and redundant force mains at the site. Directional boring may also be considered at this location to avoid wetland impacts. If either of these options are determined to be feasible during final design, temporary wetland impacts associated with the utility crossing of Cattle Creek may be avoided. The bridge design avoids direct wetland impacts. Also, as noted in the Impact Report, if the Project is provided with potable water and sewer service by the RFWSD, a utility line crossing of the Roaring Fork River will be required. No alternative to a utility crossing of the Roaring Fork River exists whereby the RFWSD can serve the Project or areas within their service area east and north of the Project except construction of a duplicate system 28 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado east of the Roaring Fork River, which has been determined to be undesirable by the RFWSD. As currently contemplated, the crossing would require an open cut of the Roaring Fork River. Alternative methods to open cutting the Roaring Fork River will be assessed in accordance with Section 404.8.1 of the CWA and Nationwide Permit requirements as design proceeds. Alternatively, under a public community water and sewer system a battery of well points to form an infiltration gallery would be installed near the Roaring Fork River and an outfall constructed and maintained from the sewage treatment plant. Alternative methods to those proposed will be assessed in accordance with Section 404.8.1 of the CWA and Nationwide Permit requirements as design proceeds to determine if a less impactful option is feasible, if a public community water and sewer system is to be constructed. Once wetland impacts are fully identified based on the alternatives selected, appropriate mitigation will be proposed, if necessary. D. RESPONSE TO USFWS 1. UTE LADIES TRESSES ORCHID AND 404 PERMIT Comment: I want to direct your attention to the wildlife assessment in 82 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 review 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. Response: As noted in the response to comments to the USACOE, the Project avoids impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and water bodies in all respects except the proposed utility crossing of Cattle Creek and potential water and sewer line crossings of the Roaring Fork River or alternatively the water diversion and sewer outfalls associated with public community water and sewage operated by the POA. A Section 404 Permit will be required in association with the Project and must be obtained prior to disturbance of any jurisdictional wetlands. As part of the permit process, the feasibility of alternatives which avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands must be assessed and the alternative best meeting the criteria of Section 404.8.1 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) selected. Where threatened and endangered species are involved other Federal processes and permits may also be necessary. In the case of the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, a Section 7 Consultation is required as part of the Section 404.8.1 assessment. However, even if wetlands avoidance was fully achieved, a Section 7 29 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Consultation would be required if development activities were slated to impact areas of Ute ladies'-tresses orchid habitat. Cl will undertake the consultation as part of the final design process associated with either the development activity or RFWSD facilities. E. RESPONSE TO CARBONDALE AND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1. FIRE ACCESS ROADS Comment: IFC Section D106.2 "Multiple Family Residential Developments" requires developments with more than 200 residential dwelling units to have two separate and approved fire access roads. Details of the two EVAs must be submitted for approval. Response: As noted in the response to comments to Mountain Cross Engineering, two EVAs meeting the requirements of the IFC have been provided. Plan and profiles of the emergency accesses were not provided with the application since it appeared that these were feasible with limited review of the site conditions. The plan and profiles of both EVAs are provided in Attachment A. Both EVAs meet the requirements for fire access roads. Copies have been forwarded to Bill Gavette of the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. 2. WATER SUPPLY Comment: The proposed water system appears to be capable of providing the design fire flows throughout the development. The proposed location and spacing of the fire 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 NFPA 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. Response: Regardless of the water provider, water delivery rates will remain consistent with fire requirements and have been planned accordingly. Buildings will be constructed in accordance with adopted code standards, and service connections designed in accordance with IFC and RFWSD requirements. 30 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 3. IMPACT FEE Comment: 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. Response: Cl understands the obligations and will execute an agreement with the District as required prior to recording the first final plat. F. RESPONSE TO GARFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF 1. EMERGENCY ACCESS Comment: The concerns of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, in regards to the Emergency Vehicle Access points, are also concerns of the Sheriff's Office. Response: See response to Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection comments Section E.1 above. 2. INGRESS AND EGRESS AT HIGHWAY 82 Comment: Additionally, without reviewing comments from COOT, the Sheriff's Office has concerns on the impact of the ingress/egress onto HWY 82 at the Cattle Creek intersection. Response: See response to COOT comments Section H.1 below. G. RESPONSE TO GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE 1. WATER TANK Comment: Are the plans for the water tanks up County Road 110 still in the works? 31 Response: Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Yes, water supply tanks will be proposed as part of a location and extent review by Cl or the RFWSD. The tanks are proposed off of CR 110. 2. COMMERCIAL SPACE AND TRAFFIC Comment: The application states a maximum of 30,000 square feet of commercial I public- quasi-public. Is this going to generate any additional traffic that is not mentioned? Response: All roads are proposed as private roads and all spaces within the development are for the use and enjoyment of the residents and their guests/visitors. "Commercial" space is a misnomer and proved to result in creating difficulty for people in review of the application, but was the required annotation under the forms provided by the Garfield County Building and Planning Department. The actual Project includes a 10,000 square foot community building with a small (<1500 square foot) coffee/sandwich shop and a community daycare center. The remainder of the building will be community meeting, office and recreation space. The additional 20,000 square feet are actually utility and maintenance buildings. All traffic generated by the uses is accounted for by the Traffic Assessment in Appendix M of the Impact Report. The uses generate minimal additional traffic since they are designed for the use and enjoyment of owners. 3. LOCATION OF LOTS AND TRACTS Comment: 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? Response: The PUD Plan Map identifies the location and access to all lots and tracts within the Project. 4. HIGHWAY 82 DESIGN AND APPROACH Comment: 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 32 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 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 finalize 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. Response: We agree that, upon final design of the intersection, roadways should generally align. The entry area provides for some modest alignment modifications to meet a future design. See response to CDOT comments Section H.1 below. 5. HIGHWAY 82 SHOULDER AND ISLANDS Comment: CDOT requires 6' shoulders adjacent to turn lanes; 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. Response: As noted in the application, the intersection layout is offered in concept only in order to show that there is adequate space to undertake highway improvements that are reasonably necessary. All improvements will be required to meet CDOT standards based on a Tier Ill Analysis in coordination with COOT, Garfield County, and RFTA. See response to CDOT comments Section H.1 below. 6. HIGHWAY 82 EAST ACCESS Comment: 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. Response: Improvements to the East side are technically not the responsibility of Cl. As noted in the Traffic Assessment, Appendix M of the Impact Report, the Project has almost no impact on the performance of the east side of the Highway. Cl is prepared to commit to a process to coordinate and participate in the developing and implementing a plan with CDOT, Garfield County, and RFTA to enhance the safety of the proposed access point and the CRll0/113 access. CDOT has determined that a full movement intersection is feasible based on the work done to date but agrees that a coordinated effort lead by Cl should be 33 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado undertaken to resolve the existing and future intersection performance and safety issues. 7. ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVES FOR INTERNAL INTERSECTION Comment: I did see the proposed roundabout at the intersection of River Edge Drive and Trailside/Riverside 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. Response: A four way intersection was assessed and did perform adequately for the current development. However, we have planned to provide for future connections to the north and east to serve undeveloped and developed lands in those areas and create "connectivity" to enhance the overall road network. These future additions and connections cannot be served by a four-way stop. Thus, regardless of the current needs, future needs would require Cl to improve the intersection to the roundabout as prescribed in the plan set. Therefore, even if the development could be served by a four-way intersection today, Cl would need to bank reserves for the roundabout improvements in the future condition. H. RESPONSE TO COOT COMMENTS 1. ACCESS APPLICATION PROCESS Comment: 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. Response: COOT and Cl's engineers agree that a full movement signalized intersection is feasible at the Highway 82 and CR110/113 and River Edge intersection, but that it will take serious coordination between COOT, Garfield County and RFTA to develop the plans for access improvements. Cl is currently trying to coordinate the effort between entities and has stated that Cl is willing to undertake 34 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado responsibility for coordination between the entities under the required Tier Ill Analysis, secure necessary access permits from COOT, and complete construction of the intersection as part of the Project. I. RESPONSE TO RFTA COMMENTS 1. CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ACCESS TO TRANSIT Comment: 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. Response: The Project site was identified in the Garfield County Comprehensive vlan (Comprehensive Plan 2030) for the type of development and densiti proposed. The Project conforms in all respects to the Comprehensive Plan 030 as detailed in the Justification Report. We have previously heard from RFTA about their unwillingness to serve this development and thus have not provided ridership projections as part of this application. It is recognized that much of the unincorporated development in Garfield County is in much the same position without access to transit stops within walking distance of their homes. Cl remains interested in discussing transit options at the site with RFTA at their convenience in order to facilitate safety at CMC and ease of access to transit from the immediately surrounding developed and developing area. Cl believes that it is in the best interest of the citizens of Garfield County that RFTA also consider options for enhancing access to transit within the County's identified unincorporated communities and development nodes adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan 2030. 2. RIO GRAND TRAIL CROSSING Comment: 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 35 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 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. Response: Both issues identified by RFTA have been addressed by current agreements, licenses and easements between RFTA and Cl. In accordance with the existing agreements with RFTA, the trail will be grade separated and thus eliminate vehicular conflicts as shown on the plans for the Project. With respect to future rail service, grade separation is not feasible and current agreements with RFTA do not require grade separation for the access road. But to the extent that lights, bells, signals etc may be required, Cl is obligated to install these devices. Cl's representatives have had five meetings in the last year with the RFTA Board and Director of Planning to share design information and discuss the Project. The access conforms to the terms and conditions all agreements and easements between Cl and the agency. J. RESPONSE TO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES COMMENTS 1. EQR VALUE Comment: 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. 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. Response: See Response to Mountain Cross Engineering Comment concerning the Source of Water and Adequate Water (Sections A.l and A.2). The design of treatment and delivery systems and water availability from a legal and source perspective are different issues. Cl has a viable plan to secure adequate water to meet the 350 gpd per residential unit from a legal and source perspective as explained in 36 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado the Water Supply Report and further detailed in the Response to Comment 2 below. 2. ADEQUATE WATER Comment: 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. 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 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. 01 CW187. Response: See Letter from Wayne Forma (Attachment F) for response to issues and concerns raised by DWR and their relationship to Project approvals. The Water Supply Report documents the availability of adequate water. K. RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. WATER SUPPLY PLAN Comment: Neither the Water Supply nor Wastewater Treatment plan is definitive in terms of who will provide these services. The option of privately owned and operated water and wastewater treatment plants operated by the Homeowners Association, is not, in my opinion, a sound option for this type of development due to the inherent weaknesses of HOA's to properly manage these systems. I strongly recommend that the applicant be required to nail down provision of water and wastewater services that result in high-quality, sustainable operations. Response: Cl anticipates reaching agreement with the RFWSD for service prior to Planning and Zoning Commission action if the District is able and willing to serve. This is 37 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Cl's desire. However, at present we are uncertain whether or not the RFWSD can feasibly serve the Project. As such, if it is determined that the RFWSD cannot feasibly serve, Cl will pursue a public community water and sewer system. Public community water and sewer systems are a component of the CDPHE rules and regulations and allowable. It is unclear where the conclusion that HOA's have inherent weakness to properly operate these systems is drawn. While it is clear that there are certain advantages identified by CDPHE in consolidating systems, these do not necessarily translate into "improper" management of public community systems. There are also many examples of improperly operated District systems as evidenced by the discharge violations identified on CDPHE's website. Cl is prepared to request the creation of a new metropolitan district if it is further determined that the RFWSD cannot feasibly serve the remaining portion of their service area north and east of the Project and consider servicing those areas a part of a larger service plan. 2. MAINTENANCE OF COMMUNITY AMENITIES Comment: The applicant is on the right track in terms of developing a walkable, sustainable community that creates space for growing fresh foods during the summer growing season. This is an extremely important element of urban development that we need to continually try to include in community planning in order to begin addressing chronic public health issues like obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Again, the applicant puts responsibility for upkeep of open spaces, gardens, orchards, sidewalks, trails and streets in the hands of the homeowners association. I am skeptical that without a more solid plan for financing and managing these community amenities, that they will eventually lose priority and fall into a degraded state and residents will fall back to getting in their cars to go to the store or rely on nearby convenience stores to fulfill their dietary needs. Response: The County as well as area towns have made it a general policy not to accept additional public facilities for maintenance. As such, all new development is saddled with the burden of paying for both the maintenance of the development's infrastructure and the public's infrastructure. The costs of ownership are significantly higher in new developments than existing developments. While Cl can establish reasonable measures to provide for a functional framework to support maintenance of community amenities and facilities, not unlike local government, the maintenance levels that actually occur long term are up to the voters and their willingness to consider tax or rate increases to provide for such maintenance. 38 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 3. USE OF AUTOS AND DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL Comment: Access to fresh foods and other amenities will still involve getting in one's car for a run to the market in Carbondale or Glenwood. This does nothing to reduce air pollution from vehicles. Nor does it encourage people to walk or ride bicycles to take care of daily needs. I believe that land should be made available for commercial purposes specifically to encourage development of a local food store to serve residents of this community and the central valley area. Response: The uses you propose are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan 2030. Also, based on the Traffic Assessment (Appendix M of the Impact Report), development at this site, rather than north of Glenwood Springs, will result in less congestion in downtown Glenwood and reduce air pollution over the alternative. 4. COST OF MAINTENANCE Comment: 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 elements, 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 that will likely occupy these homes. Response: POA fees are likely to be average for the area. Much of the open space is in areas where the objective is to allow the areas to further naturalize to the benefit of the Conservation Easement values. Preliminary budgets indicate dues consistent with other communities in the area. Water and sewer fees are unlikely to be substantially different than those City of Glenwood Springs or RFWSD residents pay for services. As previously stated, it is agreed that residents are likely to pay more in total than residents whose services are completely subsidized through taxes. 39 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado L. RESPONSE TO COUNTY VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUPERVISOR COMMENTS 1. EXISTING WEED MANAGEMENT Comment: 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. . Response: Rockwood Shepard met with Steve Anthony, County Vegetation Management Supervisor, at this site on June 15 at 2:00 pm. Steve indicated that proper actions were being taken at the site in accordance with the current weed management plan for the property. Rockwood Shepard also has met with Rick Lafaro from the RFC onsite in the past and met again June 21 to discuss the plan and maintenance of the Conservation Easement. This Project does not include the RFC Conservation Easement other than utility crossings and one bridge. The Project provides buffers along the RFC area. Management activities will continue as required between Cl, GCCI, and the RFC. 2. WEED MANAGEMENT BEFORE DEVELOPMENT Comment: Staff concurs with the statement from the applicant's consultant, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services that "weed control treatments continue to occur before development begins." Response: Cl has had an ongoing weed control effort going for 4 years and is finally getting a handle on the thistles and other noxious weeds. Cl has planted certified prairie grass seed on the dirt piles and other areas to help with erosion and weed control. 3. WEED MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN CCRS Comment: 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. 40 Response: Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Cl will add stronger language in CCRS. Requirements also exist in the PUD Guide which is enforceable by Garfield County. The POA will be responsible for the open space and common areas for weed control and maintenance. 4. WEED MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN OSMP Comment: 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. Response: This statement and associated regulatory requirements will be revised to be consistent. 5. REVEGETATION PLAN Comment: 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. Response: Securities covering the estimated cost of reclamation will be placed at the time the reclamation is initiated as required under subdivision based on the engineer's estimate. Once initial reclamation is complete a performance bond valued at no more than 20% of the revegetation component will be maintained for 5 years to assure performance during the seeding and establishment period. 41 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado M. RESPONSE TO CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS COMMENTS 1. DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS Comment: 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 11 Sprawl". Response: The County's Comprehensive Plan 2030 determined to recognize an unincorporated community between the CMC and CR 113 intersections due to the extensive development that already exists in this area and the potential access to central sewer and water services. The Project as proposed conforms to the densities and type of development envisioned by the adopted Comprehensive Plan 2030 in all respects. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF OVERALL PARCEL Comment: 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. Response: Under the current designations in the Comprehensive Plan 2030 and zoning, development could not exceed that proposed in the Cattle Creek application in 2008. 3. CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/HOUSING DEMAND Comment: 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/subdivision will not promote rural 42 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado character; rather it will be the final defining act of infill between Glenwood and Carbondale. Response: Please reference Justification Report which addresses the criteria for approval. The rezoning to PUD is being pursued for design enhancements and to provide for extensive open space that the conventional zoning does not reasonably accommodate and does not increase the density above those densities allowed by the Comprehensive Plan 2030. In fact, the proposed density is less than the maximum provided for by the Comprehensive Plan 2030. It is difficult for some to envision a time when real estate will recover to 2007 levels. It has been a very difficult time for many. Cl concedes that Cl would not undertake home construction in 2011 even if the opportunity were there to initiate construction. However, real estate downturns have occurred many times in the history of the nation and valley. The Project is being prepared for future housing demand. It is recognized that it will likely take several years to bring the property to market. The first phase, "phase 0", involves the reclamation of the entire site. In addition Cl must obtain an access permit in coordination with Garfield County and advance sewer and water improvements to the Project. These activities alone will likely take 2-3 years and could push first home construction to 2014 or 2015. As a result of the advance time required for the Project, Cl must start preparing today in order to meet market demands in those years. Our projections, as well as those of the Comprehensive Plan 2030, indicate that the demand will be there in 2015. 4. FISCAL IMPACTS Comment: The proposed development will place an increased burden on sheriffs dept., fire district, CDOT and RE-1 personnel and facilities. As the fiscal impact report states, the project will have a "negative impact on county finances". Response: As noted in the Fiscal Impact Analysis in Appendix N of the Impact Report, the development may have a slightly negative impact on the County if affordable housing is included within the Project, but otherwise would have a net positive impact on County finances. However, the County has determined from a policy perspective that the affordable housing is an important component of the local economy, and as a result have determined to either subsidize affordable housing by policy or determined that affordable housing has a net positive benefit on the economy and overall County finances. The sheriff's department impacts were assessed by the Fiscal Impact Analysis and are not viewed as significant impacts. The Fire and School District have established impact fees to cover their impacts. With respect to school age 43 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado populations, such populations would be present within RE-1 whether housing is provided in this Project or elsewhere. 5. ELK IMPACTS Comment: Concerns over the impact to the resident elk herd and their migratory patterns. Response: As noted in the response to CDOW and in the Wildlife Impact Assessment in Appendix K of the Impact Report, Elk fencing has been placed along the entire length of Highway 82 effectively eliminating elk movement across the property. Cl has developed a plan however that provides safe and enhanced open spaces along the Roaring Fork River to facilitate the traditional elk use of the property and has embraced animal controls protective of elk. 6. TRAFFIC Comment: 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. Response: The Traffic Assessment in Appendix M of the Impact Analysis states that a signal is not necessary until at or near buildout. Regardless of where growth occurs in the valley, traffic will travel through Glenwood Springs. This development provides for trips to be split and provides for a reverse or shortening of the traditional valley commutes. As a result, this Project likely has more limited impact of traffic in Glenwood Springs than either development in Glenwood Springs or north and west of Glenwood Springs. 7. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE Comment: It is unclear how the applicants will provide water and wastewater treatment. Two options for each utility are outlined in the application. Response: Two viable options are being pursued as outlined in the water and sewer design reports. The option to develop a public community system has been determined 44 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado to be feasible. Discussions are ongoing with the RFWSD to determine the feasibility of the RFWSD providing service. At the time of this response, it appears that service may be feasible and a pre-inclusion agreement will be executed. 8. INTERACTION WITH RFTA ROW Comment: 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. Response: The engineering plans clearly indicate a grade-separated trail crossing of the Rio Grande Trail. The grade-separate crossing is further documented in the Impact Report. The grade-separate trail crossing is required by agreement with RFTA. All plans and crossings conform to agreements and easements secured through RFTA. 9. REMAINDER OF PROPERTY Comment: 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. Response: The assessment maps have yet to be updated. Cl owns approximately 160 acres. The remainder is owned by Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC (GCCI). Cl does not know how this property will be developed by GCCI but it is currently zoned Suburban Residential and Commercial (2 acres) and is within the same residential use classification in the Comprehensive Plan 2030 as the Cl property. The GCCI property is not part of this application. N. RESPONSE TO GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMENTS Cl acknowledges Cl is proposing an affordable housing scheme that's a bit different than what the County and Authority have done before. Cl will need to work through a number of issues to fit within or to alter the framework established by both entities. Cl looks forward to coordinating these efforts and working with the entities to develop the most workable and successful program. 45 1. RELEASE OF REQUIREMENTS Comment: Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 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 if there were no qualified buyer within the applicants timeframe? Response: Cl is committed to build affordable housing units and does not expect that the the developer will be released from building. However, Cl should not be required to build affordable homes if no buyer is found for units. With market rate homes, Cl will also generally build based on demand and pre-sales. Cl should be provided the opportunity to sell out the remainder of the Project at market rate, if demand exists, and provide a fee-in-lieu to allow Cl to proceed and complete the Project if buyers for the affordable units do not exist. Again, Cl does not see this as a likely outcome, but provisions should be provided for Cl to be released from their obligations if the market conditions do not provide for the sale of affordable units. 2. INCOME QUALIFICATIONS Comment: On Page 5, paragraph 5 of the AHPA 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. If the exception to the guidelines is made to accommodate these pricing categories, GCHA request that it apply to all resales within River Edge. Response: Cl agrees that it is appropriate to apply the provision to all resales within River Edge. 3. RENTAL Comment: On Page 6, paragraph 9 of the AHPA 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 AM Is. Rental guidelines could easily be written and agreed upon, however more questions would need to discussed such as; If the units are rented would the developer offer them for sale again at some point? Would the 46 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado sale price of a previously rented unit be reduced from that of a new unit? Is the developer the property manager for the rental? Response: Cl agrees that rents should be established based on the provisions for buyer owned homes under the ULUR and rented to a qualified family. Cl intends to sell the units as soon as practicable while providing reasonable rent terms in order to attract a tenant. Cl would also look to structure rent to own provisions if market conditions demanded. For future sales, sales prices would be set based on the applicable pricing provisions of the ULUR. Cl, POA or third party would serve as the property manager during the rental period. Rental can be avoided by building generally as pre-sales only. However, since many units will be built as attached homes units may be available if sale of the second attached unit does not occur in a reasonable period during construction or within the first three months following completion. 4. AMENDMENT OF AFPA Comment: Could the AHPA be amended with each phase, especially with such a long build out schedule? Response: Cl has no objections to revisiting the AFPA with each phase to determine if amendments are needed to address changing conditions or provisions that are not working as anticipated. 5. SINGLE FAMILYVS. ATIACHED HOMES Comment: Will the applicant provide at least one single-family home within each phase? Response: Cl will commit to provide a minimum of 25% single family homes. 47 6. AF HOME DELIVERY AND PHASING Comment: Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Are allAH units required to be built in a phase before the next phase is started? Response: No, again Cl is committed to build the homes only upon a pre-sale, but is required to financially secure the construction of homes until such time as they are built or the obligation is lifted due to lack of demand. 7. HOME IMPROVEMENTS Comment: 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)? Response: The program of home type and lots is not conducive to such a design feature. Basements are not planned for example due to soil conditions. Cl also believes that such a provision is contrary to continuing to provide homes at the affordable price point. Recent studies have shown that over the long term, housing inflates at about the rate of inflation, so based on the ULUR provisions equity is being built in affordable homes at nearly the same or better than market rate homes, in some cases. 0. RESPONSE TO COLORADO GEOLOGIC SURVEY COMMENTS 1. SECURING MITIGATION Comment: 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? Response: Cl has proposed to undertake additional investigation and implement appropriate mitigation during Phase 0 Reclamation. As a result, investigation and mitigation measures will be documented at time of final plat and only those mitigation measures determined necessary at time of infrastructure 48 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado development and home construction will need to be included as part of the final plat obligations, and secured with other subdivision improvements. 2. AVOIDANCE BASED ON NEW FINDINGS Comment: As a result of additional work, final lot, utility, and road layout may change; this includes relocation. Response: Yes. See response to Mountain Cross Engineering comment concerning geotechnical impacts in Section A.3, above. 3. CRITICAL ROAD SECTIONS Comment: 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. Response: We agree, as part of Phase 0 Reclamation, Cl will be specifically reviewing key segments of road to help ensure performance through drilling and other geotechnical methods. This documentation will be submitted as part of final plat. Again, while no one can guarantee that failures will not occur at depth and translate to to surface conditions, Cl is taking appropriate precautions. Also, it should be noted that the nature of these failures would likely mean that the road section could be filled, compacted and put back in use within 24-48 hours. 4. STEEP ESCARPMENT Comment: 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. 49 Response: Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Actually, no roads or structures abut the areas of steep escarpment subject to the proposed stabilization measures. These areas all abut open space tracts. The toe of these areas generally lies within the Conservation Easement. Maintenance will be done under the provision of the existing agreement or any amendment thereto determined necessary by the parties. The CCRS and POA provision provide for participation in the maintenance of this Conservation Easement and associated features. 5. SELECTION OF ROAD AND UTILITY MITIGATION Comment: 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. Response: A wide range of measures are offered due to the wide variety of conditions that exist. Appropriate mitigation will be selected by the design engineer in consultation with the geotechnical engineer for the Project. If the County participates in the selection of a measure or mandates a specific measure, the County and its engineer may be liable. Cl maintains that it is appropriate for the County to promote that mitigation be implemented in accordance with the design engineer's recommendation and design as stated in our PUD documentation. 6. MINERAL RESOURCES Comment: 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. Response: The Mineral Resource Study in Appendix P of the Impact Report actually concludes that the minerals are non-variable for a number of issues including zoning. It is recognized that zoning is subject to change and thus is only a limiting factor at the present time. Cl encourages a full review of the study and 50 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado the reasons that overall feasibility is limited. The conclusion of the study states "commercial viability is significantly impacted by a variety of issues including existing zoning, surrounding development, conservation values, groundwater, and the location and preservation of a rail corridor." 7. RISKS Comment: 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." Response: The conclusion is correct. Just as Cl and its engineers cannot guarantee a home will not be hit by lightening, Cl cannot guarantee that subsidence will not occur as a result of dissolution of the underlying Evaporite, at depth. This is true throughout the region. It is one of the inherent risks associated with the geology in the region, just as earthquakes are in California. Through the Phase 0 investigations and mitigation, Cl and its future residents can be reasonably assured of safety in association with failures due to underlying Evaporite. More importantly to Cl, Cl has instituted water management measures to protect against piping which can be practically mitigated to ensure the integrity of structures is not unnecessarily compromised. P. RESPONSE TO SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1 COMMENTS 1. SCHOOL SITE DEDICATION Comment: 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. 51 Response: Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado The Project will take several years to initiate and construct. Cl remains committed to continue to work with the School District RE-1 to try to secure a school site in association with unincorporated community's development and other landowners to meet the District's needs, but recognizes it may not be practical and that fees-in-lieu of land may be the only available option. 52 Project Engineering Design Report River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado ATTACHMENT A: EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS - - " - • - - l ool - w - ol FILE NAME: P:\CAR80NOALE INVESTMENTS\06.00 DESIGN TASKS\06.02 -TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT\ENGINEERING & DESIGN\CAD\PLAN SHEETS\RESPONSE2REVIEW\R2R-PNP-EVA.DWG PLOT DATE/TIME: 13-, •• 12011 12:53 PM PLOTTED 8Y: CHR ~ PLOT STYLE: 8140. > ASTANDARD.CT8 ::0 N ::0 w 0 ... ~ 16022.5 0 6019.17 0 + 16021.6 0 602-4.02 0 ~ 16024.9 0 6026.95 0 ;: 16025.9 0 6027.95 0 t 15028.2 0 6029.63 0 :;' 16030.4 0 6029.98 0 ~ 16028.3 0 6028.48 0 ~ 16026.7 0 6026.48 0 "' ~ 15024.7 0 602-4.-48 0 ~ + 15022.1 0 6022.48 0 " 6 "' 0 0 0 "' 0 0 0 zm z "II OS: c r;:om ~ ~ >-i;:o • Z:X:Q >>m zoz coo ..,m-< ;ocn< 0 cnm .,;:o:x: -o-::;;>P em "' 0 0 ~ ·' 0 ~ ro "' 0 "' 0 • "' "' "' 0 0 "' .. 0 0 P.V.I. STA. 10+00.00 EL. 5019.17 I~ I P.V.C. STA. 11 +00.00 EL. 6024.02 I l_ n "' "' 0 0 "' "' 0 0 ~ < gM:;.;0 P.V.I. STA. 1 1 +50.00 -...., EL. 5026.45 . II II II II I 1..:.- r.,;,Ot.no N~(o!=' NCO No I I /' ~ X ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ • o_ P.V.T. STA. 12+00.00 EL. 5026.95 rta I I I P.V.C. STA. 13+25.00 EL. 6028.20 ~ P.V.I. STA. 13+50.00 \ EL. 6028.45 P.V.T. STA. 13+75.00 \ EL. 6029.04 It;: \ \!;; ~ ~ < 0,..,:;.;· . n II II II n ~~~g ~~g~ I ~ P.V.C. STA. 14+50.00 \ EL. 6030.80 Iii I ~ P.V.I. STA. 15+00.00 EL. 6031.98 0 < b,..,"'r, •II II II .II r..:.b~-~~~g P.V.I. STA. 1 7+50.00 EL. 6029.48 ' lb 0 " !) J "' "' 0 0 "' 0 0 "' n o -o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ - ~ ~ -I :;<; Z M ::! 8 !D ~ ~~ s ,::! ~ .:: '!: z,:;: 5 !':' •• ~ c -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gj • < " ~ ~ @ ;8 g~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 6 --< '"" z ' • ~ . p 0 f" -;~ :1: ,-0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b )> --< 0 ~ HI. 15+20.16 EL. 5031.63 'D. q P.V.T. STA. 15+50.00 EL. 6031.48 I~ llll "' 0 "' 0 P.V.C. STA. 17+00.00 EL. 6029.98 ~ < bMA(--, !:' 11 II .II II I Q- j!='!=)g ~i::_g& P.V.T. STA. 1 8+00.00 EL. 6028.48 "' "' "' 0 0 0 .. "' "' 0 0 0 0 0 "tl Zz:;o en om -1-IC :;o s: c:"'TI-oOZ -l:;o> -:;o 0 -< z 0 r'i5~rlg ""> :-:<!":'::;; -.-.z II 11-., qg_!:JI'.jo ~o ~'~ g :::0 -I 0~ z ::0 .. ·"'::::l "-~~ g~ ., ~:::( "' ~~ ~r I~ g ~ g) IV I 0 I I ' :• I [ :: 4::::::::::.:::::::::::::f, I ; " : :1 I l " I i :1 M" .::::::::::::::::::::31 I ' :1 ' 'I : :. I : :~ M'':.:::::::::::::::::ii I l " ! i: 4:~-~=~:=~-=:~:~:~:::~t: I ' 'I l l il ! i! H:: .::: ,, .:::: ::::::::'J-1 I ' " i :r I l "· ! :t , 'I f-t:::.::::::::::::::::::::~ I i :1 I : :~ I I l " , 'I I i i1 _J ~--------i ..... ;:o ~ r !!? 0 fTl 0 ;:o < fTl " ! H:::.::::::::::::::::::::iJ -, .. mmUOU·i--F-~ ,-p:::~E::;::;~~~:~ 00+~11 rao+n ··········:: .... + 0 0 "' + g <0 + 0 0 "' 0 + 0 0 "' + 0 0 ___ .L.!.....L__ _______ _ MATCHLINE STA. 21 +50 ~ ~ ~ -I : :1 I i :1 I : " M=:.:::::.:::-:::::::::~ I i :: I l " , 'I f-{:::.:::::::.:::::::::::::2-j I l il l :• I , " 1 i :r r---t::~~:~~::~~~~:::=::::-3-{ I : ;I 11 i1 I i :: . 'I fi:::.::::::::::::::::::::+. I i :1 I : " : :• H:::::::::::::::::: "~ I : 'I I i il : :• H:::::::~::::=:::::::::-:fi 1\ '. ',I I ' \ ', \ I . \ \\ I \ : '\ I ' ', ---:.M, i \ \._-:::::::-~::~:_:--\~\' : \\ \~~- : \ \ /~:;~~~: : \~>\/::;::~~/ I V/ I // I -' r+o ~ : // I , .. . / ....... v ....... I ............. I "• I ........... I ............. I ....... I •..._ ,!...._ _________ __, I I I ~ ~0'0 ~~~ ... M ;;"';; II" W! _j~ .r ~ 0 ~ Q ,..... >• ....... ~ z ... 3 -~~~~~ ~ tl ~ b ~ _g~=t ?!l ~~ I ..... -0., ,.... t~82~ 0 ""2 g:~=s v ;;~..,~ - c ; ... -,.... ... ., ~ .. ~0 ,.... ... ::r •• 0 oo CQ l ~· ~~ (I)' 1- 1- " 1- 1- ~ 1- ~ 1- 1- 00 1- 0 1- lo 0 • z ~ " ' 0 § 0 ~ " " " ~ ~ ~ w FILE NAME: P:\CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS\06.00 DESIGN TASKS\06.02 -TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT\ENGINEERING & DESIGN\CAD\PLAN SHEETS\RESPONSE2REVIEW\R2R-PNP-EVA.DWG PLOT DATEjTIME: 6/?4/2011 12:53 PM PLOTTED BY: CHf" WRY PLOT STYLE: 81~ ~STANDARD.CTB > ~ 0 ... ~ 16027.5 0 6030.82 0 "' 0 "' 0 "' 0 lS ~ ~ ... 0 ~ "' 0 P.V.I. STA. 40+00.00 \ El. 6030.82 I , \ ~ I" n "' 0 ~ "' 0 Cl "' 0 ~ 0 ~5~rlg; -~~~ ~.-.z II 11·..., 0)~6!\jo ' n "' ! . 1:--.:.::..-------/ i ;,r-::_--::::_~:_----~~--=~::::.:.:-j~l ' r-, ____ --------'I :b. I' ----·I ( / / -----":"::.::.-:-::~:_:_ft 1; '/ / :. ' :I -~~ , I ,, : ·I <: I,______ : li~:-:::::::::::::::::#1 ; ;-::~·:_:::::::::::::::_\-! I, c:-I, I / t :-rJ '/ I / . I . . I ... :; 15029.4 0 6028.72 0 P.V.C. STA. 40+75.00 b :< EL. 6029.11 0,., ~ 0 P.V.I. STA. 41 +00.00 .II 11 11 11 ~ ~ / t ""J"j If I f /I I; I : I ,, (/} t, I I ,it ...._, '/ I / : . . ::0 N ~ "' "' LO. 41 +14.57 \ EL. 6028.54 ':t C: e 9 EL. 6028.66 P.V.T. STA. 41+25.00 b: m.<O g_ ... "' 16030.8 6 6029.14 0 ... "' 16030.3 6 6029.74 0 ... ... 15029.9 6 6030 . .34 0 ... '.;} 16031.5 0 6030.94 0 ... ~ 16032.7 g 6031.54 ... ~ 15032.2 0 f6032.19 0 ... ~ 16034.0 0 60.35.24 0 ... ~ 1-6035.7 0 60<'().69 0 "' ~ 15043.3 0 6045.56 0 ~ ~ n ~ '-----.. \ El. 6028.69 en. I I I I ~ 0 ~ I I I I I I I \ \ ) I ' ~ n • g 5 ,/ P.V.C. STA. 46+85.00 EL. 6032.05 " < g ... ~~ ST 0 • m II 11 w P.V.I. A. 47+50.0 11 I Fl 603?44 ;;~~~ I' \' :'" • (..< 0 ~ 0 " - \ 'P.V.T. STA. 48+15.00 k I El. 6036.02 \ \ I I ) " -~ ,,. \ \ S~~~ 0 . P.V.I. STA. 49+85.03 \ .II 11 11 11 '" EL. 5045.43 ~ ~ ~ ~ * . o_ / P.V.T. STA. 50+26.03 • EL. 6046.23 -------------'---------- "' 0 0 U>m "'DOS: r-c:m >-!;o Z:I:C) >>m zoz coo .,m< ;oU>< oU>m -n;o:I: ;=co m>r-cm "' 0 "' 0 "' 0 lS ~ ... 0 "' 0 g: ~ "' 0 ~ Cl 0 0 "'tl Zz~ cn 0 m -1-lr ::u - C'TI:S:: oOZ -I::U)> 0 ~ z "' 0 "' 0 "'IZ ~g 0 g~ ~ _Vlr:;l "~ ~. ~~ "~ '~ ., ;;:;n !:!1-f! 'O 0 I ,' I I I I ,I'. v \ I I \ •I ::0 I, I : I it rr-, 11---I ' fl ,..,.., If ----I / • -1 1,' -j-J_ • lj I / 7 I\ I I -' ', I ,' : ·'\ I / I .\\ : ,, I I 1: I / ,• +]/1/ I ; I f.l,' I ,' /' I ' ~ __//.'-' I / • :~~/ I / I ~!"--:r:=-:/ I / I I I ,' • ; I / I I -A. I I -/-. .:;:_ I ,' : ' 0 ---I ,' I : 0 ------L. ,' I ,--~ • ,' I /-~ I ! I I / • I / • I ,' I I I I ' • I / I• I ,' I / • I f • ~~-" / ; I '\~\ ~ ~ / / 1: ' g. I ,' ' \ 2: I / : \ I ', ~ I ! I ' ', J I ' 'c---J ,' : ' I ', I / I \ :pol I ; "t!' / : I ' I ~\; ,S; \ I J \ I ,' : I ,' :I / 'I ' :, ,' // .,./ : I . . I • . II U: II 6,• ,'/ o: I ,'I : ,'I I ,'I ! /I : / i ! / I -A. : : r: ' 10 / 10 ' • ' ' . ' I ' I . . I p ' 1 ~c.-.. J.,. I~ I : .. ' .., 8 ' ,b> 19.t-~ ~ ~~ .. - l ;;!:'~!: .. J¥~; ...ozn'""' t!!o~;- l~~~~ ......... r-~t* I; ~.,..:;: ~~ ,, .. ~~ ~ " I : I " ~ ~ ' I H G - I 50 0 SCALE IN FEET HORZ: 1 "= 50' VERT: 1"<= 10' 6090 6080 6070 6060 6050 6040 6030 2 50 r~· I I I I I - 100 NOTE: FOR STREET & TRAIL T'l'PICAL SECTIONS, SEE (C04 SERIES). v.c. = 50.00' K = 28.57 E = 0.11' 5.0.0. = ---·-- 51+00 PROP. GRADE 52+00 I 4 v.c. = 110.00' K 22.30 E = ~o.GB' S.D.D. = 189.74' $ 53+00 I - 54+00 I 5 I 6 I 14' PROP. ROAD 55+00 56+00 5 I 6 I I 8 I 9 I -..... -... .... ----------....__ I ................... --------------I 57+00 ··-.. _ ----------------' ··-··------------------I v.c. -140.00' K 17.03 [ = 1.44' S.O.D. = 117.53' ~EXIST. GROUND .. ---------;_ ......... .. .. ......... ------' -- I .. ··-. -------_f_ .. ........ ' --- ··-i....' --.. ··- ld~67,.J.q IJ ~ I U. "' "' + 'f "' + 0 6090 6080 6070 6060 6050 6040 6030 58+00 59+00 60+00 I 8 I 9 I 10 10 OWNER/DEVELOPER: ~~ r~ &'\~~ Rlver:ettge COLORADO Carbondale lnwstmenls, LLC 7999HWY82 Phone No: 970.456.5325 Carbondale, CO 81623 CNIL ENGINEER/PLANNER: KEY MAP: 8140 Partners, LLC POBo)(042& Eagle, CO 81631.0426 Phone No: 866,934.8140 YNNI.8140partners.eom PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 5/11/11 RESPONSE TO RE\'1EW AGENCIES SUBOMSION (PRELII.IINARY PLAN) SUBI.IITTAL ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER: 10 001 PROJECT MANAGER: S. OTERO DRAWN BY: C. LOWRY CHECKED BY: 0. HOPTA SHEET TITLE: EMERGENCY VEHICLE SOUTH ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET NUMBER: R2R3.04 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado ATTACHMENT B: ROUNDABOUT RADII H G ', ',,, ', ',, ', ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ', ' ',,_ ', >, ' 2 ,/ ,:(', ,/ / .\ ' ,/ \, ', \ \ '\ \ \ ', \ ' \ \ \ ', \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ ___ .-\ \ ' :,--\ -\ \ 210~~~~,~~~~2~0------~40 SCALE IN FEET 2 4 ' 4 ' ' \ I , ' I R«79 ~ ' I \ I \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ', \ \ ' ',, ', ', ' ',, ' '~) I : I 5 18" MOUNTABLE CURB I I LJ_._-----~~-~ ~-~~--- 1 : I : I : I : I : I : I : I : I : I : I ! I : I ! I : I ! I ' I / I : I : I I / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I ' I ~ i I I /i \ ' ' ' I ' • • I / \ \ ,' // \ \ // // \ \ ///// \ \ .,"/,-"/ \ \ ; / .. \ 5 8 8 9 / / ,-',/ /A / / / / '· ·,, ,,,_ '· ,, \0 \ \ \ ',,, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '',,, ·,, ''··.,, __ ,,, '-... _.A .>;/ ' // //~,/'--\\ '-.. I ·-·~ _./· ·_/,' /" \ ', '•,, .· . ' \ ........ ',, /,/ ,/· ,/ ... , '•,, // /' // ' ', . ', '•,, // .-/' ,./ ', '·,, // / _./ ' ',, / / // ', ',, ,/ /_. ,/ ' ',' ' '-<::-,<:· \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ... · \ \ --·· .. -· \ \ . ----· -_ .. · \ \-····· -- \ ' --· _ .. · '\\.--·· .--- 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ ~···· ___ .. - \ \ I \ \ \ \ \. .. -·····-- \ \ --· \..--~-, ... ·· \ \····· \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ I \ \ \ \ \ OWNER/DEVELOPER: ~~ ~Pn COLORADO ge Carbondale Investments, LLC 79t9HWYI2 Phone No: 970A5$.5325 Carbondale, CO 81623 CIVIL ENGINEER/PLANNER: KEY MAP: 1140 Partners, LLC PO Box0426 E•gle, co 81631..(1426 Phone No: 866.934.8140 WNW.8140partners.com PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/21/11 \ \ RESPONSE TO REVIEW AGENCIES NOTES- I. SIGNING AND STRIPING PER MUTCD. 9 \0 \ \ \ \ SUBOMSION (PRELIMINARY PlAN) SUBMITTAL \ \ ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION \ \ ....• --FoP~RO~J~EC~T""'N~U~M~BE~R~, --~~~~---,-10~-~0~0o-~\ \ \ \.--~-PROJECT MANAGER: S. OTERO \ 'r···, ~OR~A~W~N~BY~'cc---------~C~. ~L~O~W~RYCj \ \ r I \ ~CH~E~C7K~EO~B~Y~·--------~'~·2"~0~P~TA~ \ \ SHEET TITLE: I ' \ \ \ NORTH MINI ROUNDABOUT LAYOUT SHEET NUMBER: R2R1.01 ~ 0 z § z i > " ~ " G 0 8 c ~ 0 20 \ -------------- --------------- 40 2 5 ----- ---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------··\ ----------,, ', -------- 5 ', ' ',, ....... ',, ........... ... ________ ,. ------y ' ' ' ' ' ------r ' ' ' ' \ ' 6 7 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . I I I I I MOUNTABLE CURB I ------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ____ \----- -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' \ \ g \ \ 0 " \ \ g ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' I . I I ' \ \ g \ \ \ \ g I • I I . . I I \ \ g \ \ g I I I . . \ \ I ', ' \ \ g \ \ --\-----~~, ' ·, I ' I ' ' 10 \ \ 0 Q \ \ 0 Q \ \ 0 Q \ ' I \ ' ' ' tlQlTh ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I g \ I \ 0 . Q • \ I I 1. SIGN'·NG AND STRIPING PER MUTCO. 8 9 10 \ 0 Q 1140 Partners, LLC PO Box04Z6 Eagle, co 81631~426 Phone No: 866.934.8140 www.8140partners.~om PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SOUTH MINI ROUNDABOUT LAYOUT SHEET NUMBER: R2R1.02 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado ATTACHMENT C: RELEASE STRUCTURES Outlet Structures Description This section provides guidance and details for outlet structures for use primarily with BMPs utilizing sedimentation, (i.e., extended detention basins (EDBs), retention ponds, and constructed wetland ponds). The information provided in this section includes guidance for different size watersheds as well as for incorporating Full Spectrum Detention as described in the Storage chapter of Volume 2. The details contained in this Fact Sheet are intended to provide a starting point for design. UDFCD recommends that design details for outlet structures be specific for each site with structural details drawn to scale. The details provided in this Fact Sheet are not intended to be used without modification or additional detail. Outlet Design Large Watershed Considerations T-12 Photograph OS-1. Although each site is differ ent , mo st sedimentation BMP s have similar outlet structures. Eac h structure should include a partially submerged orifice plate with a screen (or grate) protecting the orifice plate from clogging, and an overflow weir for flow s exceeding the WQCV or excess urban runoff volume (EU RV), when full spectrum detention is used. UDFCD recommends that water quality treatment be provided close to the pollutant source. This is a fundamental concept of Low Impact Development (LID). Although flood control facilities, including Fu ll Spectrum Detention facilities, have been shown to be very effective for watersheds exceeding one square mile, this is not the case for water quality facilities. One reason for this is that the baseflow associated with a larger watershed will vary and can be difficult to estimate. The orifice plate should be designed to pass the baseflow while detaining the water quality capture volume (WQCV) for approximate ly 40 hours . When the baseflow is overestimated, the WQCV is not detained for the recommended time, passing through without treatment. When the baseflow is underestimated, the elevation of the permanent pool will be higher than designed , causing maintenance issues as well as reducing the volume available for detention of the WQCV, which also allows for a portion of this volume to pass through without treatment. For this reason, UDFCD recommends that facilities designed for both water quality and flood control be limited, where possible, to watersheds without a baseflow. The maximum recommended watershed for combined facilities is one square mile. Additiona l discussion on designing for baseflows is provided in the EDB BMP Fact Sheet (T-5). Designing for Maintenance Rather than using the minimum criteria, consider maximizing the width of the trash rack to the geometry ofthe outlet. This will reduce clogging and frequency of maintenance. Reduced clogging in EDB outlet structures will preserve the initial surcharge volume thus reducing frequency of inundation in the bottom of the basin. This will benefit the grasses and reduce long- term EDB maintenance requirements (including sediment removal in the grassed area) and may reduce the life-cycle cost of the BMP. October 20 I 0 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 OS-I T-12 Outlet Structures Orifice Plates and Trash Racks An orifice plate is used to release the WQCV slowly over 40 hours. For Full Spectrum Detention, the orifice plate is extended to drain a larger volume, the EURV, over approximately 72 hours. The figures and tables in this section provide recommendations for orifice configurations and trash rack type and size . Guidance is provided for plates using both circular and rectangular orifices. Orifice Sizing Follow the design steps included in the BMP Fact Sheet for the appropriate BMP. The UD-BMP workbook, available at www.udfcd.org, can also be used to calculate the required orifice area per row. This is the first step in detailing the out let structure for sedimentation BMPs. It is good practice to maximize the area of each orifice to avoid clogging. The UD-BMP workbook will allow up to two columns of circular orifices before recommending a single rectangular orifice. A rectangular orifice is recommended when the required open area per row is equal to approximately 4 square inches or greater. Details showing orifice configurations are provided in Figure OS-4. Table OS-1 can be used to determine orifice shape and number of columns based on the required area per row. Trash Rack Sizing Once the size of the orifice has been determined , this information, along with the total orifice area in the water quality plate, is used to determine the total open area of the grate (see Figure OS -I). The trash rack should be sized using this figure. This Fact Sheet also includes standard tables that can be used when the outlet is designed per UDFCD criteria, including inundation of trash rack into the permanent pool for a depth of approximate ly 2.5 feet. The standard tables assume the use of the specified stainless steel screen with circular orifices Photograph OS-2. This trash rack cou ld not be properly attached du e to it s inadequate flange width. and the specified a luminum bar grate for use with Photograph OS-3. Trash rack afier repair. rectangular orifices. Use Figure OS-1 when using a different track rack material or when the geometry of the structure does not fit within the assumptions of the tables. Use Tables OS-2a and OS-2b for circular orifices and Tables OS-3a and OS-3b for rectangu lar orifices. Be aware, these tables provide the minimum width clear for the trash rack frame. It is also important to provide adequate width for attachment to the outlet structure (see Photos OS -2 and OS -3). Also, consider maximizing the width of the trash rack to the geometry of the outlet. Th is will reduce clogging and maintenance requirements associated with cleaning the trash rack . OS-2 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 October 20 I 0 Outlet Structures Hole Dia. Hole Dia. (in) I (in) 1/4 0.250 5/16 0.313 Table OS-1. Orifice Sizing Area per Row (inL) Use one column of rectangular orifices l when the needed area exceeds 3 .84 in n =l n=2 0.05 - 0.08 -Rectangular Height (in)= 2 T-12 3/8 0.375 0.11 -Rectangular Width (in) = Required Area I 2 in 7/16 0.438 0.15 - 1/2 0.500 0.2 - 9/16 0.563 0.25 -Rectangular Width (in) 5/8 0.625 0.31 -S6 11/16 0.688 0.37 -S8 3/4 0.750 0.44 -SIO 13/16 0 .813 0.52 ->10 7/8 0.875 0.6 - 15/16 0 .938 0.69 - I 1.000 0.79 - 1-1/16 1.063 0.89 - 1-118 1.125 0.99 - 1-3/16 1.188 1.11 - 1-114 1.250 1.23 - 1-5/16 1.313 1.35 - 1-3/8 1.375 1.48 - 1-7/16 1.438 1.62 3.24 1-1/2 1.500 1.77 3.54 1-9/16 1.563 1.92 3.84 1-5/8 1.625 2.07 - 1-11/16 1.688 2.24 - 1-3/4 1.750 2.41 - 1-13/16 1.813 2.58 - 1-7/8 1.875 2.76 - 1-15/16 1.938 2.95 - 2 2.000 3.14 - n =Number of Columns of Orifices Steel Thickness (Min.) 1/4" 5/16" 1 If desired, interpolate to the nearest 32" to better match the needed area. October 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Steel Thickness (in) ~1/4 ~5/16 ~3/8 ~112 OS-3 T-12 Outlet Structures 100 ~---r---,----~---r---,----~---r---,----~--~~~--~ 0 ..:t: ......_ < ro Q) ~ +-' Q) -~ 0 ~ tS 0 +-' ro Q) ~ s:: Q) 0.. 0 Q) ~ M C) 4-< 0 0 ·-~ ~ OS-4 10 I -Flood Control Grates --Water Quality Grates -D>24" 1 +----r--_,----+----r--_,--~+----r~_,----+---4----+--~ 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 Outlet Diameter or Minimum Dimension D (Inches) Figut·e OS-1. Trash Rack Sizing Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 40 44 48 October 20 10 Outlet Structures T-12 Table OS-2a. Trash Rack Sizing for Circular Orifices'·' Number Diameter of Width of Trash Rack Opening (W opening) as a Function of Circular of Water Depth H Above Lowest Perforation Columns Orifice (in) H-2.0' H-3.0' H-4.0' H-5.0' H-6.0' 1 < 1-114 12"2 12"2 12"2 12" 13" 1 < 1-112 12"2 14" 16" 17'' 18" 1 <:: 1-3/4 15" 18 11 21" 22" 24" 1 <::2 19'' 23" 26" 28" 30" 2 1-7/16 21" 26" 29" 31" 33" 2 1-1/2 23" 28" 31" 34" 35" 2 1-9/16 24" 30" 34" 36" 38" 1 For use with Johnson VEE WireTM Stainless Steel Screen! (or equivalent screen with 60% open area). Assumes inundation of well screen into the permanent pool 2'4". 2 Represents the minimum recommended width of 12 inches, otherwise width is calculated based on Figure OS-1. 3 This table provides the minimum opening in the concrete, not the minimum width of the well screen. Ensure the well screen is wide enough to properly attach to the structure. Table OS-2b. Trash Rack Specifications for Circular Orifice Plates Max. Width of Screen #93 Support Total Trash VEE Wire Support Rod Rod, On Screen Rack Slot Type Center, Thickness Opening Opening (in) Spacing (in) S9 0.139 #156 VEE %" 0.31" S!8 0.139 TE !" 0.655" 0.074"x0.50" ,;24 0.139 TE !" 1.03" 0.074"x0.75" '5.27 0.139 TE !" 1.03" 0.074"x0.75" S30 0.139 TE 0.074"xl.O" I" 1.155" S36 0.139 TE 0.074"xl.O" !" 1.155" ~42 0.139 TE 0.105"xl.O" !" 1.155" 1 Johnson Screens, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA (1-800-833-9473) October 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Carbon Steel Frame Type 3 /8"xl.O" flat bar %" x 1.0 angle 1.0" X 1 ~~~ angle 1.0" X 1~" angle 1 '/4 "x 1 Y," angle I '/4'x !W' angle 1 1/4'x 1 Y," angle OS-5 T-12 Outlet Structures Table OS-3a. Trash Rack Sizing for 2" High Rectangular Orifices Minimum Width of Trash Rack Opening (W""'";.,g) Width (W) of as a Function of Water Depth H Above Lowest Perforation 2" Rectangular Spacing of Orifice (in) HQ.O ft. H~3.0 ft. H~4.0 ft. H~5.0 ft. H~6.0 ft. Bearing Bars, Cross Rods 2 1.7' 2.1' 2.4' 2.5' 2.7' 1-3/16", 2" <2.5 2.2' 2.6' 3' 3.2' 3.4' 1-3/16", 2" <3.0 2.6' 3.2' 3.5' 3.8' 4.0' 1-3/16", 2" :s 3.5 3.0' 3.7' 4.1' 4.5' 4.7' 1-3/16", 2" :s 4.0 3.4' 4.2' 4.7' 5.1' 5.4' 1-3/16", 2" <4.5 3.6' 4.4' 4.9' 5.3' 5.6' 1-3/16", 4" :s 5.0 4.0' 4.8' 5.4' 5.9' 6.2' 1-3/16", 4" :s 5.5 4.4' 5.3' 6.0' 6.5' 6.8' 1-3/16", 4" :s 6.0 4.8' 5.8' 6.5' 7.0' 7.4' 1-3/16", 4" :s 6.5 5.2' 6.3' 7.1' 7.6' 8.1' 1-3/16", 4" :s 7.0 5.6' 6.8' 7.6' 8.2' 8.7' 1-3/16". 4" :s 7.5 6.0' 7.3' 8.2' 8.8' 9.3' 1-3/16". 4" :s 8.0 6.4' 7.8' 8.7' 9.4' 9.9' l-3/16", 4" :s 8.5 6.8' 8.2' 9.2' 10' * 1-3/16", 4" :s 9.0 7.2' 8.7' 9.8' • • 1-3/16", 4" :s 9.5 7.6' 9.2' • • * 1-3/16", 4" :s 10.0 8.0' 9.7' * * * 1-3/16", 4" :S I 0.5 8.3' • * • • 1-3/16", 4" :s 11.0 8.7' * * • • 1-3/16", 4" :s 11.5 9.1' * * * * 1-3/16"' 4" :s 12.0 9.5' * * • • l-3/16"' 4" * Size trash rack per Figure OS-I. Use 4-inch high staggered rectangular orifices to limit size of the structure. Notes: I. Width shown based on Figure OS-I assuming inundation of trash rack into the permanent poo12'4". 2. This table provides the minimum opening in the concrete, not the minimum width of the trash rack. Ensure the trash rack is wide enough to properly attach to the structure. OS-6 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 October 2010 Outlet Structures October 20 I 0 Table OS-3b. Trash Rack Specifications for 2" High Rectangnlar Orifices Water Depth Above Minimum Bearing Bar Size, Lowest Opening, H (ft) Bearing Bars Aligned Vertically (in) 2.0' I" X 3116" 3.0' 1-1/4" X 3/16" 4.0' 1-3/4" X 3/16" 5.0' 2" X 3/16" 6.0' 2-1/4" X 3/16" Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 T-12 OS-7 T-12 Outlet Geometry Outlets for small watersheds will typically be sized for maintenance operations while the geometry of outlets for larger watersheds may be determined based on the required size of the trash rack. For all watershed sizes, the outlet should be set back into the embankment of the pond to better allow access to the structure . This also provides a more attractive BMP. For larger watersheds, this will require wing walls. Wing walls are frequently cast-in-place concrete, although other materials, such as grouted boulders, may be used where appropriate . Consider safety, aesthetics, and maintenance when selecting materials and determining the geometry. A safety rail should be included for vertical drops of 3 feet or more. Depending on the location of the structure in relation to pedestrian trails, safety rails may also be required for lesser drops. Stepped grouted boulders can be used to reduce the height of vertical drops. As shown in Figures EDB-1 and EDB-2 provided in BMP Fact Sheet T-5, wing walls can be flared or parallel. There are advantages to both configurations. Parallel wing walls may be more aesthetic; however, depending on the geometry of the pond , may limit accessibility to the trash rack. Flared wing walls can call attention to the structure but provide better accessibility and sometimes a vertical barrier from the micropool of an EDB, which can increase safety of the structure. Parallel walls can also be used with a second trash rack that is secured flush with the top of the wall as shown in Photo OS-4. This eliminates the need for a safety rail and may provide additional protection from clogging; however, it creates a maintenance issue by restricting access to the water quality screen. The rack shown in Photo OS-4 was modified after construction due to this problem . Outlet Structures Photograph OS-4. Mai ntenance access to the water qu a lity trash rack was compromi sed by the location of a secondary tras h rack on this outlet. This may have been included as a safety rack or as additional protection from clogging. The owner modified the structure for better access. A safety rail would have been a better solution. Photograph OS-5. Interruption s in the horizontal members of this trash rack and th e spacing of the vertical members allow easier access to clean the water quality grate. A raking tool can be used to scrape the water quality tras h rack. OS-8 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 October 2010 Outlet Structures T-12 Micropools within the Outlet Structure The micropool of an EDB may be placed inside the structure when desired. This is becoming increasingly common for smaller watersheds and near airfields where large bird populations can be problematic. When designing this type of structure, consider maintenance of the water quality trash rack. T he secondary trash rack should be designed to allow maintenance of the water quality trash rack si milar to that shown in Photo OS-5. This concept can easily be incorporated into smaller outlet structures (s ee Figures OS-7 and OS-8 for details). Outlet Structure Details A number of details are presented in this section to assist designers with detailing outlet structures. Table OS-2 provides a list of details available at www.udfcd.org . These detai ls are not intended to be use d in construction plans without proper modifications as indicated in Table OS-4. Table OS-4. Summary of Outlet Structure Details and Use Figure Detail Use of Detail OS-2 Typical Outlet Structure for Full Spectrum Conceptual. Detention OS-3 Typical Outlet Structure for WQCV Conceptual. Treatment a nd Attenuation Outlet section. Modify per true structure geometry OS-4 Orifice Plate and Trash Rack and concrete reinforcement. Modify notes per actual design. Outlet sections. Modify per true structure OS-5 Typical Outlet Structure with Circular geometry and concrete reinforcement. Add Orifice Plate additional sections and detailing as necessary. Modify not es per actual design. Outlet sections. Modify per tru e structure OS-6 Typical Outlet Structure with Rectangular geometry and concrete reinforcement. Add Orifice Plate additional sections and detailing as necessary. Modify notes per actual design. Full Spectrum Detention Outlet Structure Outlet profile and section. Modify per true EURV OS-7 e levation and concrete reinforcement. Add for 5-acre Impervious Area or Less additional sections and detailing as necessary. WQCV Outlet Structure for 5-acre Outlet sections. Modify per true WQCV elevation OS-8 Impervious Area or Less and concrete reinforcement. Add additional sections and detailing as necessary . October 201 0 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 OS-9 T-12 OS-10 Outlet Structures NOTE: ALL TRASH RACKS SHOULD BE SIZED PER FIGURE OS-I OVERTOPPING PROTECTION (DESIGNED FOR 1 00-YR DISCHARGE OR GREATER) FINISHED GRADE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY OVERFLOW OUTLET W /TRASH RACK TRASH RACK~ (SEE FIGURE OS-4) 4" MIN. INITIAL ~URCHARGo VOLUME (EDB ONLY) 100-YR WSE EURV WSE . ' . OUTLET PIPE (120%) OF 100-YR CAPACrrY) Figure OS-2. Typical Outlet Structure for Full Spectrum Detention OVERTOPPING PROTECTION (DESIGNED FOR 100-YR DISCHARGE OR GREATER) OVERFLOW AND EMERGENCY SPILLWAY 4" MIN. INITIAL Figure OS-3. Typical Outlet Structure for WQCV Treatment and Attenuation Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 October 2010 Outlet Structures STRUCTURAL STEEL CHANNEL FORMED INTO CONCRETE ORIFICE DIAMETER D ru +" O.C . (lYP.) 0 0 ill 0 SMALLER ELEVA]ON 0 c:::::J 0 0 c:::::J 0 0 0 0 0 c:::::J 0 0 0 c:=:J 0 0 0 c:::::J 0 0 0 0 0 c:=:J 0 0 c:::::J 0 0 c:=:J 0 0 0 0 0 WATERSHED SIZE . . STAINLESS STEEL BOLTS OR INTERMmANT WELDS, SEE FIGURE OS-5 AND OS-6, SECTION B r 0 ...... I Vl· woo a::' a !t- 1 J:O ·' ~ [o'~] LARGER EXAMPLE ORIFICE PATTERNS ORIFICE PLATE NOTES: 1. MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF COLUMNS. 2. PROVIDE GASKET MATERIAL BETWEEN THE ORIFICE PLATE AND CONCRETE. 3. BOLT PLATE TO CONCRETE 12" MAX . ON CENTER. EURV AND WQCV TRASH RACKS : 1. WELL-SCREEN TRASH RACKS (FOR CIRCULAR ORIFICES) SHALL BE STAINLESS STEEL AND SHALL BE ATTACHED BY INTERI.lmENT WELDS ALONG THE EDGE OF THE MOUNTING FRAME. 2. BAR GRATE TRASH RACKS (FOR RECTANGULAR ORIFICES) SHALL BE ALUMINUM AND SHALL BE BOLTED USING STAINLESS STEEL HARDWARE. T-12 3. TRASH RACK WIDTHS PROVIDED IN TABLE OS-2A AND OS-311 ARE FOR SPECIFIED TRASH RACK MATERIAL AND NEED TO BE ADJUSTED FOR MATERIALS HAVING A DIFFERENT OPEN AREA/GROSS AREA RAllO (R VALUE) +. STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TRASH RACKS SHALL BE BASED ON FULL HYDROSTATIC HEAD WITH ZERO HEAD DOWNSTREAM OF THE RACK. OVERFLOW TRASH RACKS : 1. ALL TRASH RACKS SHALL BE MOUNTED USING STAINLESS STEEL HARDWARE AND PROVIDED WITH HINGED AND LOCKABLE OR BOLTABLE ACCESS PANELS. 2. TRASH RACKS SHALL BE STAINLESS STEEL, ALUMINUM, OR STEEL. STEEL TRASH RACKS SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED AND MAY BE HOT POWDER COATED AFTER GALVANIZING. 3 . TRASH RACKS SHALL BE DESIGNED SUCH THAT THE DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF EACH OPENING IS SMALLER THAN Tl-IE DIAMETER OF THE OUTLET PIPE. +. STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TRASH RACKS SHALL BE BASED ON FULL HYDROSTATIC HEAD WITH ZERO HEAD DOWNSTREAM OF THE RACK. October 20 I 0 Figure OS-4. Orifice Plate and Trash Rack Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volum e 3 OS-II T-12 Outlet Structures OS-12 TRASH RACK WITH BARS 6" MAX. ON CENTER BOLT OR LOCK~ C8x18.75 AMERICAN STANDARD STRUCTURAL STEEL CHANNEL TRASH RACK ATIACHED BY WELDING WQCV OR EURV WSE a· SECTION @A NTS WEUL-SCREEN FRAME ATTACHED TO CHANNEL BY INTERMITIENT WELDS STEEL ORIFICE PLATE RACK SWIVEL HINGE STEEL ORIFICE PLATE PRO~DE A GASKET BETWEEN PLATE AND CONCRETE /OUTLET PIPE .r-..L __ . (OPTIONAL LOCATION) ~---=-:a- OUTLET PIPE STAINLESS STEEL~ SUPPORT BARS , ~ .. ~·"~· =u FLOW -I 1-._ -I 1-- ! FLOW w...,.. + 4"MIN. 'SEE T BLE OS-2A ...._."""'- SE~RON@ 0.139" 0.090" SECTION @c NTS R VALUE = (NET OPEN AREA)/(GROSS RACK AREA) = 0.60 Figure OS-5. Typical Outlet Structure with Circular Orifice Plate Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 October 20 I 0 Outlet Structures TRASH RACK WITH BARS~ 6" UAX. ON CENTER BOLT OR LOCK~ 12.. 4'-0" 8" r'+-T.:rn.r---1-"-1 C12x2~ AMERICAN \ · STANDARD STEEL CHANNEL FORMED _.. INTO CONCRETE · · · . AMICO KLEI.IP111 SR SERIES -----......... i ALUWINUM BAR GRATE 1 (OR EQUMLENT) PER fABLES OS-JA AND OS-3B • ', '• C 12X25 AMERICAN STANDARD STEEL CHANNEL FORMED INTO CONCRETE, BOTH SlOES STEEL ORI~CE PlATE . ' MIICO KLEMPN SR SERIES ALUMINUM OAR GRATE (OR EQUAL) ,, T-12 STEEL ORIFICE PLATE PROVIDE A GASKET BETWEEN PlATE H-ID CONCRETE 100-\'R FlOW RESTRICTOR OUnET PIPE AMICO KLEMP. SR SERIES ALUMINUM BAR GRATE (OR EQUAL) ALUMINUM BAR ORATE 3/16" WIDTH BARS ON 1-3/16" CENTERS CROSS ROD ON 2" OR 4" CENTERS (SEE TABLE os-JA) R VALUE-(NET OPEN AREA)/GROSS RACK AREA) =0.71 fOR CROSS RODS ON 2" CENTERS October 20 I 0 -0.77 FOR CROSS RODS ON 4" CENTERS Figure OS-6. Typical Outlet Structure with Rectangular Orifice Plate Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 OS-13 T-12 ALLOW 1" GM' UNDER TRASH RACK w-.. + +"(t.tiN. 'SEE TABLE OS-2A SECTION@ NTS Outlet Structures FINISHED GRADE I STEEL PERFORATED PROVIDE A GASKET BETWEEN PLATE AND CONCRETE 1 00-YEAR FLOW RESTRICTOR -1-.... --.... I _ ____)_ I 11 STEEL _._, __ L OUn.ET PIPE ~~~~E (OPTIONAL LOCATION FOR VERTICAL CONSTRANTS) OUTLET PIPE TRASH SCREEN .../ i+.;~;f WIDTH PER TABLE A-6A1 STAINLESS STEEL SUPPORT BARS NO. 93 STAINLESS STEEL SECTION@ NTS FLOW 0. 139" 0.090" SECTION© NTS !w Figure OS-7. Full Spectrum Deteutiou Outlet Structure for 5-acre Impervious Area or Less OS-14 Urbau Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 October 2010 Outlet Structures T-12 TUBULAR TRASH RACK ON 6" CENTERS ALLOW 1" GAP UNDER TRASH RACK TRICKLE CHANNEL INVERT PROVIDE A GASKET BETWEEN ORIFICE PlATE AND CONCRETE FINISHED GRADE -:=~ --I_.---OUTLET PIPE TRASH RACK STEEL ORIFICE PlATE (OPTIONAL LOCATION FOR VERTICAL CONSTR.'JNTS) ST.'JNLESS STEEL --+~:+-----l TRASH SCREEN ,..L-+-----F'-l'!!l!l:~.;;;~...,.-l.,;--lJ (WELL SCREEN- JOHNSONN VEE WIRE OR EQUIVALENT) ATTACH BY INTERMITTENT WELOS TO C8X18.75 PROFILE NTS TRASH SCREEN ../' ~rrrm WIDTH PER TABLE A-6A1 AMERICAN STEEL CHANNEL FORMED INTO CONCRETE BOTTOM AND SIDES OF OPENING IN WALL SECTION@ NTS October 20 I 0 ....................... w-+ 4•MIN 'SEE TABLE OS-2A SECTION@ NTS l FLOW STAINLESS STEEL~ SUPPORT BARS NO. 93 STAINLESS STEEL {\______ -l 1\>\ /\ ;\ /~ 1 -H--ll- o.1 39" o.o9o" SECJ~ON© Figure OS-8. WQCV Outlet Structure for 5-acre Impervious Area or Less l FLOW Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 OS-15 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado ATTACHMENT D: EXECUTIVE LOT ACCESS ~ " ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 0 FILE NAME: P:\CARR0NDALE INVESTMENTS\06.00 DESIGN TASKS\06.02 -TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT\ENGINEERING & DESIGN\CAD\P' '"-~ SHEETS\RESPONSE2REVIEW\R2R-PNP-EXECUTIVE-LOT.DWG PLOT DATE/TIME: '201 1 2:03 PM PLOTTED BY: CHI ~RY PLOT STYLE: 814Q,_, . ..,_MSTANDARD.CTB ;Q N ;Q N 0 ~ > "' "' "' 0 ~ 16030.8 0 6030.82 0 6033.0 6029.70 + t 6031.6 g 6028.76 6031.3 6028.84 ~ 16031.2 0 6029.09 0 6030.7 6029.34 '+' 16030.3 0 6029.59 0 6029.9 6029.84 + 16030.0 0 60.30.09 0 6030.6 60.30.34 't' 16031.5 0 6030.59 0 6031.4 6030.84 ~ 16032.5 0 6031.09 0 6033.3 6031.34 :;:' 16032.2 0 6031.59 0 6032.1 6031.84 ~ 16034.0 0 6032.09 0 6035.3 6032.34 'f 16034.6 0 6032.59 0 "' 6035.4 6032.18 ~ 16033.9 0 6030.46 0 6030.6 6027.43 "' :;: 1-6026.0 0 6023.09 0 "' "' + g ~ ~ z c < ~ ~ 6019.0 6018.09 !;!; "' 0 m "'II X r-m )>O zc: )>::! z< em ..., ... ;uO o-1 "T1;Q r=o m> c gJ 0 0 gJ 0 0 m gJ 0 0> 0 "' 0 LO. 11+14.57 EL. 6028.66 0> ~ n gJ ... 0 gJ "' 0 P.V.I. STA. 10+00.00 \ EL. 6030.82 \ ' \ ~ ~ I P.V.C. STA. 1 0+ 75.00 !/' < EL. 6029.11 b,..., A h P.V.I. STA. 11+00.00 .II II II .II El. 6028.54 N 9 :;j <.1' \ -1>-Qit_.? P.V.T. STA. 1 1 +25.00 =-"" . "' 8 I EL. 6028.69 ~-• I \ I I I I I I I p g I; I I I I ~I :; ~ j ~ ~ I ~ ~ 3 g \ 5 ~ I I I P.V.C. STA. 16+85.00 EL. 6032.05 P.V.I. STA. 17+50.00 EL 6032.44 HI. 17+55.91 EL. 6032.27 ~ < ¢,...,Ah ? II II 11 II I-- g:::§p ~ <ll.(l:l 8. ~- \ P.V.T. STA. 18+15.00 [EL. 6032.12 ' \ ~ \ ~ I I P.V.C. STA. 19+00.00 EL. 6031.69 P.V.I. STA. 20+00.00 I ''" "' j EL. 60~. f/ I I I ) " I I \ I , P.V.T. STA. 21-1-00.00 '; ' .0 II§ '/ ' / EL. 6022.19 P.V.I. STA. 21+96.98 EL. 6013.47 gJ 0 ~ g 0 }l }l ~ gJ "' 0 gJ u 0 ~~~ee~ 1 : 8 ~ 5 5 ~ Si IIIII ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L~-t---1"~;_; 11---+-+-++--+---1 .. z ;:r ;; ~ g! S3 .::o ~ . . ;s: ;o olnl~ 55 sl~ ""0 :::;;: ,.., 0 -; ::0 ::0 0 > -< 0 - ~ ~ o-=oB; ' . ' £ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ n I~ gJ ... 0 ~ g,...,;>;~ ·~ II II •II ·~ :::;!"!--"'~ g; ~-t:: g """· o_ gJ "' 0 0 0 "lJ Zz;;c cn 0 m ~--~!: c"TI!: ooz -I ;;til> -;;c ~ -< 0> 0 gJ gJ 0> 0 0 <IIIlr.g; '00 ~~~ -,-_z ~~M qo.o::jl,jo )g g ~ ~"~ ,o g::o -I 0~ z;;;: . ·1/):::;l ~~ '~ 8~ •;o ~~ ::Q:::Q 'O $~ ' ~ ~ I / ~ ~ j / / / .-0, \ I \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ ·--. / I ' -, n " //0--//~~~ 1/~ I"'~ {h' $i "o ,'\( '>-j ~ I', flj ,, ,: I J ., / ',t: ~'/! // ' /'(--=---=---=---- -----,/~ /-.__; ,' : ,!;;J --......... //; / ~ --, ,:._c_ '' .... s< . .,::- i i g I I '-I • I I I I I I /··-....,:' I ' • I / I / I / I / I / I . . -~-! 1_,_ ! f ' ' ' ' i ' P.T. 12+45.80 I ' I / I I . . _, I I I , I / ~' /: i 11-l-u + 0 0 I I I I . • I o' ~ I ~ I 0 ' ' I I I I I I I . I I . . I . P.C. 13+95.59 . . I . . I ,:._,. 's .... _0(;·9-e ~· I .i' : &/ I I II // / / I II/ I ! : I -.(, ' I ' I '~ / I-I I / ,'.:?> / I / ,a / 1 I ,' • I ,' • ~c: / I . '16 ' -~-., . / ,' ~Oe :::; ,' ? ! j I ' ' P.T. j 7+43 3 I J I ! I I I_ Ia> I+ 10 10 I I . I . . I I I , I . I I ' :I : :I : :1 ~: I I + :I <!) :J +: 'I 8 :1 I O u : • f"------r ~-1 I I ~ -l- -1- I I Ll I I I "' :;: 8 ~ ;j; i' ~ ~~ .J po~ ~~~...,~ il o«> o.,. .. ;.;;-g'::; :::zn><oo _gR025" ;!~t:~ $ ~ ~ F ~~~ n I ' I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I § "' 1J ~ 1l 2 a-::a-9 0.0 ~ ~~~ Sri Jr.,. li ~ 8 ... [ r.: > ~ • c z ... 3-~::: ~ b .. ~ ~ 0 I ' ' I ' I I $ ~ f ~ cQ! CD ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Response to Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Gariield County, Colorado ATTACHMENT E: CDOW RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. NEPA••WILDLIFE••VEGETATION••WILDFIRE MITIGATION••WETLANDS••PLANNING Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning Dept 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 June 27, 2011 RE: Response to CDOW 2009 letter for River Edge Colorado PUD Review Dear Ms. Eastley : At the request of River Edge Colorado I have prepared the following response to CDOW's comment letter on River Edge Colorado, dated February 19, 2009. To update County staff on the current conditions of the River E dge Colorado property, o ne of the main heronry trees on the west bank of the Roaring Fork River fell into the river during high spring runoff flows in 2010, and no longer supports heron use. Golden eagles were also observed predating upon heron chicks in the remaining large ponderosa pine on the property in 2010. This spring (2011), a pair of red-tailed hawks established a ne st in a cottonwood trees adjacent to the one remaining ponderosa pine supporting heron nesting. Subsequently, heron use on the property has greatly diminished since 2009. I have not been on the property this spring to count active nests, but it appears that the current heronry on the property is slowly, and naturally, decreasing in use and effectiveness, and is becoming decadent as is typical for a heronry. With the opening of the Rio Grande Trail to year round hikers, bicyclists, and sometimes cross country skiers, and dog walkers, the effectiveness of the REC property as big game winter range has been substantially diminished. Indeed, off leash dogs have b ee n observed chasing elk on the property on multiple occasions. Also, the big game fence on both sides of Highway 82 has also decreased the amount and intensity of elk u se of the REC property over the past two years, and elk have begun to change movement and wintering patterns in the area. The big game fence has also significantly decreased vehicle-wildlife collisions in the area . There would still be direct and indirect impacts to big game winter ranges, but the number of individual elk which could be impacted has significantly de creased over the past two years due to the trail and fencing. In response to CDOWs bulleted list in the 2009 letter: 1. In contrast to CDOWs list, there are no trails proposed for construction within the Conservation Easement area, any trails in that area would be at the discretion of the Roaring Fork Conservancy and at this time RFC has not approved any trails within the easement area. 2 . In contrast to CDOWs list, all active heron nests were positively identified in the December 2010 wildlife assessment prepared for the PUD application. While the conservation easement language specifically terms some areas as having heron nesting, we utilized existing, verified heron nesting in the development of the impact assessment, and did not use old, or abandoned nesting sites. 3. REC is proposing that there would be no active construction activities within 200m of active P O BOX 833 • G LENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81602 PH ONE/PAX: (970) 945 -9558 • CELL : (970) 309-4454 E MAIL: E P ETTE R SON@RMES-INC.COM • WWW.RM E S -IN C.COM REC Re[j!onse Letter June 27. 2011 heron nests while nests are active, and potentially only 11 homes could be built (outside of the heron nesting season) within the 200m buffer, with the nearest home site being approximately 170 meters from the one remaining heron tree. It is important to note that there would also be the construction of a vegetated screening berm prior to home construction. CDOWs 1,640 foot (500 meter) buffer recommendation would extend across the property, and over the Rio Grande Trail to Highway 82, and is not supported by peer reviewed scientific literature as necessary to ensure continued heron use of a heronry. REC's proposed 200m buffer is based on peer reviewed scientific studies, and with successful implementation of proposed mitigation is sufficient to protect heron activities at the last remaining heron tree. RJVIES can produce additional visual modeling to illustrate visual impacts to nesting herons at the County's request. a. Approximately 7 homes would be within the edge of the bench, and this level of encroachment would have minimal impacts on habitats. Trails are closer to the bench edge, and during the snow-free season, could have more significant impact to the effectiveness of wildlife habitats. 4. It is unknown what the building height would be for the homes, however, only 3 or 4 homes would actually "overlook" the Roaring Fork River. Given the mostly level terrain around Cattle Creek, many homes could potentially "overlook" the creek, and building height would not be as pertinent as proximity to habitats. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Eric Petterson at (970) 945-9558 or via email at epetterson@rmes-inc.com. Best regards, Eric Petterson Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. l':!!':.~y MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 2 Response to Review Agency Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado ATTACHMENT F: RESPONSE TO WATER ADEQUACY COMMENTS (DWR) June 29, 2011 VIA EMAIL (KEASTLEY@GARFIELD-COUNTY.COM) Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street, #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 withhold 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 Resounce Engineering, Inc., explains in the January 17, 2011 Water Supply Report that: there is an adequate physical water supply from the sounces identified by Carbondale to supply the Project; and Carbondale owns significant senior water rights In the Glenwood Ditch and Staton Ditch, together wllh 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 all out-of-priority depletions associated wllh 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 II 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 decrees 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 status 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 Smntcenth SUcc~ s.>rc 2200 1 Dcm•cr, CO 80202-4432 Brownstein Hyatt Pubct Schrctk, U.P 1 bhfi.com Kathy Eastley, AICP June 29, 2011 Page2 interpretation of the ULUR is unsupportable and, in fact, contradicts the plain language of the code. Because the DWR failed to assess the water supply plan and instead focused solely on the fact that the adjudication is incomplete, its comments do nolhing to inform the County's review of the pending zoning and subdivision applications. You quote ULUR § 7-105, which provides that an "adequate water supply plan shall be 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. Accordingly, there is no basis to delay the Planning Commission's action on the Carbondale application based on the DWR Letter. Furthermore, ULUR § 7-105.A contradicts the need for Carbondale to have its decrees finalized as a condition of proceeding before the Planning Commission: "Nothing in this section shall 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 2010-29)." 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 its companion case pending In Case No. 07CW164 decreed within the next two to four weeks, mooting this issue entirely. But Carbondale strongly objects to your suggestion that the 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. WFF:jc cc: Rockwood Shepard Mark Sawyer Sam Otero Lori Baker, Esq. Carey Gagnon, Esq. 13738\211555924.2 COLORADO UPDATED TAX CERTIFICATE RIVER EDGE COLORADO, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO OWNER/APPLICANT: CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC 7999 HWY 82 CARBONDALE CO 81623 97D-456-5325 CONSULTANT: 8140 PARTNERS, LLC PO BOX 0426 EAGLE, CO 81631 JUNE 30, 2011 Account Number R lll 349 Assessed To Legal Description Garfield County Treasurer Statement Of Taxes Due Parcel239318200102 CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC 5121 PARK LANE DALLAS, TX 75220 Situs Address Section: 7 Township: 7 Ran ge: 88 PARCEL A: A TR OF LAND IN LOTS 4,6,7,8 & 9 AND LOT 3 1 OF 82 HWY SEC I , TWN 7S RGE 89W LYING W OF THE WL Y ROW LINE FOR HWY 82 AND LYING E OF THE ELY ROW LINE FOR THE D&RGWRR. EXCEPT A TR DESC IN BK 1142, PG 961 & BK 12 28 PG 600. PARCEL B: A TR IN LOTS 1,2,3,4,6,7 AND 9 OF SE ... Additional Legal on File Year 2010 Charges Tax Grand Total Due as of06/2112011 Tax Billed at 2010 Rates for Tax Area 0 11 -IR-MF-0 11 Authority Mill Levy GARFIELD COUNTY 11.4530000 GARFIELD COUNTY-ROAD & B 1.4680000 GARFIELD COUNTY -SOCIAL SE 0.7340000 CARBONDALE AND RURAL FIRE-7.2460000 BASALT WATER CONSER 0.0440000 COLO RIVER WATER CONS 0.1 880000* SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1 24.7510000 SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1 -BON 6 .241 0000 COLORADO MTN COLLEGE 3.9970000 GARFIELD COUNTY PUBLIC LIBR 0.8640000• Taxes Billed2010 56.9860000 • Credit Levy Billed $188,172.92 Amount $37,818.83 $4,847.47 $2,423.73 $23,926.95 $145.29 $620.79 $81,730.04 $20,608.35 $13,198.46 $2,853.01 $188,172.92 Values IOOA C&UP Payments $188,172.92 MEADOW HAY LAND -AGRICLTRL Total Actual $11,381,150 $5,380 $11 ,386,530 Balance $0.00 $0.00 Assessed $3,300,530 $1,560 $3,302,090 ALL T AX LIEN SALE AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO ENDORSEMENT OF CURRENT T AX ES BY THE LIENHOLDER OR TO ADVERTISING AND DISTRAINT WARRANT FEES . CHANGES MAY OCCUR AND THE TREASURER'S OFFICE WILL NEED TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO REMITTANCE AFTER THE FOLLOWING DATES: PERSONAL PROPERTY AN D MOBILE HO MES -SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 , REAL PROPERTY -SEPTEMBER 1, 2011. TAX SALE REDEMPTION AMOUNTS MUST BE PA ID BY CASH OR CAS HIERS CHECK. G arfi eld County Treasu re r P.O. Box 1069 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-1069 (970) 945 -6382 c6 Ga~:field County COLORADO CORRECTION DEEDS 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 JUNE 30, 2011 1111 M'I'•~~,,M.h:ll~rt'ltlll,'~~ ~tl~ lv.~·~ IIIII Reoeption~: 804202 06122/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 1 of 14,_Reo Fee:$76.00 Ooo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO ---------- After Recording Return To: ./ Ro d::woxt :>)1 ~ r<' 2.113 Cre->ct>~+ Lar!e Gleoum/ S'fnnjs Co f'/6D/ CORRECTION DEED· NO DOCUMENTARY FEE REQUIRED. THIS SPECIAL WARRANTY CORRECTION DEED IS BEING RECORDED TO CORRECT A RECEPTION NUMBER REFERENCED IN THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED ON APRIL 21, 2011 AT RECEPTION NO. 801638 OF THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO. PURSUANT TO COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-13-104(1)(1), NO DOCUMENTARY FEE SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THIS SPECIAL WARRANTY CORRECTION DEED. SPECIAL WARRANTY CORRECTION DEED This Special Warranty Deed (this "Deed") is dated this 2 2-day of June 2011, between CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company ("Grantor") whose address is 5121 Park Lane, Dallas, Texas 75220 and GARFIELD COUNTY COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company ("Grantee") whose address is 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700, Dallas, TX 75202-2799. WITNESSETH, that Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and 00/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby confessed and acknowledged by Grantor, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confinn unto Grantee, all of that certain real property, situate, lying and being in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Propertv"); TOGETHER WITH all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever, of Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the Property; SUBJECT TO all covenants, conditions, easements, exceptions, encumbrances, reservations and restrictions of record; AND SUBJECT FURTHER TO the covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations set forth in Article I of this Deed; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property above bargained and described unto Grantee forever; AND Grantor covenants and agrees to and with Grantee, to warrant and defend the quiet and peaceable possession of the Property, by Grantee, against every person who lawfully claims 1 Special Warranty Deed II II Wf/'.1. ~1~.M~)~M I'II'I~IH!II¥/J,IIofl 1 .tt·f.~·l IIIII Reception#: 804202 . 06/2212011 01:16:21 PM Jean Albert co 2 of 1~ Reo Fee:$76.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO the Property or an~ part thereof, by, through or under Grantor, subject to covenants, conditions, easements, exceptwns, encumbrances, reservations and restrictions of record and the covenants conditions, restrictions and reservations herein contained. ' ARTICLE I RESERVATIONS 1.1 Reservation of Water Rights. Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby r~serv.es all right, title, and interest in and to all water and water rights associated with, histoncally used on, or attached, allocable or appurtenant to the Property, including, but not limited to, all adjudicated water rights and decrees and priorities therefor; unadjudicated water rights and appropriations; rights in water from tributary and nontributary sources, whether surface or underground; rights existing under well permits issued by the State Engineer; rights in nontributary and not nontributary groundwater; all rights, shares or allotments of water in ditch and reservoir companies, conservancy districts, irrigation districts, conservation districts, or other water distribution organizations, and all shares of stock or other instruments evidencing a right to such water; all rights to water not derived from state law; all water rights claimed under contract, exchange, changes of water rights, or plans for augmentation; all pending water rights applications; all ditches, canals, reservoirs, pipelines, tunnels, wells, pumps, sprinklers and other structures for diverting, storing and conveying water, and all rights of way and easements therefor. 1.2 Reservation of Oil. Gas and Mineral Rights. Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, specifically reserves all right, title, and interest in and to all minerals and mineral rights, and shall retain the right to develop and remove all minerals and mineral rights on, in or that may be produced from the Property including, but not limited to, all gravel, sand, oil, gas, and other liquid hydrocarbon substances, casinghead gas, coal, carbon dioxide, helium, geothermal resources, and all other naturally occuning elements, compounds and substances, whether similar or dissimilar, organic or inorganic, metallic or nonmetallic in whatsoever form and whether occuning, found, extracted or removed in solid, liquid or gaseous state or in combination, association or solution with other mineral or non-mineral substances, regardless of their intended use or cunent commercial value; provided that Grantor waives all rights to use the surface of the Property to exercise the rights reserved in this Section 1.2 and, without limitation of such waiver, Grantor's activities in extracting or otherwise dealing with the minerals and mineral rights shall not cause disturbance or subsidence of the surface of the Property or any improvements on the Property. 1.3 Non-Exclusive Access Easement. Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, specifically reserves a perpetual, absolute, non-exclusive easement for access by people, vehicles and equipment on, over, upon, across, under and above portions of the Property as may be necessary, in Grantor's sole discretion, to enable Grantor and others to exercise the rights described in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 above; provided that Grantor, in its exercise of these easement rights,· shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably restrict the Grantee's use of the Property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at any time structures or buildings are under construction or in existence on the Property, Grantor's right to use the surface of the Property pursuant to this access easement shall extend only to those portions of the surface of the Property 2 Special Warranty Deed 1111 Ml'.~o ,1,,Mh'N HI.VII':Inl\l.~~ ~.1~1\ ~U~~ IIIII Reception~: 804202 06122/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 3 of 14 Reo Fee:$76.00 Coo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO that are then in use or designated for vehicular or pedestrian access to and from the improvements on the Property or open space. ARTICLE II CONSERVATION EASEMENT The Property is subject to a conservation easement granted to the Roaring Fork Conservancy, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, pursuant to the Grant of Conservation Easement recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Garfield as Reception No. 559036, and the conservation easement description and map recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Garfield as Reception No&?</2.00 correcting the conservation easement description and map recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Garfield as Reception No. 760571, and all terms and conditions of the same are incorporated herein by this reference. [Signature and acknowledgment pages follow.] 3 Special Warranty Deed 1111 Ml".~. ~!~.MW 1 11!-,M,'IIU.rtl'.H~.III'IL ~~·~ IIIII Reception~: 804202 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 4 of 14 Reo Fee:$76.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Deed as of the day and year first written above. STATE OF Co/ovacJo COUNTY OF e.o_,{?Jcl ) ) ss. ) GRANTOR: CARBONDALE INVEST~~~~~LC, ::z;J~J Name: Rockwood Shepard Its: Authorized Representative 0 , 1 The fore_going instrument was a=dged before me this~ of June, 2011, by f0cKt<J<7::cf S"Aeptr« as ot#oMiq €$ f Cad:tmda.&. Otv (_( C- WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires:_...;~..:....:::.::,_.:;;....._;;,~.:..' .:2:;;.:6:;...:..:1 2._=-----,,,,uu llfllllflt. ,,,,,, ~01 0( ,,,,,, §'~~ ............ so ~ ~ ... ·· ·· .. ,....,~ ~ ( ~OTARJ-'') \ ~~\ PUBLIC /0 g ~"Y.··.. ..··Q;:: ~~~~;·~c;~o~~~~ Notary Pubhc -~111111111\\\~~··"P"- 0 ~tee's signature and acknowledgment page follows.] 4 Special Warranty Deed Grantor Signature and Acknowledgment 1111 Wii"•'~~.M~NI~ IIII:IIN 11\I,NU IWILMII'~·o& IIIII Reception#: 804202 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean ~lber1co 5 of 14 Reo Fee:$76.00 Doo Fee:0.00 G~RFIELO COUNTY CO Agreed to and Accepted: GRANTEE: GARFIELD COUNTY COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company .,, ~;/-p Name: tedR:SikOI";n Title: Authorized Representative STATE OF COl.O(lA.t:,o ) ) ss. COUNTY OF 'Dl==t..J V~) No My Commission Expires 05112/2012 5 Special Warranty Deed Grantee Signature and Acknowledgment 1111 Ml"o~. ~l~.M~~\IL'IJ, !D,'W\1.\ tlP\& IHitiHI!, ~.r, ~~~& IIIII Reception#: 804202 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico • 6 of 14 Reo Fee:$76.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Parcel No. A (East Parcel) EXHIBIT A to Special Warranty Deed Legal Description A tract of land situated in the southeasterly quarter of Section 1, ~ownship 7 South, Range 89 west, and in Section 7, ~ownship 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the westerly right of way line of Colorado State Highway 82, whence a 2 1/2" Brass Cap, found in place, and correctly marked as the southeast corner of said Section 7, bearss 63°31'48" E a distance of 2312.55 feet; thence, along the westerly right of way line of Colorado State Highway 82 N 06°01'00" W a distance of 1467.90 feet; thence, N 08°53 1 00" W a distance of 200.30 feet; N 00°18'30" W a distance of 201.00 feet; N 06°01'00" W a distance of 700.90 feet; N 08°52'00" W a distance of 313.00 feet; thence, 346.52 along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 1820.00 feet, a central angle of 10°54'32" and subtending a chord bearing of N 15°58'00" W a distance of 346.00 feet; thence, N 11°08'00" w a distance of 97.90 feet; thence, 250.29 along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1840.00 feet, a central angle of 7°47'38" and subtending a chord bearing of N 28°19'00" W a distance of 250.10 feet; thence, N 35°14'00" W a distance of 122.52 feet; thence, N 89°17•09" W a distance of 7.98 feet to a point on the easterly line of a parcel of land described in Reception No. 575283; thence along said easterly line S 35°22'19" E a distance of 1.46 feet to the southeasterly corner of said parcel; thence along the southerly line of said parcel, N 89°17'09" W a distance of 224.24 feet to the southwesterly corner of said parcel; thence, N 00°00'00" W a distance of 0.68 feet; thence, N 89°30'08" E a distance of 0.71 feet; thence, N 00°20'09" E a distance of 0.49 feet to the southeasterly corner of a parcel of land described in Reception No. 603760; thence along the southerly line of said parcel the following three courses: 1) N 89°44 1 57" W a distance of 0.99 feet; 2) N 30°31•43" W a distance of 65.06 feet; 3) N 86°47'11" W a distance of 65.63 feet to the southwesterly corner of said parcel; thence, N 86°47'11" W a distance of 52.73 feet; thence, N 89°36 1 12" W a distance of 292.61 feet; thence, N 89°43'30" W a distance of 100.90 feet to a point on the easterly right of way line of the Roaring Fork ~ransit Authority ~ransportation Corridor Easement; A-I Special Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property 1!~1o~tfo~~~~2~~\,WI!t'IIIJ.rMJ ijU~~Wl.~·~ IIIII 06122/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 7 of ~4 Rec Fee:$76.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO .._--· ----- ---· ·-------- - ---·---·-·--· -- -- - - --··' thence, along said easterly right of way line s 19°38'52" E a distance of 3829.47 feet; thence, 79.82 along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 2915.00 feet, a central angle of 1°34'08" and subtending a chord bearing of S 18°51'48" E a distance of 79.82 feet; thence, departing said easterly right of way line N 89°59'59" E a distance of 73.94 feet to a point of the westerly right of way line of Colorado State Highway 82, also being the point of beginning, containing an area of 43.25 acres, more or less. Parcel No. B (Sopris Parcel) Parcel 1 (as described in deed recorded May 19, 1998 in Book 1068 at Page 543 as Reception No. 525444): A tract of land situated in Lot 2 of Section 7, ~. 7 S., R. 88 w. of the 6th P.M. lying northeasterly of the West and South lines of said Lot 2 and Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of State Highway No. 82 as reconstructed in 1967, said tract described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 2 being marked with an iron pin; Whence an iron post with a brass cap found in place and properly marked for the Southeast corner of Sec. 1 in~. 7 s., R. 89 w. of the 6th P.M. bears s.35°3l'00" w. 770.44 feet; thence N. 324.69 feet along the Westerly line of said Lot 2 to a point on the Southwesterly right of way line of said Highway; thence S. 34°45'30" E. 229.17 feet along the Southwesterly right of way line of said Highway; thence s. 35°14'00" E. 167 feet along the Southwesterly right of way line of said Highway to a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 2; thence West 227.00 feet along the Southerly line of said Lot 2 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 2, the point of beginning. Parcel 2 (as described as Parcel 1 in quit claim deed recorded May 20, 2002 in Book 1356 at Page 384 as Reception No. 603760 and as described as Exhibit A-1 in quit claim deed recorded January 24, 2001 in Book 122S at Page 600 as Reception No. 575283): A tract of land situated in Section 7, ~. 7 S., R. 88 W. of the 6th P.M., County of Garfield, state of Colorado. Said tract of land being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at theSE corner of Section 1, ~. 7 S., R. 89 W. of the 6th P.M., (with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bearing of N. 00°10'09" !L between the SE corner and the B 1/4 corner of said Section 1) ; thence N. 35°30'10" E. 769.47 feet to a found rebar (southwest corner Lot 2 per Book 687 at Page 650) the true point of beginning; thence North along the westerly line of that property described in said Book 687 at Page 650 128.34 feet; thence leaving said westerly lineN. 88°59'16" W. along the Southerly boundary line and Southerly boundary line extended of the recorded amended Fyrwald Exemption Plat 103.03 feet; A-2 Special Warranty Deed Lega1 Description of the Property 1111 Ml"•'•~.lli~,r~~~I'M.I'II';IP'Y.III~ ljUiil& rfj~~·~ II II I Reception~: 804202 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Albarico B of 14,Rec Fee,$76.00 Doo Fee,0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO thence continuing along said Southerly boundary line and Southerly boundary line extended s. 02°48'16" E. 70.52 feet, to a point in an existing fence line; Thence leaving said Southerly boundary extended along an existing fence line the following three (3) courses: 1) s. 86°47'11" E. 65.63 feet; 2) s. 30°31'43" E. 65.06 feet; 3) s. 89°17'09" E. 0.99 feet, to the true point of beginning. Parcel 3: (as described as Parcel 2 in quit claim deed recorded May 20, 2002 in Book 1356 at Page 384 as Reception No. 603760 and as described as Exhibit A-3 in quit claim deed recorded January 24, 2001 in Book 1228 at Page 600 as Reception no. 575283): A tract of land situated in Section 7, T. 7 s., R. 88 w. of the 6th P.M., County of Garfield, State of Colorado. Said tract of land being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at theSE corner of Section 1, T. 7 S., R. 89 W. of the 6th P.M. (with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bearing of N. 00°10'09" E. between the SE corner and theE 1/4 corner of said Section 1) ; thence N. 35°30'10" E. 769.47 feet to a found rebar (Southwest corner Lot 2 per Book 687 at Page 650) ; thence North along the Westerly line of that property described in said Book 687 at Page 650 128.34 feet, the true point of beginning; thence continuing along said Westerly line North 187.87 feet, to a point on the Southerly right-of-way of State Highway No. 82; thence leaving said Westerly line along said Southerly right-of-way the following two (2) courses: 1) N. 34°53'49" W. 9.76 feet; 2) N. 37° 33' 19" W. 6. 55 feet; thence s. 01° OS' 14" W. along the Easterly line of the recorded Amended Fyrwald Exemption Plat 200.87 feet; thence leaving said Easterly line S. 88°59'16" E. 13.39 feet to the point of beginning excluding, however, any portion of Parcel 2 and/or Parcel 3 located in or encroaching upon: Lots 3 and/or 4, Amended Fyrwald Exemption Plat, as recorded in Garfield County, Colorado under Reception No. 547543, Parcel 4 (as described as Exhibit A-2 in quit claim deed recorded January 24, 2001 in Book 1228 at Page 600 as Reception No. 575283): A tract of land situated in Section 7, T. 7 S., R. 88 W. of the 6th P.M., said tract of land being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at theSE corner of Section 1, T. 7 s., R. 89 W. of the 6th P.M., (with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bearing of N. 00°10'09" E. between the SE corner and theE 1/4 corner of said Section 1) ; thence N. 35°30'10" E. 769.47 feet to a found rebar (Southwest corner Lot 2 per Book 687 at Page 650) the true point of beginning; thence North along the Westerly line of that property described in said Book A-3 Special Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property 1111 Ml"• ~i~.Mfli~ l'f!~ N:I!P\1 (f)~ IW lj.IA.Uf.U~ II Ill Reception~: 804202 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 9 of 14 Rae Fee:$76.00 Ooo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 687 at Page 650 0.68 feet; thence leaving said Westerly line east along the Southerly boundary line of said property 221.76 feet, to a point on the Westerly right-of-way of State Highway No. 82; thence leaving said Southerly lines. 35"22'19" E. along said Westerly right of way 4.26 feet, to a point in an existing fence line; thence leaving said Westerly right-of-way N. 89"17'09" w. along said existing fence line 224.24 feet, to the true point of beginning, excepting from insurance and conveyance the following excepting Parcels 5, excepting Parcel 6, and excepting Parcel 7 Excepting Parcel 5 (as described Exhibit A in quit claim deed recorded May 20, 2002 in Book 1356 at Page 390 as Reception No. 603762) A tract of land situated in Section 7, T. 7 s., R. 88 W. of the 6th P.M .. Said tract of land being more partioularly described as follows: Commencing at theSE corner of Section 1, T. 7 s., R. 89 W. of the 6th P.M. (with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bearing of N. 00"10'09" E. between the SE corner and the E 1/4 corner of said Section 1) ; thence N. 00°10'09" E. along said Section line 691.13 feet, to a point on the Northerly boundary line of that property survey recorded as Reception No. 205 in the Garfield County Index for Informational Land Survey Plats, the true Point of beginning; thence continuing along said Section lineN. 00"10'09" E. 2.36 feet to a point on the Southerly boundary line of the recorded Amended Fyrwald Exemption Plat; thence leaving said Section lineN. 89"13'44" E. along said southerly boundary 344.69 feet; thence leaving said southerly boundary line S. 02°48'16" E. 12.00 feet to a Point in an existing fence line; thence N. 86"47'11" W. along said fence line 52.73 feet; thence continuing along said fence lineN. 89"36'14" W. 292.62 feet to the Point of beginning; Excepting Parcel 6 (as described as Exhibit A in quit claim dead recorded January 29, 2001 in Book 1229 at Page 263 as Reception No. 575490): A tract of land situated in Section 7, T. 7 S., R. 88 w. of the 6th P.M., said tract of land being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at theSE corner of Section 1, T. 7 S., R. 89 w. of the 6th P.M., (with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bearing of N. 00°10'09" E. between the SE corner and the E 1/4 corner of said Section 1) ; thence N. 00°10'09" E. along said Section line 627.10 feet, to a point on the Northerly boundary line of that property survey recorded as Reception No. 305 in the Garfield County Index for Informational Land Survey Plats, the true Point of beginning; thence continuing along said Section line N. 00°10 '09" E. 64.03 feet, to a point in an existing fence line; thence leaving said Section line s. 89°36'14" E. along an existing fence line 292.62 feet; A-4 Special Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property 1111 Ml"o1o tlfi'IIP"J11D" ~KI~II:rtll.lif.IIJI~~t:'rifo.~"llllll Reception#: 804202 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 10 of 1~ Rec Fee:$76.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO thence continuing along an existing fence line s. 86°47'11' E. 118.36 feet; thence continuing along said fence lines. 30°31'43" E. 64.28 feet, to a point on said northerly boundary; thence leaving said existing fence line N. 90°00'00" w. along said Northerly boundary 443.63 feet, to the point of beginning Excepting Parcel 7 (as described in Exhibit A in Rule and Order, Civil Action No. 5952, District Court in and for the County of Garfield and State of Colorado recorded December 15, 1967 in Book 391 at Page 14 as Reception No. 239725): A tract or parcel of land no. 1 rev. 2 of the Department of Highways, State of Colorado, Project No. S 0130(10), in Lots 2 and 11 of Section 7, T. 7 S., R, 88 West, of the 6th P.M., in Garfield County, Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of Lot 2, Section 7, T. 7 s., R. 88 W., from which theSE corner of Sec. 1, T. 7 s., R. 89 w. Bearss. 19°29'30" w., a Distance of 1330.0 feet; 1. Thence South along the West line of Lot 2, Section 7, a distance of 304.5 Feet; 2. Thence S. 34 • 45'30" E. , a distance of 231.0 feet; 3. Thence S. 35°14' E., a distance of 92.2 feet to a South line of the Property; 4. Thence along a South line of the property, N. 89°12' E., a distance of 118.5 feet to the east line of Lot 2, Sec. 7; 5. Thence along the east line of Lot 2, Sec. 7, South a distance of 63.8 feet to the SW. Corner of Lot 11, Sec. 7; 6. Thence along the South line of Lot 11, Sec. 7, N. 89°47'E., a distance of 208.0 feet; 7. Thence along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 2,050.0 feet a distance of 14.4 feat (the chord of this arc bears N. 32°43' w., a distance of 14.4 feet); 8. Thence N. 34°03 1 W., a distance of 311.4 feat; 9. Thence N. 42°28'30" w. a distance of 487.6 feet, mora or less, to the Point of beginning Further excepting there from any portion of the land within State Highway No. 82 County of Garfield, State of Colorado Parcel C (West Parcel): A tract of land situated in the southeast quarter of Section 1 and the west half of Section 12, Township 7 South, Range 89 West, and in the southwest quarter of Section 7 and the north half of Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, state of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the westerly right of way line of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority Transportation Corridor Easement, whence a 2 1/2" Brass Cap, found in place and correctly marked as the southeast corner of said Section 7, bears S41°30'24"E a distance of 4758.08 feat; A-5 Specia1 Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property 1111 Ml"o~. lifn.tii'JIJW,IMMifN'I\rhfll"ll'l.lllriWr ~·~ IIIII ReceptJonij: 804202 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 11 of 14 Reo Fee:$76.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO ·-----·---· --· ·-------------~ thence, departing said right of way line N 19°38'52" w a distance of 1221.19 feet; thence, N 89°43'30" Wa distance of 683.95 feet; thence, s 02"00'23" Wa distance of 590.77 feet; thence, s 02"15'08" Wa distance of 557.94 feet; thence, N 86°35'38" Wa distance of 84.72 feet; thence, s 43°10'35" E a distance of 251.44 feet; thence, s 00°24'17" E a distance of 1250.60 feet to a point on the westerly line of the Roaring Fork Conservancy Easement; thence, along the said Easement line S 03"09'52" W a distance of 741.05 feet; thence, s 00"21'30" E a distance of 553.42 feet; thence, s oo•o4•33" E a distance of 323.93 feet; thence, s 24°10'18" E a distance of 142.52 feet; thence, s 29°13'16' E a distance of 615.00 feet; thence, s 19°31'50" E a distance of 246.38 feet; thence, s 23°25'35" E a distance of 153.19 feet; thence, s 17°46'37" E a distance of 173.22 feet; thence, s 30°48'54" E a distance of 163.28 feet; thence, 8 51°46'41" E a distance of 662.76 feet; thence, s 44°39'33" E a distance of 175.65 feet; thence, s 13°37'07" E a distance of 255.65 feet; thence, s 34°06'17" E a distance of 318.15 feet; thence, s 35°45'21" E a distance of 225.15 feet; thence, s 55°41'54" E a distance of 196.47 feet; thence, s 63°52'39" E a distance of 388.20 feet; thence, s 57°54'58" E a distance of 449.02 feet; thence, s 47°15'14 11 E a distance of 122.26 feet; thence, s 89°53'16" E a distance of 189.76 feet; thence, N 40°23'30" w a distance of 69.38 feet; .thence, s 87°28'29" w a distance of 36.35 feet; thence, s 83°52'12" w a distance of 10.80 feet; thence, N 58°27'19" w a distance of 41.45 feet; thence, N 29°51'31 11 w a distance of 8.28 feet; thence, N 24°16'24" w a distance of 25.22 feet; thence, N 69°00 1 53" w a distance of 9.87 feet; thence, s 87°31'44" w a distance of 22.60 feet; thence, N 57°25' 01" w a distance of 17.28 feet; thence, N 50°09'49" w a distance of 26.07 feet; thence, N 46°21'12" w a distance of 9.99 feet; thence, N 44°28'05" w a distance of 21.45 feet; thence, N 55°50'08" w a distance of' 49.05 feet; thence, N 56°25'40" w a distance of 49.94 feet; thence, N 68°12'23" w a distance of 36.45 feet; thence, N 46"54'04" w a distance of 55.18 feet; thence, N 68° 49' 21" w a distance of 25.14 feet; thence, N 47°41 1 50 11 w a distance of 78.78 feet; thence, N 30"26'40" Wa distance of 24.58 feet; thence, N 25°47 1 01" Wa distance of 30.08 feet; thence, N 18°11'39" Wa distance of 34.61 feet; thence, N 30°58•21" w a distance of 29.32 feet; thence, N 21"59'14" w a distance of 27.50 feet; thence, N 30°16'07" w a distance of 22.97 feet; thence, N 25°41 1 38 11 w a distance of 169.44 feet; A-6 Special Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property •111 ftra~o llflllli'III~IUMrt~:ll\llt ,WI':fW!CIIWM.~·i IIIII Receptlonn: 804202 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 12 of 14 Reo Fee:$76.00 Doc Fee:0.00 G~RFIELD COUNTY CO . ~ ----·---·------------ thence, N 41"17 1 39" E a distance of 82.61 feet; thence, N 38"34 1 52" E a distance of 15.89 feet; thence, N 34°26'44" w a distance of 262.40 feet; thence, N 57°58 1 09" w a distance of 102.47 feet; thence, N 53"43'31" w a distance of 105.38 feet; thence, N 55°58'11" w a distance of 126.13 feet; thence, N 56"14'57" w a distance of 118.42 feet; thence, N 49"16'04" W a distance of 136.33 feet; thence, N 44"30'51" w a distance of 150.05 feet; thence, N 32°49'55" w a distance of 102.14 feet; thence, N 37°44'19" w a distance of 552.12 feet; thence, N 18°10'02" w a distance of 47.26 feet; thence, N 27°58'19" w a distance of 109.20 feet; thence, N 35°01'36" Wa distance of 71.09 feet; thence, N 41°32'47" w a distance of 152.23 feet; thence, N 40°22'24" w a distance of 339.82 feet; thence, N 64°20'53" W a distance of 34.06 feet; thence, N 45"00'36" W a distance of 52.42 feet; thence, N 44°53'41" w a distance of 154.66 feet; thence, N 32"35'48" w a distance of 86.59 feet; thence, N 57°01'32" w a distance of 44.89 feet; thence, N 30°33'12" w a distance of 85.72 feet; thence, N 37°39'02" w a distance of 79.09 feet; thence, N 37"32'30" w a distance of 63.32 feet; thence, N 20°02'15" w a distance of 33.98 feet; thence, N 39°52'25" w a distance of 42.02 feet; thence, N 25°36'04" w a distance of 107.17 feet; thence, N 30°34'08" w a distance Of 164.72 feet; thence, N 11°39'01" w a distance of 107.90 feet; thence, N 24°56'06" E a distance of 163.60 feet; thence, N 63°39'33" E a distance of 177.81 feet; thence, N 83"14'43" E a distance of 393.54 feet; thence, N 07°15'26" w a distance of 21.79 feet; thence, N 80°51'11" E a distance of 50.00 feet; thence, N 89°15'06" E a distance of 65.56 feet; thence, N 57°50'04" E a distance of 50.12 feet; thence, s 84°51'15" E a distance of 33.08 feet; thence, s 81°39'50" E a distance of 89.61 feet; thence, N 56°07'00" E a distance of 26.86 feet; thence, N 07°38'31" E a distance of 27.93 feet; thence, N 37°41'57" w a distance Of 28.06 feet; thence, N 5o•oo•15" E a distance of 22.23 feet; thence, N 82°02'30" E a distance of 36.49 feet; thence, s 63°34'38" E a distance of 54.05 feet; thence, s 45°59'58" E a distance of 20.95 feet; thence, s 14°44'20" E a distance of 29.18 feet; thence, s 11°11'17" w a distance of 26.42 feet; thence, s 14°58'41" E a distance of 30.14 feet; thence, s 43°42'10" E a distance of 69.77 feet; thence, s 31°36'59" E a distance of 56.76 feet; thence, s 49°38'46" E a distance of 40.12 feet; thence, 8 45°30'55" E a distance of 40.88 feet; thence, s 60°16'38" E a distance of 43.39 feet; thence, s 73°16'24" E a distance of 67.60 feet; A-7 Special Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property 1111 Ml".~oi~II'JMt~~~~~i:NII'.Irlrrfl~llr,l'fl,~"A II Ill Reception#: 804202 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 13 of !4 Reo Fee:$76.00 Ooo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO -----·----------------- --- thence, s 53°05 1 15" E a distance of 15.86 feet; thence, s 63°37 1 30" E a distance of 52.31 feet; thence, s 83°28•21" E a distance of 46.95 feet; thence, N 86°20'27" E a distance of 61.04 feet; thence, N 31°59'09" E a distance of 47.07 :feet; thence, N 06°58'38" E a distance Of 32.16 :feet; thence, N 72°08 1 07" E a distance Of 7.98 feat; thence, s 24°51 1 03" E a distance of 72.35 :feet; thence, s 41°52 1 47" E a distance Of 50.71 feet; thence, s 54°44'21" E a distance of 38.31 feet; thence, s 83°39°39" E a distance of 87.15 feet; thence, s 57°11'12" E a distance of 77.06 feet; thence, s 41°51'16" E a distance of 88.65 feet; thence, s 57°39'13" E a distance of 65.60 feet; thence, s 49°55'38" E a distance of 74.96 feet; thence, s 61°04'52" E a distance of 43.44 feet; thence, s 71°46 1 03" E a distance of 55.45 feet; thence, N 09°35'09" w a distance of 59.88 feet; thence, N 65°36'14" w a distance of 60.45 feet; thence, N 49°54'10" w a distance of 64.72 feet; thence, N 49°54'10" w a distance of 86.97 feet; thence, N 48°11 1 10" w a distance of 54.30 feet; thence, N 56°47'27" w a distance of 123.97 feet; thence, N 83°47'24" w a distance of 93.00 feet; thence, N 29°35'31" w a distance of 119.58 feet; thence, N 78•oo•43" w a distance of 33.84 feet; thence, s 79°41'48" w a distance of 37.80 feet; thence, s 22°57'52" w a distance of 56.05 feet; thence, s 59°31'57" w a distance of 45.48 feet; thence, N 82°32'35" w a distance of 28.23 feet; thence, N 59°07'03" w a distance of 95.71 feet; thence, N 71°20'44" w a distance of 85.73 feet; thence, N 36°43'10" Wa distance of 93.22 feet; thence, N 25°39'22" w a distance of 181.92 feet; thence, N 65°10'24" w a distance of 98.43 feet; thence, s 85°02'33" w a distance of 52.20 feet; thence, s 56°33 1 52" w a distance of 39.34 feet; thence, s 20°49 1 33" w a distance of 42.96 feet; thence, s 37°27'43" E a distance of 21.60 feet; thence, N 77°02 1 57" w a distance of 89.66 feat; thence, s 70°24'18" w a distance of 70.95 feet; thence, N 88°59'39" w a distance of 55.55 feet; thence, s 84°28°58" w a distance of 49.93 feet; thence, N 14°22 1 48" E a distance of 68.20 feet; thence, N 05°11°46" Wa distance of 77.59 feet; thence, N 18°20'05" E a distance of 10.82 feet; thence, N 22°53 1 40" E a distance of 44.14 feet; thence, N 10°34'58" E a distance of 35.11 feet; thence, N 08°59'51" E a distance of 47.16 feet; thence, N 03°48 1 08" E a distance of 36.48 feet; thence, N 04°40 1 52" E a distance of 71.03 feet; thence, N 07°37'51" E a distance of 54.66 feet; thence, N 29°28°14" w a distance of 63.68 feet; thence, N 32°00'44" Wa distance of 61.05 feet; A-8 Special Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property 1111 Ml"o~.llfl1!rJIJM'J MI~·,'M~IWr-w'l~rw. ~·~ IIIII Reception~: 804202 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 14 of 14 Rec Fee:$76.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO thence, N 26°17'29" w a distance of 55.52 feet; thence, N 38°14'36" W a distance of 44.36 :feat; thence, N 53°11'32" w a d.istanca o:f 37.73 :feat; thence, N 59°54'48" W a d.istanca o:f 54.16 feat; thence, N 87°51'35" W a d.istance of 36.97 feet; thence, N 57°33'47" W a d.istanca of 65.70 feet; thence, N 81°56'22" W a distance of 85.02 feet; thence, N 04°11'29" W a distance of 158.65 feet; thence, N 35°50'41" W a d.istance of 41.30 feet; thence, N 54°46'03" W a d.istance of 24.70 feet; thence, N 28°51'45" W a d.istance of 209.99 feet; thence, N 11°58'37" w a d.istance of 33.82 feat; thence, N 41°03'46" E a d.istance of 78.19 feat; thence, N 06°29'01" W a d.istance of 117.20 feat; thence, N 20°05'27" W a d.istance of 94.24 feat; thence, N 11°32'03" w a d.istance of 63.83 feet; thence, N 07°57'46" W a distance of 141.45 feet; thence, N 09°56'14" E a d.istance of 50.76 feet; thence, N 19°17'44" W a d.istance of 91.04 feet; thence, N 44°41'59" W a d.istance of 134.55 feet; thence, N 19°23'49" W a d.istance of 74.18 feet; thence, N 19°33'06" W a distance of 43.27 feet; thence, N 21°30'01" W a distance of 72.23 feet; thence, departing said. Easement lineN 00°16'30" E a distance of 217.77 feat; thence, N 00°16'30" E a distance of 312.94 feet; thence, S 89°43'30" E a d.istance of 1005.44 feet to a point on the westerly right of way line of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority Transportation Corridor Easement, also being the point of beginning. The name and address of the person who created this legal description is: Jeffrey Allen Tuttle, P.L.S. 33638 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601. A-9 Special Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property illl W.~o~.,,M"II.MIIfl.~~lf)~rftti\M tl«U'~ IIIII Reee~t!on~: 804201 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Rlberioo 1 of 10 Reo Fee:$56.00 Ooo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO ·-· ---· -· -·--· ---· ··-· -After Recording Return To: 1 E'.oc..kwood: She~xG 2..43 Gff.s<..-ttrt l_,r,J 8-\e)\wrock ¥'¥\@" co." /&C( CORRECTION DEED-NO DOCUMENTARY FEE REQUIRED. THIS SPECIAL WARRANTY CORRECTION DEED IS BEING RECORDED TO CORRECT A RECEPTION NUMBER REFERENCED IN THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED ON APRIL 22, 2011 AT RECEPTION NO. 801662 OF THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO. PURSUANT TO COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-13-104(1)(f), NO DOCUMENTARY FEE SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THIS SPECIAL WARRANTY CORRECTION DEED. SPECIAL WARRANTY CORRECTION DEED This Special Warranty Deed (this "Deed") is dated this 2 .2--day of June 2011, between CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company ("Grantor") whose address is 5121 Park Lane, Dallas, Texas 75220 and CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company ("Grantee") whose address is 5121 Park Lane, Dallas, Texas 75220. WITNESSETH, that Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and 00/100 Dollars ($1 0.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby confessed and acknowledged by Grantor, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto Grantee, all of that certain real property, situate, lying and being in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Propertv"); TOGETHER WITH all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever, of Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the Property; SUBJECT TO all covenants, conditions, easements, exceptions, encumbrances, reservations and restrictions of record; AND SUBJECT FURTHER TO the covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations set forth in Article I of this Deed; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property above bargained and described unto Grantee forever; AND Grantor covenants and agrees to and with Grantee, to warrant and defend the quiet and peaceable possession of the Property, by Grantee, against every person who lawfully claims 1 Special WarriDtyDeed I the Property or any part thereof, by, through or under Grantor, subject to covenants, conditions, easements, exceptions, encumbrances, reservations and restrictions of record and the covenants conditions, restrictions and reservations herein contained. ' ARTICLE I RESERVATIONS l.l Reservation of Water Rights. Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby r~serv.es all right, title, and interest in and to all water and water rights associated with, htstoncally used on, or attached, allocable or appurtenant to the Property, including, but not limited to, all adjudicated water rights and decrees and priorities therefor; unadjudicated water rights and appropriations; rights in water from tributary and nontributary sources, whether surface or underground; rights existing under well permits issued by the State Engineer; rights in nontributary and not nontributary groundwater; all rights, shares or allotments of water in ditch and reservoir companies, conservancy districts, irrigation districts, conservation districts, or other water distribution organizations, and all shares of stock or other instruments evidencing a right to such water; all rights to water not derived from state law; all water rights claimed under contract, exchange, changes of water rights, or plans for augmentation; all pending water rights applications; all ditches, canals, reservoirs, pipelines, tumtels, wells, pumps, sprinklers and other structures for diverting, storing and conveying water, and all rights of way and easements therefor. 1.2 Reservation of Oil. Gas and Mineral Rights. Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, specifically reserves all right, title, and interest in and to all minerals and mineral rights, and shall retain the right to develop and remove all minerals and mineral rights on, in or that may be produced from the Property including, but not limited to, all gravel, sand, oil, gas, and other liquid hydrocarbon substances, casinghead gas, coal, carbon dioxide, helium, geothermal resources, and all other naturally occurring elements, compounds and substances, whether similar or dissimilar, organic or inorganic, metallic or nomnetallic in whatsoever form and whether occurring, found, extracted or removed in solid, liquid or gaseous state or in combination, association or solution with other mineral or non-mineral substances, regardless. of their intended use or current commercial value; provided that Grantor waives all rights to use the surface of the Property to exercise the rights reserved in this Section 1.2 and, without limitation of such waiver, Grantor's activities in extracting or otherwise dealing with the minerals and mineral rights shall rtot cause disturbance or subsidence of the surface of the Property or any improvements on the Property. 1.3 Non-Exclusive Access Easement. Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, specifically reserves a perpetual, absolute, non-exclusive easement for access by people, vehicles and equipment on, over, upon, across, under and above portions of the Property as may be necessary, in Grantor's sole discretion, to enable Grantor and others to exercise the rights described in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 above; provided that Grantor, in its exercise of these easement rights, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably restrict the Grantee's use of the Property. NotWithstanding the foregoing, at any time structures or buildings are under construction or in existence on the Property, Grantor's right to use the surface of the Property pursuant to this access easement shall extend only to those portions of the surface of the Property 2 Speciol Worranty Deed 1111 Wo~on,,~~U.IW.~~ Ill\~ ~jU~~ MU1.11111 Reception~: 804201 06122/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Rlberioo 3 of 10 Rec Fee:$56.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO that are then in use or designated for vehicular or pedestrian access to and from the improvements on the Property or open space. ARTICLE II CONSERVATION EASEMENT . The Property is subject to a conservation easement granted to the Roaring Fork Conservancy, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, pursuant to the Grant of Conservation Easement recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Garfield as Reception No. 559036, and the conservation easement description and map recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Garfield as Reception No.e:ot/1.{){} correcting the conservation easement description and map recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Garfield as Reception No. 760571, and all terms and conditions of the same are incorporated herein by this reference. [Signature and acknowledgment pages follow.] 3 Special Warranty Deed IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Deed as of the day and year first written above. STATE OF cP\on~_do COUNTY OF qO.S-FielJ. ) ) ss. ) GRANTOR: CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, C, a Tex . ~te7bilivompany By: _ a 1/fv-(./ ..4_, Name: Rockwood Shepard Its: Authorized Representative The foregQinj; instrument was acknowledged before me this '22-day of June, 2011, by 'j2oq)&~~ 'Av...~ontl R'f'!S~'f C~'ll\v6~, a WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Yv\o M 'g 1 2o \ 2.. \,,,\\1111111111, :-.,.\\ ,,, ~~ 0 1 OLs 0 ,,,,, ,$' .,..,~ ........... __ i\1 ~ ~~--·· '•, -;.. ~ l Q1ARy \ ~ !§ ~~ .., ~ ~ l ! 0 ~ ~ ,p\·._ pij'jl\.\0 _./ Q J " " ··-••• <>"?: "1' ~~!; ·· .......... 0'~ :f' ~ ;.;.,,,~OF cO~ ,,,,, Notary Public c ''''"~J.Il!ll'.'.'~ ~>'Jf 'sst~•~~ s signature and acknowledgment page follows.] 4 Special Warranty Deed Grantor Signature and Acknowledgment · 1111 wr. n,,MNII.N'h.Wttlr\~ ~~t 11111. M~·llllll Reception~: 804201 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 5 of 10 Reo Fee:$56.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Agreed to and Accepted: GRANTEE: CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Texas r "ted liability comp y By: ....f-::'-~~~ifL..!:Z.~L.._­ Name: Rockwood Shepard Its: Authorized Representative STATE OF Lobru.dc ) ) ss. COUNTY OF G.c.u-+;v.o\ ) n The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before my this '2. '2-.day of June, 2011, by f<os.kd->~~..4 as ac}~o11ie# AA~vtDf Cad:;v/1c/a f.£ )Jl ;;:;Jd; &/ L- WITNESS my hand and official seal. NotaryPub c 5 Special Warranty Deed Grantee Signature and Acknowledgment 1111 Ml'.~o m,M,~~ l,,lttl«lflLIW IH•Lill·t~·~ IIIII Receptionij: 804201 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 6 of 10 Rec Fee:$56.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Parcel A (South Parcel) EXHIBIT A to Spe£ial Warranty Deed Legal Description A tract of land situated in the east half of Section 12, Township 7 south, Range 89 West, and in the west half of Section 7 and in the north half of Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 88 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the westerly right of way line of Colorado state Highway 82, whence a 2 1/2" Brass Cap, found in place and correctly marked as the southeast corner of said Section 7, bears s 78'49'20" E a distance of 2150.14 feet; thence, along said riqht of way lines 09'35'09" E a distance of 401.79 feet; thence, S 09'35'09" E a distance of 1545.87 feet; thence, 626.05 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 1482.50 feet, a central angle of 24'11'44" and subtending a chord bearing of S 21'41'02" E a distance of 621.41 feet; thence, S 33'46'54" E a distance of 387.28 feet; thence, 294.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 2815.00 feet, a central angle of 5'59'26" and subtending a chord bearing of S 30'47'11" E a distance of 294.19 feet; thence, departing said riqht of way lineN 89'53'16" W a distance of 218.07 feet; thence, N 40'23'30" thence, s 87'28'29" thence, S 83'52'12" thence, N 58'27'19" thence, N 29'51'31" thence, N 24'16'24" thence, N 69°00'53" thence, S 87'31'44" thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, thence, N 57'25'01" N 50'09'49" N 46'21'12" N 44'28'05" N 55°50'08" N 56'25'40" N 68'12'23" N 46'54'04" N 68'49'21" N 47'41'50" N 30'26'40" N 25'47'01" N 18'11 1 39" N 30'58'21" thence, N 21°59'14" w a distance of 69.38 feet; w a distance of 36.35 feet; w a distance of 10.80 feet; w a distance of 41.45 feet; W a distance of 8.28 feet; W a distance of 25.22 feet; W a distance of 9.87 feet; W a distance of 22.60 feet; W a distance of 17.28 feet; W a distance of 26.07 feet; W a distance of 9.99 feet; W a distance of 21.45 feet; W a distance of 49.05 feet; W a distance of 49.94 feet; w a distance of 36.45 feet; w a distance of 55.18 feet; W a distance of 25.14 feet; W a distance of 78.78 feet; W a distance of 24.58 feet; W a distance of 30.08 feet; W a distance of 34.61 feet; W a distance of 29.32 feet; W a distance of 27.50 feet; A-1 Special Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property · lllll'P".1. f~,,Ml~~~UIM I"' tfll,tw, ~ ~Uool IIIII Reception#: 804201 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 7 of 10 Reo Fee:$56.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARriELD COUNTY CO thence, N 30°16'07" W a distance of 22.97 feet; thence, N 25°41'38 11 Wa distance of 169.44 feet; thence, N 41°17'39" E a distance of 82.61 feet; thence, N 38°34'52" E a distance of 15.89 feet; thence, N 34°26 1 44 11 w a distance of 262.40 feet; thence, N 57°58'09 11 Wa eli stance of 102.47 feet; thence, N 53°43'31" w a clistance of 105.38 feet; thence, N 55°58'11" W a eli stance of 126.13 feet; thence, N 56°14'57 11 w a clistance of 118.42 feet; thence, N 49°16'04" w a distance of 136,33 feet; thence, N 44°30'51 11 w a distance of 150.05 feet; thence, N 32°49'55" w a distance of 102.14 feet; thence, N 37°44'19" W a distance of 552.12 feet; thence, N 18°10'02" w a distance of 47.26 feet; thence, N 27°58'19" Wa distance of 109.20 feet; thence, N 35°01'36" Wa distance of 71.09 feet; thence, N 41°32'47 11 w a distance of 152.23 feet; thence, N 40°22'24" wa eli stance of 339.82 feet; thence, N 64°20'53 11 Wa distance of 34.06 feet; thence, N 45°00'36" wa clistance of 52.42 feet; thence, N 44°53'41" w a distance of 154.66 feet; thence, N 32°35'48" w a clistance of 86.59 feet; thence, N 57°01'32" w a distance of 44.89 feet; thence, N 30°33'12" w a distance of 85.72 feet; thence, N 37°39'02" w a distance of 79.09 feet; thence, N 37°32'30" w a distance of 63.32 feet; thence, N 20°02'15" w a distance of 33.98 feet; thence, N 39°52'25" w a clistance of 42.02 feet; thence, N 25°36'04" w a distance of 107.17 feet; thence, N 30°34'08" w a clistance of 164.72 feet; thence, N 11°39'01" w a clistance of 107.90 feet; thence, N 24°56'06" E a distance of 163.60 feet; thence, N 63°39'33" E a distance of 177.81 feet; thence, N 83°14'43" E a eli stance of 393.54 feet; thence, N 07°15'26" w a distance of 21.79 feet; thence, N 80°51'11" E a distance of 50.00 feet; thence, N 89°15'06" E a distance of 65.56 feet; thence, N 57°50'04" E a distance of 50.12 feet; thence, s 84°51'15" E a distance of 33.08 feet; thence, s 81°39'50" E a distance of 89.61 feet; thence, N 56°07'00" E a distance of 26.86 feet; thence, N 07°38'31" E a distance of 27.93 feet; thence, N 37°41'57" w a distance of 28.06 feet; thence, N 50°00'15" E a clistance of 22.23 feet; thence, N 82°02'30" E a distance of 36.49 feet; thence, s 63°34'38" E a distance of 54.05 feet; thence, s 45°59'58" E a distance of 20.95 feet; thence, s 14°44'20" E a clistance of 29.18 feet; thence, s 11°11'17" w a distance of 26.42 feet; thence, s 14°58'41" E a distance of 30.14 feet; thence, s 43°42'10" E a eli stance of 69.77 feet; thence, s 31°36'59" E a distance of 56.76 feet; thence, s 49°38'46" E a distance of 40.12 feet; thence, s 45°30 1 55 11 E a distance of 40.88 feet; A-2 Special Wamutty Deed Legal Description of the Property 1111 Wo~o n~.M~V ,It'll. til\' Ill~ fli\M~ti~Ltf1f *"' IIIII Reception~: 804201 !aG/2212011 ~1:16:21 PM Jean Rlberico B of 10 Rae Fee:$56.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO thence, s 60°16 I 38 11 E a distance of 43.39 feet; thence, s 73°16'24" E a distance of 67.60 feet; thence, s 53°05'1511 E a distance of 15.86 feet; thence, s 63°37'30 11 E a distance of 52.31 feet; thence, s 83°28'21" E a distance of 46.95 feet; thence, N 86°20'27" E a distance of 61.04 feet; thence, N 31°59'09" E a distance of 47.07 feet; thence, N 06°58'38" E a distance of 32.16 feet; thence, N 72°08'07" E a distance of 7.98 feet; thence, s 24°51'03" E a distance of 72.35 feet; thence, s 41°52'47 11 E a distance of 50.71 feet; thence, s 54°44'21 11 E a distance of 38.31 feet; thence, s 83°39'39" E a distance of 87.15 feet; thence, s 57°11'12" E a distance of 77.06 feet; thence, s 41°51'16" E a distance of 88.65 feet; thence, s 57°39'13" E a distance of 65.60 feet; thence, s 49°55'38" E a distance of 74.96 feet; thence, s 61°04'52 11 E a distance of 43.44 feet; thence, s 71°46'03" E a distance of 55.45 feet to the point of beginning, containing an area of 85.924 acres, more or J.ess. Together with Parcel :e (North Parcel) A tract of land situated in the east half of Section 12, Township 7 south, Range 89 West, and in the west half of Section 7, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, being more particularl.y described as fol.lows: Beginning Garfiel.d County Surveyor's 2 1/2" Brass, found in place, and correctly marked as the southeast corner of said Section 7, thence S 49°22'15" E a distance of 5479.54 feet to the true point of beginning; thence, S 89°43'30" E a distance of 1005.44 feet to a point on the westerly line of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority Transportation Corridor Easement; thence, along the westerly line of said Easement S 19°38'52" E a distance of 2644.53 feet; thence, 494.34 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 2815.00 feet, a central angle of 10°03'42" and subtending a chord bearing of s 14°37'01" E a distance of 493.70 feet; thence, S 09°35'09" E a distance of 120.78 feet; thence, departing the westerly line of said Easement N 65.36'14" W a distance of 60.45 feet; thence, N 49°54'10" W a distance of 64.72 feet; thence, N 49°54'10" W a distance of 86.97 feet; thence, N 48°11'10" W a distance of 54.30 feet; thence, N 56°47'27" W a distance of 123.97 feet; thence, N 83°47'24" w a distance of 93.00 feet; thence, N 29°35'31" w a distance of 119.58 feet; thence, N 78°00'43" W a distance of 33.84 feet; thence, s 79°41'48" W a distance of 37.80 feet; thence, s 22°57'52" W a distance of 56.05 :feet; thence, S 59°31 1 57" W a distance of 45.48 feet; thence, N 82°32'35" W a distance of 28.23 feet; thence, N 59°07'03" W a dist.ance of 95.71 feet; A-3 Special Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property 1111 ~"' n~,M,~V .rllfii«I-'\~~L!HJ,~\\.!11,~,~ IIIII Reception~: 804201 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean I~Uberico 9 of 10 Rec Fee:$56.00 Ooo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO ~ -------- thence, N 71°20'44" w a distance of 85.73 feet; thence, N 36"43'10" w a distance of 93.22 feet; thence, N 25°39'22" w a distance of 181.92 feet; thence, N 65°10'24" w a distance of 98.43 feet; thence, s 85°02'33" w a distance of 52.20 feet; thence, s 56°33'52" w a distance of 39.34 feet; thence, s 20°49'33" w a distance of 42.96 feet; thence, s 37"27'43" E a distance of 21.60 feet; thence, N 77°02'57" w a distance of 89.66 feet; thence, s 70°24'18" w a distance of 70.95 feet; thence, N 88°59'39" w a distance of 55.55 feet; thence, s 84"28'58 11 w a distance of 49.93 feet; thence, N 14"22'48" E a distance of 68.20 feet; thence, N 05"11'46" w a distance of 77.59 feet; thenca, N 18°20'05" E a distance of 10.82 feet; thence, N 22"53'40" E a distance of 44.14 feet; thence, N 10°34'58" E a distance of 35.11 feet; thence, N 08°59'51" E a distance of 47.16 feet; thence, N 03°48'08" E a distance of 36.48 feet; thence, N 04°40'52" E a distance of 71.03 feet; thence, N 07°37'51 11 E a distance of 54.66 feet. thence, N 29"28'14" w a distance of 63.68 feet; thence, N 32°00'44" w a diatance of 61.05 feet; thence, N 26°17'29" w a distance of 55.52 feet; thence, N 38°14'36" w a distance of 44.36 feet; thence, N 53°11'32" w a distance of 37.73 feet; thence, N 59°54'48" w a distance of 54.16 feet; thence, N 87°51'35" w a distance of 36.97 feet; thence, N 57°33'47" w a distance Of 65.70 feet; thence, N 81°56'22 11 w a distance of 85.02 feet; thence, N 04°11'29" w a distance of 158.65 feet; thence, N 35°50'41" w a distance of 41.30 feet; thence, N 54°46'03" w a distance of 24.70 feet; thence, N 28°51'45" w a distance of 209.99 feet; thence, N 11°58'37" w a distance of 33.82 feet; thence, N 41°03' 46" E a distance of 78.19 feet; thence, N 06°29'01" w a distance Of 117.20 feet; thence, N 20°05'27" w a distance of 94.24 feet; thence, N 11°32'03" w a distance of 63.83 feet; thence, N 07°57'46" w a distance of 141.45 feet; thence, N 09°56'14" E a distance of 50.76 feet; thence, N 19°17'4411 w a distance of 91.04 feet; thence, N 44°41'59" w a distance of 134.55 feet; thence, N 19°23'49" w a distance of 74.18 feet; thence, N 19°33'06" w a distance of 43.27 feet; thence, N 21°30'01" w a distance of 72.23 feet; thence, N oo•16'30" E a distance of 217.77 feet; thence, N oo•16'30" E a distance of 312.94 feet to containing an area of 73.003 acres, J!l.()re or less." A-4 the point of beginning, S pedal Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property · 1111 WJI".~ollfnlr"Jiilll'l l':f:l~~t,~Rill'r.kfll~l~ll'l'l ~'' IIIII Reoeption~: 804201 06/22/2011 01:16:21 PM Jean Alberico 10 of 10 Rec Fee:$66.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Together with Parcel C: A tract of land situated in the southwest quarter of Section 7, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the westerly right of way line of Colorado State Highway 82, whence a 2 1/2" Brass Cap, found in place and properly marked as the southeast corner of said Section 7, bears S 78°01'43" E a distance of 2054.18 feet; thence, along said westerly right of way line N 09°35'10" w a distance of 188.14 thence, 282.60 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 2915.00 feet, a central angle of 5°33'17" and subtending a chord bearing of N 12°21'49" W a distance of 282.49 feet; thence, departing said right of way lines 90°00'00" E a distance of 49.74 feet; thence, s 06°01'00" E a distance of 202.70 feet; thence, S 04°34'58" E a distance of 260.70 feet to the point of beginning, containing an area of 0.234 acres, more or less. The name and address of the person who created this legal description is: Jeffrey Allen Tuttle, P.L.S. 33638 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601. A-5 Special Warranty Deed Legal Description of the Property