HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.00 Response to NTC Letter 03.10.2011~~~ Rl\tel'Ed~e
COLORADO g
Rockwood Shepard, Project Executive
River Edge Colorado
Carbondale Investments, LLC
7999 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
April 20, 2011
Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner
Garfield County
Building and Planning Department
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Response to NTC Letter
River Edge Colorado-PUD/Preliminary Plan Applications
Dear Ms. Eastley:
This letter and associated attachments are hereby submitted in response to your Completeness Review
Letter dated March 10, 2011 and meeting held on March 11, 2011. Each of the attachments will be
integrated into the PUD/Preliminary Plan submittal package upon your finding that this response
constitutes a complete application. In addition, as you requested at our meeting on March 11, we
hereby consent to a necessary extension of not more than thirty (30) calendar days, as provided for by
Article 4 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended ("ULUR"), such that review agencies
shall be provided with a comment period exceeding the twenty-one (21) calendar day period provided
for therein and by applicable State law.
Detailed Responses to Completeness Review Letter:
1. Transmittal Remarks: We appreciate you taking the time to poll review agencies for their
preferences concerning the format of the submittal. We will prepare the subsequent copies of
the submittal accordingly .
2. Size of Submittal Package : We will duplex all documents where consistent with the content
therein.
3. Recorded Statement of Authority: A recorded copy of the Statement of Authority is provided as
Attachment A.
4. Water and Sewer Service: The Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District ("RFWSD") has
provided a "can and will serve letter" as requested by Garfield County, which letter is attached
as Attachment B. Further, we will remove the RFWSD Rules from the application package as
requested and simply refer the reviewer to same on the RFWSD website.
5. Estimated Construction Costs: As requested, we have provided a summary of generalized
construction costs and methods of financing as Attachment C. These costs should not be used
for the purposes of establishing bonding requirements since these costs are based on built-up
unit costs and preliminary design. The cost estimate will be refined at an appropriate level of
detail at final design based on the framework we provided in our previous submittal.
6. Application Discrepancy: The totals were not revised when the application was updated.
Attachment D represents the revised application correcting the error and providing estimated
maximum "commercial" floor areas.
7. Waivers: Waivers are addressed in the Justification Report beginning on page 24. We have
added a submittal item titled "Requested Waivers from Standards" to allow you to easily locate
this information and have included a copy as Attachment E. It will be added to Binder 1, Tab 1,
Item B of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application Package.
8. Density Consistency with Comprehensive Plan 2030 and Compliance with Future Land Use Map
("FLUM"): As you noted in your follow up email to our meeting on March 11, "Residential High
allows for a maximum of 3 duper 1 acre on the most dense end of the spectrum to 1 duper less
than 2 acres at the least dense end of the spectrum. 2.28 units per acre is less than the
maximum density of 3 units per acre and more than the minimum density, so once the project
area is the same as the subject site the proposed density will fall within the recommended
density range for Residential High. That should satisfy the question of compliance with the
FLUM."
9. Justification Report: Page 23 and 27 are references to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
2030 including the preferences toward clustering (Page 23) and description of Residential High
Density (page 27) not to pages 23 and 27 of the Justification Report as your letter seems to
imply.
Section I, Item #4 of the Justification Report (pg. 7-11) addresses "Compliance with
Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements. The proposed rezoning is in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land
use or development or an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan approved prior to filing a
rezoning request." As specifically required by the ULUR including: (1) housing; (2) traffic; (3) rural
character; (4) recreation; (5) economic development; (6) environment; and (7) sewer and water.
This Item specifically responds to Section 4-201B of the ULUR which is redundant to Section 6-
101B of the ULUR even in title. All the criteria of Section 4-201B of the ULUR are answered
specifically by Section I (Items 1-6) of the Justification Report (pages 3-12). We will add
additional cross references to assist the reader in locating these discussions.
Although we believe that the requirements of Section 6-301C.9.E are fulfilled by the Justification
Report, we have provided a written description as Attachment F which pulls key information
from the Justification Report into a separate document titled the "PUD Written Description"
Response to NTC Letter
River Edge Colorado
Page 2 of 3
based upon your request. It will be added to Binder 1, Tab 1, Item B of the PUD/Preliminary Plan
Application Package.
10. Plan Maps: We have provided the five (5) summary maps requested (Attachment G). Please
note that due to scale, these are less detailed than the plan maps from which they are
extracted. The reports submitted as part of the application will continue to reference the
detailed maps provided as part of the original submittal. The summary maps will be added to
the end of drawing package rather than reordering the maps since they are specifically less
detailed than the maps referenced by the reports.
11. Traffic Study: The Traffic Assessment prepared by Fehr and Peers is specifically designed to
address access to the site. This assessment supports the overall Impact Analysis completed by
8140 Partners, LLC including required modeling. The elements of construction traffic,
improvement fees, access permits, and consultation with Colorado Department of
Transportation ("COOT") identified as deficiencies are provided in the Traffic Section of the
Impact Analysis (pg . 107-116). Documentation, in the form of meeting notes and emails,
evidencing coordination efforts with COOT is provided as Attachment H and will be added to the
Impact Analysis as Appendix V. As evidenced therein, COOT has concurred that an access at the
proposed location is feasible but detailed assessment and design work will need to be done to
permit the access in advance of final plat.
In addition to the requested information, Attachment I includes corrected or amended information that
will be included in the revised submittal following a determination of completeness. This documentation
has been updated based on the recent change in ownership of the remainder of Cl's holdings to Garfield
County Commercial Investments, LLC. The ALTA has been updated but still includes the entirety of both
Cl and Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC properties, as do the existing conditions maps, in
order to provide a better understanding of the surrounding and related influences and legal obligations
and rights.
We look forward to your timely review of this response and your finding of completeness; and anticipate
working closely with you to resolve any issues during the subsequent review process. Please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Rockwood Shepard
Project Executive
En c.
Response to NTC Letter
River Edge Colorado
Page 3 of 3
Attachment A-Statement of Authority (Recorded Copy)
)
1111 A'i"o~o ~:1)11'\~,MU, WJ IIU,W!II,!rWIIf,rtf\ 1M~~~ IIIII
Reception": 801561
04/19/2011 12:20:42 P~ Jean Rlberico
1 of 1 Rec Foo:$11.00 Doc Fee:O.OO GARFIEL.D COUNTY CO
STATEMENT 01!' AUTHORJ:TY"
CONFORMED
COPY
Pursuant to C.R.S. §38-30-172, the undersigned executes this
Statement of Authority on behalf ofCarbondale investments LLC, a
TEXAS limited liability (corporation, limited liability
company, general partnership, registered limited liability
partnership, registered limited liability limited partnership,
limited partnership association, government agency, trust or
other), an entity other than an individual, capable of holding title
to real property (the "Entity"), and states as follows:
The name of the Entity is Carbondale investments LLC
is formed under the laws of Colorado
The mailing address for the Entity is 5121 Park Lane, Dallas
TX 75220
and
The name and/or position of the person
execute instruments conveying, encumbering,
affecting title to real property on behalf of
Rockwood Shepard.
authorized to
or otherwise.
the Entity is
The limitations upon the authority of the person named above
or holding the position described above to bind the Entity are as
follows: None
(if no limitations,
"None")
Other matters concerning the manner in which the Entity
deals with any interest in real property are:
(if no other matter, leave this section blank)
EXECUTED this ___),§J;h day of _.o,Ap..,r<;iul----:::::;;::~~
Signature :~~f--:;:-::=::--:::::"'
Name(typed or printed: Ted R. Sikora II
STATE OF COLORADO
CITY AND
COUNTY OF DENVER
The foregoing instrument was
Ted R. Sikora II
Carbondale Investments, LLC
Title (if any) :
)
)SS.
)
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: CJttnltf.£1 Y7!.J f) '2tJ(3 1 (Notary Public)
05/09 [SEAL:SU.sa-nf'JL/ ~
insert
Attachment B-Can and Will Serve Letter from Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
)
-------------
R0..\1{1\'G FORI\ WATER & SA\'IT.\TIO\' DISTRICT
March 14, 20 II
Rockwood Shepard
Project Executive
Carbondale Investments, LLC
243 Crescent Lane
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I
Re: Roaring fork Water and Sanitation District (the "District"): Willingness and Ability to
Serve the River Edge Project
Dear Mr. Shepard:
In connection with the PUD/Preliminary Plan applications for the 160-acre River Edge
Project (the "Project") pending before Garfield County, this letter confirms that the
District is willing and able to serve the Project with adequate potable water and
wastewater service for up to 375 EQRs of demand, upon the satisfaction of the following
pre-conditions to such service: the execution by Carbondale and the District of a
mutually-agreeable pre-inclusion agreement setting J(Jrth the terms and conditions
necessary for the inclusion of the Project into the District and the connection of the sewer
and water facilities within the Projeetto the District's facilities; and Carbondale's
fulfillment of all of its requirements under such an agreement, which arc anticipated to
include, among other things, the transfer or dedication of adequate water rights to the
District, the installation and dedication to the District of potable water lines and related
potable water infrastructure meeting District standards, the construction of a sewage
collection system meeting District standards, and the financing of an expansion of the
District's existing wastewater treatment plant.
Sincerely,
Joo~::
Roai'Jng Fork Water and Sanitation District
Attachment B RFWSD Will Serve Letter
-l
· 1'0 Box I 002 ~
I
Cluchll'.lil\21h<lil~l6~< ;s, CO X I W2 ,C ~·. ,~ ~""
Tu.: (97019-IS-21+1 • F.\\ (9701 \!6Hl987 RFWS D
1!11 II'C<;: PO Box 32(>
Gu:-;1\'00D Si'RISGS. CO X1602
TIL: (9701 X76-500X • FA' !970) X76-29-l-1
[_______ ·--------·---·---------·----------------------------------------
Attachment C-Preliminary Construction Costs by Filing
)
)
To:
From:
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning
WilliamS. Otero, P.E.
8140 Partners, LLC
Date:
Re:
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
March 28, 2011
Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate
and Project Financing
River Edge Colorado
This technical memorandum has been prepared to provide a preliminary-level construction cost estimate for River
Edge Colorado based on the preliminary designs shown in the PUD/Preliminary Plan Applications submitted on
January 23, 2011. The estimated construction costs are based on the validated preliminary unit costs developed by
8140 Partners, LLC.
Summary of Estimate: The Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate Summary summarizes the composite in place
costs for the infrastructure necessary to support the development of the River Edge Colorado project. Based on
the assumptions identified below, the construction cost for the required infrastructure is estimated at $25.6 M.
The estimate includes various unknown factors including opportunities to phase access improvements,
minimization and optimization of infrastructure, and the infrastructure phasing during reclamation.
Approach, Assumptions, Limitations, and Exclusions: The estimated construction costs are based on the validated
preliminary unit costs developed by 8140 Partners, LLC for the mountain area infrastructure and all assumptions
associated therewith. Unit costs were generally derived from RS Means 2009 cost database, CDOT Bid Tabs, and
local data obtained by 8140 Partners, LLC in 2009 and has been inflated based on recent economic
information/data concerning construction costs in the region. The estimate is based upon procedures utilized by
heavy civil engineering contractors in preparing 11 hard money" competitive bids.
The cost estimates are intended to provide an approximation of unit costs to provide for comparative calculations
of total project costs appropriate for the preliminary level of design. These cost estimates are considered to be
approximately -10% to +20% accurate. The base unit cost estimate prepared does not include any contingency to
account for project uncertainties (including final design, permitting restrictions and bidding climate). These
estimates are subject to refinement and revisions as the design is developed in future stages of the project. The
actual cost of construction may be impacted by the availability of construction equipment and crews and
fluctuation of supply prices at the time the work is bid. 8140 Partners, LLC makes no warranty, expressed or
implied, as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to bids or actual costs.
Project Financing: At the present time, Carbondale Investments, LLC (CI) plans to fund the project with cash and
through traditional financing mechanisms which may include construction loans from financial institutions or
investors. Based on the financial climate at the time construction is initiated and the duration and phasing of the
project, Cl reserves the right to use any and all mechanisms determined most financially appropriate and beneficial
for achieving the goals of the project. Making such a determination today concerning project financing or limiting
the approaches Cl may use would be inappropriate and potentially misrepresentative. Additionally, depending on
the nature and extent of requirements placed on Cl by the various review and permitting agencies, additional
mechanisms not currently being considered may be required including, but not limited to, the establishment of a
metropolitan district.
Attachment C Prel. Cost Estimate
~ g_
1i a
0
" ~
0
!a
~
3
ii
River Edge Colorado Infrastructure Cost Estimates1
•
2
•
4
Filing1
litem#
FilinglA
~
~
'Deserlptlon
ltump Sum Estimate {Including omtlngency
------use L;;;;;Psum Estimate o--
3900' 920+ ·noo+ ---· 67201
ft i --92ooT _ _s_~,
~
Units Q<y. Unit COst
"
12 iDryUtilities ft u•:;. .. ""·uu :;.
T""l Notes
-.__r-
"otal Construetlon Costs $ 206,000
Filing 18
lwWater
onitary Se-.
"V Utilities
"
~-
,.00
'·00
0.00
::00
Prellml~nry lnlr.istnJ<ture Cost Estlmote-River EdKe Color~
Pal[<'l<>fS
~
3-
3
<D
"' 0
"U
~
~
m m
i
Filing2
Filing2A
_-.!Q.
Filing3
Raw Water
~nitary Se~
Dry Utilities
(loc;
~---
. :-Koad (Lol
,l)e 3-Road 1GH
~'r P~ . .±-.-:-
''' __ 11;-
1itaryS
~
'lli
2ii
~-------------01
--,-----"------;
"""'30o:C
2So:C
100.00
!"So.OO
000.00 ·u.oo
so.oo
LSO.OO
500:00
-iTciO
SQ.iiO-
~~
~-~
126,800
:]26,5~:§:
187_500
1,070,000
f'fellmlanry lnfr.ortruchJre Cort Estimate-River Edge Colotado
Page 2 ofS
i
1i
:2.
0 ,
~
0
0
!!!-
m
!!!-3"
lt
Filing4
~
15
'Description
jLump sum Estimate (lndudlng Contingency
·----u;ewmp Sum E'Stim'i.te o-
Units ""· Unit Cost
it.
llu-mlzedEstimate~====Jri~~~~~r=====:r====~j:====r=======::;;:;gJ+======flg~ll, .. } lrype 1-Road (Entry) I ft ol $ 300~
"'"'' ··~ ----
~---~---:--~~~:-::~:::-l!!~ss) ---~---=-~--~-------=E-=---_----~1~~-------~:i+t--=---=----JO_~-~~£-~. ~-----,-----""J!ii,.~· -I '' - - _ _J_ -o• $ '""·"E'-"" I $ :-r-j ~-----~------+~;ifh-H-;rd-,--------l----¥-----_j---------100~~---------~F.&h-;------~---50,0-J-----·------=~
1Trills (Soft) ft I ~-15.00 I $ 21,7Sot
:Potable Water , ft I 32601 S 100.00 1 S 326,000 ,
10 TRawwater--------~---rr-----r---------4326T$-~------4o.ooTs----!:~,040J~--~--------
11 -+.Sanitary Sewer ft ~ 3315\ $ 115~ ----;..;:;+
12 ,Dry Utilities -ii. I ziSOl$-12S.OO, $ 343,750,
Total COnstl'\ltlion COSts S 2.,001.000
Filing4A
ltem8 !Description I Units Qty. I UnitCOst Total INotes
____ ) ______ ]jj~e 2-Road(l.ocal) ____ -~.-ft _ _Pl}-----~----2~J _______ ._..L._ ________ _
3 1Type 3-Road (GH Access) : ft 9201 $ 200.00 1 $ 184,000 ~ ~------T -=---i~::e::::;·--=--==t==~~--== ~ ----=~s: ---==~~~~ ====----=--:=~==::::-=~-==-
___ __6 __ ~--~alls ~-----~~-.. ]-------;...--E~ _____ }3:_~__g _________ :_-l------
____ !_ _____ Jira~s(Ha_rd) -L------"--__________ --'!)_$ _______ ~0.00_1J _________ ._j_ __________ _
__ _s __ ~i!s(SOft) -+ ft ~ 0 1 $ 15.~~ - '
___ _9 ______ f, P~_so;~bleWat~ _ tt ~----------__l?g_ _______ 122~-t{ - _
~----+R!~-~~!!:_ _______ _j_ ______ 1!_ ____ J ___________ oJ_$ ________ ~.:.~...~.2 ___________ . ..l_
11 )Sanitary Sewer I tt I ol $ 115.00 I $ -:
12 1Dry Utilities ft 0. $ 12S.OOT'$
!Total construction COsts ---$ 184,000 1
FilingS
~ !Description Units ""· Unit COst T""'l TNotes
15_ __ g__"!'!p SUJ!I_ Estlrf!!~ (including ~na"ncv J..L
use Lump Sum Estimate D
Itemized Estimate
-------~---=t~-~~~~·~-:~:}f:::-=--==+----i---=::---------=--=-·t·--={~~---------·-·}§2~~22+-~----===~====·
____ _3_ -==:Jl'Y~4-R£ad (AI~-----' ___ _I! ___ _J _______ ·_~--_!1~-----150.00] ________ __:__+--==--=--=---==
-----:-----i&if~---------------i------;!_:rt-----f------------*i -=--=-SE~~~~~-------------:----r-----------~---
7 I Trails (Hard) 1 ft 10001 $ 50.00 1 $ so,ooo~•========= 8 !Trails (Soft) , tt I 11t&$ 15.00 , $ iS:Gs~ i -----g-----JPQtabt .. Water -------~----ft---------;---------i42oTS _______ i00:00[$ ______ 14~oOO-C ________ _
10 jRawWater ' ft ----1--------_3_0..?.9"1$ 40.~ I$ 122,8~'
11 ·---~~5.!'~~!X_5.,wer 1 ft 1 161ot$ 115.00, ~ 111S.tso r---
u. 'oryUtilities tt isi01 S ----iiS.OO'""'$" 188,750
'otal COnstruction COsts $ 1,077,000 '
Prelirnl.anry lnfr.l>trll<ture Cost E>tlrnate-I!Ner Edg~ Colorado
Page3ofS
! g.
~
OJ,
(')
~
~
m
!!!
~-
<>
Filing6
~ription
_Tumysu'!'_!.l
'
200.01
lso:ii
... £~2.:.~
e~i~ (Hard) j ft ~ ~ ~U-W o :> -.
~ils (SE!£_1 ________ -+-___ __f! ____ -l-----------OU..-------}5.00_~----------_j
oPnh>kr .. w,. ... , 1 ft r Or$ 100.00) $ -!
ails (Har
iils (sof
::..~;
0 s 40.01
+----;c----+t-__ ~tt ~~~:~
""ToO
"i7sO
=._32: .. 4EI
49201 ... .,..,_,
I 241o! s 115.1 --------------·•··· --------------125~ --365
1,898
Additional Offsite Activities
;Item#
1--!5
ltremlzed Estimote
I Deicription
__ __l!.~~m Es_!fmt~~J!!!..r:f.uding Contln!1_!!1~
Use lump Sum Estimat!..D_
Units Qty, UnitCost i
___J_~
T""'l """
' ,_
1 ~rsection HWYS2 ___j_ Eii ·=4 lH--!_.250!..000.~ i $ 1,350,~ 1
f. I Water Tank I Ea ! 21 S _ 35g,OOO.~ 700,000
.] !Water Unes --+-ft __j 26001 S _ 2E<J.OO _g s:-o,o~f-_ _ _
---:--+----------r-----------1--------+------------:TI-----C-i ______________ _j
6 I I ---i ! S i---------l-----:----r=-------3 _ _:.-_-==---j--==----=J------~-------:--r---------
10 I -I I s :,
11 __J_ L --1-_jJ :..__L
12 I ! I : s t
!Total COnstn..:tion Costs S 2,470,000 i
?rellmlanrv Infrastructure Cost Estimate-River Edge Colorado
Page4ol5
~ g.
3 m a
0
~
0
0
~
m
~ 3'
~
Additional Onsite Activities
Total I
Notes:
Est/mote (fndudillg Contfn!
-use-w-;;-s-;;;;E~ate!
IWTP
§
jR_~
,-----------,
nitary Sew.
yUtil~
idlti;;~~IOf
"""'7iOoOO
2042880'
+-2~
_.!l
300.(
2SO.I
-200~0i:
150.(
§~@
---~
2,880,000
~ .. 5?~,~~·
0,000
~!..o~:
,000
22.9_
!..~
,500
~~:
:..82.9_
,153,000
,590,000
1 Roadwavs Include sldew;olks, ourb/gutler, lighting, and landS<;aplng, roundabout, stormwater and site grading allowanceo. Water, sewer and d!V u~lltles untl =tslndude all flttlngs, llltstatlon<, manhoO,s and ott.er appurtonc:es.
'Gan:len Home lots~,. as.umed to be served by u~llties from tl>e streets and net internal actflSWays. Addlton.al grading, fendng, berming and landscaping""' oonside"'d part of lot do!v<>lopment 00st5 at time cf building construction and a"' exduded from this
=!mate,
'All unit com a"' built cr lump sum numbers prepared for prellmina!V oostlng
' Required grading, fencing, berming, and plantings on lndMudallots are oonslde"'d a part of building oosts and ""' &dud<'~! from this es~mate.
P"'llmOin!V inlrastriOtlu"' Cost Estlmate--1\Mer Edge Colorado
PageS cfS
Attachment D-Application Cover Page
)
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470
www.qarfield-county.com
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
(CHECK THE BOX THAT APPLIES)
D SKETCH PLAN (optional)
D CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION
[jg PRELIMINARY PLAN
D PRELIMINARY PLAN AMENDMENT
D FINAL PLAT
D FINAL PLAT AMENDMENT I CORRECTION PLAT
D COMBINED PRELIMINARY PLAN & FINAL PLAT
GENERAL INFORMATION (Please print legibly)
:.-Name of Property Owner: Carbondale Investments, LLC
:.-Mailing Address: 5121 Park Lane Telephone: (_)See Owner Rep.
:.-City: Dallas State: TX Zip Code: 75220 Cell: (_)see Owner Rep.
:.-E-mail address: See Owner Rep. FAX:(_ )See Owner Rep.
Note: All mailing concerning application should be sent to Owners Representative
:.-Name of Owner's Representative. if any, (Attorney, Planner. Consultant. etc):
:.-Rockwood Shepard, Project Executive
:.-Mailing Address: 7999 Hwy 82 Telephone: (]IQ__) 945-2113
:.-City: Carbondale State: co Zip Code: 81623 Cell: ~456-5325
:.-E-mail address: rockwoodshepard@gmail.com FAX:(_)
12 89W
:.-Location of Property: Section 7 Township 7S Range 88W
:.-Assessor's Parcel Number: 2 3 9 3 -1 8 2 -0 0 -1 0 2 ------------
:.-Practical Location I Address of Property: 7999 Hwy 82
At junction of Highway 82 and CR113 west of RFTA right-of-way and east of Roaring Fork River
:.-Current Size of Property to be Subdivided (in acres): 159.16 acres
:.-Number of Tracts I Lots Created within the Proposed Subdivision: 366 residential lots
plus 55 non-residential tracts (various uses-open space and common area development tracts)
Last Revised 12124/08
Attachment D Revised Application
GENERAL INFORMATION continued ...
)> Proposed Water Source: Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District or Community System
l> Proposed Method of Sewage Disposal: Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District or
l> Proposed Public Access VIA: ....:u:..:s:..:H....:i""gh....:w:..:a:<.y..:.82=-----------------
l> Easements: Utility: See ALTA
Ditch: Glenwood Ditch (to be relocated on property)
l> Total Development Area (fill in the appropriate boxes below):
326/326
40/20
366/346
30000 (Maximum) Note 1
30000 (Maximum)
47.99
5.31
4.72
101.12
105.84
ill~,~~~~~~~:~~:~u·;,::~~•d•dlmclo~• I . I I 1d I I I I
60 spaces (max)
20 spaces (max)
The following general application materials are required for all types of subdivisions in Garfield
County. Application materials that are specific to an individual application type (Conservation
Subdivision, Preliminary Plan, etc.) are detailed in Section 5-501 of Article V of the Unified Land Use
Resolution (ULUR) of 2008.
1. Submit a completed and signed Application Form, an application fee, and a signed Agreement
for Payment form.
2. A narrative explaining the purpose of the application and supporting materials that address the
standards and criteria found in Article VII of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008.
3. Copy of the deed showing ownership. Additionally, submit a letter from the property owner(s) if
the owner is being represented by another party other than the owner. If the property is owned
by a corporate entity (such as an LLC, LLLP, etc.) please submit a copy of recorded " Statement
of Authority" demonstrating that the person signing the application has the authority to act in that
capacity for the entity.
2
Attachment D Revised Application
System
Attachment E-Requested Waivers from Standards
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development
and River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan
March 29, 2011
The following information is drawn from the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report
dated January 18,2011 (Binder I, Tab 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
1. Requests for relief from certain standards of Article VII of the ULUR
Article VII of the ULUR contemplates that the standards discussed in this Subsection I from
which CI requests relief might not be applicable or appropriate for all projects and therefore may
be waived. The standards discussed herein are inapplicable or inappropriate for the Project.
Therefore, CI requests that the County waive the application of these standards to the Project.
a. Restrictive Inner Buffer
Section 7-203.A of the ULUR establishes a setback of thirty-five (35) feet measured horizontally
from the typical and ordinary high water line on each side of a waterbody (the "Inner Buffer
Setback"). This said, Section 7-203.A.2 provides that "[i]rrigation and water diversion facilities,
flood control structures, culverts, bridges and other reasonable and necessary structures requiring
some disturbance within this setback may be permitted." I d.
CI requests that the County permit CI to construct the bridge, utility crossings, and diversion
facilities proposed as part of the Project within the Inner Buffer Setback located along the
Roaring Fork River. See Bridge Plan and Section SOl.Ol of the Drawing Package for a
description of the proposed structures. Alternative bridge structures that would avoid the Inner
Buffer Setback have been reviewed, but no substantial advantage to avoiding the Inner Buffer
Setback has been identified. Rather, due to slopes and constraints associated with intersection
alignments, the proposed shorter bridge structure with limited encroachments into the Inner
Buffer Setback, provides a safer condition in the professional judgment of the Project Engineer,
WilliamS. Otero. In addition, the bridge crossing will be subject to Section 404 of the CWA
and a floodplain activity permit or other review by the County.
The utility crossings and water diversion facilities are required in order to access irrigation water,
connect to the Roaring Fork District water and wastewater facilities (if the Roaring Fork District
is selected as the water and/or sanitary sewer provider), and access Cl's potable water rights in
the Roaring Fork River to support the Project. These activities will comply with Section 404 of
the CW A and likely will be subject to a Nationwide Section 404 Permit issued by the USCOE.
These activities might also require a floodplain activity permit or other review by the County.
The activities proposed within the Inner Buffer Setback also will be performed in accordance
with applicable erosion and sediment control measures required by the storm water pollution
prevention plan. Areas affected by these activities will be reclaimed in accordance with
applicable PUD standards.
Attachment E Waivers
River Edge Colorado
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
Lastly, as discussed in the Impact Report, the proposed activities will result in no adverse impact
to Cattle Creek or the Roaring Fork River. See Section III.B.2.a of the Impact Analysis.
In addition to the foregoing, CI requests relieffrom the application of Section 7-203.A.3 of the
ULUR. This Section prohibits within the Inner Buffer Setback "unless permitted or approved,"
the "[d]isturbance of existing natural surface drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns,
flow patterns, or flood retention characteristics[,]" and provides further that "[m]easures taken to
restore existing topography to improve drainage, flow patterns and flood control must be
approved." !d. CI requests the County's approval of its plan to repair and restore as part of
Phase 0 riparian areas within the Inner Buffer Setback previously damaged by agricultural
operations and site grading activities. The proposed activities are in keeping with the intent of
Section 7-203 to protect wetlands and waterbodies, and will be performed in compliance with the
RFC Conservation Easement and erosion and water quality control provisions of the ULUR.
Details of the proposed activities are provided in Reclamation Plan included in Appendix U of
the Impact Analysis and on the Reclamation Plan (RPOl Series) and Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan (ES02) of the Drawing Package.
b. Subdrains for all foundations
Section 7-206.8.2 of the ULUR provides that "[s]ubdrains shall be required for all foundations
where possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight to proper drainage
channels."
Subdrains will be used as appropriate as determined by the engineer designing the foundation
and applicable hazard mitigation measures. It is inappropriate or unnecessary to provide a
subdrain under circumstances where soils are generally well drained like those at the Project. In
addition, due to soil conditions, in most cases, basements will not be utilized. As detailed in the
Hazard Mitigation Plan, the need for a subdrain should be left to the design engineer based on
the specific site circumstances.
c. Public road dedications
Section 7 -405.C.l.a of the ULUR provides that "[ u ]nless specifically approved as private rights-
of-way and so designated on the final plat, all roads, streets, alleys or other public traffic ways
located within the subdivision and benefiting current or future residents of the subdivision shall
be dedicated as public rights-of-way." !d.
As discussed previously in this Report, all roads internal to the Project are proposed to be private
roads. Access to the Property requires a crossing of the RFTA ROW. The RFTA ROW is
maintained as a rail-banked corridor and therefore falls within the jurisdiction ofRFTA and the
Public Utilities Commission (the "PUC"). Based on discussions with the PUC, a crossing that is
open to the public for access to a subdivision likely would be treated by the PUC as a "public"
crossing subject to the PUC's review and approval. However, there appear to be no avenues
under the PUC regulations for a private entity to apply to the PUC for authority to construct a
highway-rail crossing where tracks or other facilities currently exist. See Section 7203, 4 C.C.R.
2
Attachment E Waivers
River Edge Colorado
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
723-7. Partially in response to this situation, CI requested that the Garfield County Board of
County Commissioners (the "BOCC") approve the creation of a special district for the Project.
The BOCC denied this request in September 2010. This denial leaves CI with no option but to
pursue the approval of private roads for the Project. CI has, however, retained the option to
convert the private roads to public roads if a quasi-governmental or governmental entity,
including any special district or metropolitan district formed in accordance with Colorado law, is
willing to accept and assume ownership of and maintenance responsibilities for such roads.
At the present time, the Project's roads are not designed to connect to any external roadways,
except for SH 82, and will only serve residents of the Project.
Based on the foregoing, dedicating the roads internal to the Project as public rights-of-way is
inappropriate and unnecessary. Accordingly, CI requests that the County approve all roads
internal to the Project as private rights-of-way.
2. Requests for modifications from certain standards of Article VII of the ULUR
In addition, to the relief requested in Subsection I above, CI requests modifications from the
following County standards:
a. Section 7-108 standard that "[a]ll roads shall be designed to road design standards set
forth in Section 7-307 •.. "
Roads within the Project are being proposed as suburban/urban sections to better support
adjacent lot designs, including, proposed lot sizes, setbacks, and pedestrian/street-focused
orientation. Without approval of the proposed design standard for roads, CI would be unable to
cluster lots in the manner proposed, preserve the proposed amount of open space, or provide for
pedestrian and street-oriented suburban densities. The road design standards provided in Section
7-307 would generally require that lots within the Project be double to triple their currently
proposed size. Under such a program, while densities might remain the same, at least 75% of the
land within the Project would be held in private spaces. The proposed road standards are
relatively conservative suburban sections with on-street parking in both directions, which
configuration provides more than three times the road design capacity than that demanded by this
Project. This configuration could reasonably provide for connections to the north and east of the
Project if desired and if Project's internal roads were to become public.
b. Section 7-207 Stormwater Drainage Standards.
In lieu of the standards set forth in Section 7-207, CI proposes to comply with the standards and
criteria provided by the UDFCD USDCM Volumes I and II, as amended, in its design of
channels and hydraulic structures, and to use these standards and criteria as the primary guidance
document for the selection and design of storm water quality BMPs. This modification is being
requested in an effort to provide comprehensive and appropriate standards and specifications that
will be applied to the Project since the ULUR does not provide appropriate or detailed enough
criteria to address the infrastructure, conditions, and "suburban" form of development proposed
for the Project. The USDCM is recognized as being one of the most comprehensive drainage
3
Attachment E Waivers
River Edge Colorado
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
criteria manuals available in the State of Colorado and has been used as the basis for the
development of local drainage criteria manuals and in drainage design and review processes by a
wide variety of municipalities in the State from Grand Junction to Denver to Fort Collins. The
USDCM is approved and accepted by the Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control
Division as a reasonable basis for design. Application of the USDCM assures that storm water
will meet applicable water quality standards and that drainage structures and facilities will be
designed to adequately convey storm drainage. In all cases, as promoted by the ULUR, where
more naturalized channels and swales may be used to reasonably collect, treat and convey
stormwater, these methods will be utilized as opposed to piping or concrete ditches. Details are
provided in the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and the Bridges, Structures, and Drainage
Structures Plans (Series DROI-03 and SOl) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESOI-ES06)
or the Drawing Package.
c. Section 7-207.C.l requirement that "{djetentionfacilities shall ensure the post-
development peak discharge rate does not exceed the pre-development peak discharge
rate for the 2-year and 25-year return frequency, 24-hour duration storm. In
determining runoff rates, the entire area contributing runoff shall be considered,
including any existing off-site contribution. "
CI requests that only the water quality capture volume, and not the total stormwater volume (i.e.,
quantity storage) required by the ULUR, be detained prior to discharge off the Project Site to
either Cattle Creek or the Roaring Fork River. The primary reason for this request is that the
Property is located at the confluences of the two major perennial waterways and detention of
surface runoff at historic rates provides little value or could even be detrimental to these
waterways since it delays the releases from the Project in a manner that could coincide with the
peak flows from larger contributing basins upstream (i.e., adding to the magnitude of the peak
flow). If stormwater quantities are not detained, the peak flows generated from the Property will
be released prior to these other peaks entering the areas. Furthermore, storm water runoff from
the Property does not discharge to or impact adjacent properties or downstream drainage
structures. Should the County believe that quantity storage in addition to quality storage is
required, the storage volumes for both quantity and quality are provided in the Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan and the area necessary to store this increased volume is available within
the locations identified on the engineering plans to accommodate the volumes without any
impact to lots within the Project. It is the opinion of William S. Otero, Project Engineer that
detaining excess quantity volume is unproductive at best and potentially damaging to
downstream areas at worst.
d. Section 7-305.A.l.fstandard that "[ajl/ required landscaping must be located outside
of any adjacent right-of-way unless a written waiver is received from the Director. "
CI requests the Director's approval to provide landscape strips and landscaped areas within the
rights-of-way and adjacent to the roads internal to the Project. As noted above, roads internal to
the Project will at least initially be maintained by the POA. The proposed landscaping is a
critical feature of the Project and provides for detached sidewalks. The landscaping will not
interfere with the clear vision triangle and therefore presents no hazard to motorists. Further, the
proposed landscaping will have no impact to County operations or facilities.
4
Attachment E Waivers
River Edge Colorado
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
e. Section 7-305.A. 7.a standard that "[d]eciduous trees shall be a minimum of two inches
(2'~ in caliper measured four inches (4'~ above the ground."
CI proposes a standard of 1 W' caliper to enhance survival. CI' s landscape architect, Pedro
Campos, has determined that survival rates would be substantially enhanced at the site by
reducing tree sizes. Survival rate is one of the most critical factors in ensuring the success of a
landscape plan. Winter desiccation has the potential to kill a large number of trees in this
environment particularly in consideration of the limited soil matrix and water retaining properties
of the surficial deposits. To this end, winter watering is proposed to help establish trees. The
cost savings involved has been translated into the higher planting ratios proposed on the site than
other comparable developments in the County. The overall intent of the landscape program as
detailed in the Landscape Plan and LAO 1-05 Series of the Drawing Package meets or exceeds the
intent of the ULUR in all other respects.
f. Section 7-307 Roadway Standards.
This section details a series of roadway standards for rural roads. The Project incorporates a
series of road, trail and sidewalk sections more in keeping with the goals of the Project. The
road sections follow commonly accepted design standards for suburban roadways, incorporate
curb and gutter to control drainage, and provide a detached sidewalk for pedestrian safety and
comfort. The proposed road sections and standards are detailed in the Project Engineering
Design Report, PUD Guide and on the PUD Plan (PUDO 1-04) and Streets, Trails and Walkway
Plan (C001-04) of the Drawing Package. The roads, as planned, will have significant excess
capacity (i.e., 2-6 times that required for this Project) and will provide for safe and efficient
intersections, vision, and speeds. The rural sections and standards required as part of the ULUR
cannot be utilized for the Project without changing the clustered program, enlarging lots and
eliminating open space.
g. Section 7-405.A requirement that "[t]he Board of County Commissioners shall require
reservation or dedication of public sites and open space for schools and parks that are
reasonably necessary to serve the residents of the proposed subdivision and future
residents. In lieu of a dedication of sites and land areas, the Board may require
payment of a sum of money not exceeding the full market value of such sites and land
areas, or a combination of land dedication and payment in lieu of dedication. "
Due to the small number of residential units proposed for the Project, the Project would owe less
than the land required for dedication of a school site. In addition, the Property is not accessible
by a public road as a result of the RFTA ROW and lack of a public entity willing to take
responsibility for the crossing under the PUC. Therefore, CI proposes to pay fees-in-lieu of
dedication for schools. CI further proposes no public dedications of land for roads, parks or open
space. CI proposes that all roads, parks and open space within the Project will be held by the
POA for the private enjoyment of the residents and for right of ingress and egress to their
properties via the roads within the Property. The Board denied CI's request in September 2010
to form a Metropolitan District which would have provided a mechanism for providing public
5
Attachment E Waivers
River Edge Colorado
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
access to the Property and parks and open spaces provided therein. At the present time, CI has
no ability to provide for public access over the RFTA ROW to the site. CI has provided
allowances for future dedications if conditions change.
6
Attachment E Waivers
Attachment F-PUD Written Description
.)
River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development
and River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan
PUD Written Description
March 29, 2011
The following information is drawn from the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report
dated January 18,2011 (Binder 1, Tab 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
Carbondale Investments, LLC, a Texas limited liability company registered to do business in
Colorado ("CI"), proposes to develop approximately 160 acres generally located along State
Highway 82 ("SH 82") between the City of Glenwood Springs and the Town of Carbondale near
the junction of County Road 110/113 ("CR 113") and SH 82 (the "Property"). The Property is
located almost entirely to the west of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority ("RFTA") right-of-way
(the "RFTA ROW") and east of the Roaring Fork River and Roaring Fork Conservancy ("RFC")
Conservation Easement. The Property straddles Cattle Creek, which also is located within the
RFC Conservation Easement. A vicinity map showing the Property is provided in Binder 1, Tab
1, Item g. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
1. Names and addresses of owner, applicant and representative.
CI is the owner of the Property and Rockwood Shepard is the appointed owner-representative for
purposes of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application, as indicated on the Statement of Authority
provided in Tab 1, Item f. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application. The address of the owner is
5121 Park Lane. Dallas, TX 75220. The address of the representative is 7999 Highway 82,
Carbondale. CO 81623.
2. General project concept and purpose of the request.
CI contemplates developing the Property into a walkable clustered-form of residential
development with 366 residential units of various sizes and types, including 55 affordable
homes, passive and recreational open space, and a neighborhood center (collectively, the
"Project"). The neighborhood center will serve as a central gathering place for residents, and
will offer opportunities for several neighborhood amenities, such as, meeting rooms, offices, a
fitness room, a community kitchen, restrooms, other indoor and outdoor recreational facilities,
and limited community service uses. Community service uses may include not-for-profit or for-
profit uses that may be operated for the benefit of residents of the community only within
designated spaces of the neighborhood center. Community service uses shall be operated by a
tenant or concessionaire of the property owners' association (the "PO A'') to be established for the
Project and may include, without limitation, a day care facility, a sandwich/coffee shop, and/or a
health club.
Park areas, which will be provided internal to the Project (and away from the RFC Conservation
Easement), will offer opportunities for informal recreational opportunities, such as, tot lots, dog
parks, playfields, and a trail system. In addition, in keeping with the Property's agricultural
heritage and rural character, CI anticipates that areas designated on the River Edge Colorado
Attachment F PUD Description
River Edge Colorado
Project Description
Planned Unit Development ("PUD") for "Garden/Orchard" use may be used, at the residents'
election, as communal vegetable gardens and/or orchards. Subject to any rules and regulations of
the POA, it is anticipated that these Garden/Orchard tracts will consist of individual plots,
multiple caretaker areas, sitting areas, small-scale children's play areas, other ancillary
horticultural related uses, and for community festivals and celebrations. The amenities to be
provided within the neighborhood center, garden and orchard tracts, and park areas ultimately
will be decided by the residents of the Project.
It is also anticipated that certain agricultural uses will continue to be allowed within portions of
the Property not under development, as specified in the River Edge Colorado PUD Guide
provided in Tab 3, Item b. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
3. Relationship of the proposed PUD development to the existing land uses and adjacent
property land uses.
A map identifying all the abutting and adjacent property owners within 200 feet of the Project
Site excluding rights-of-way, the land subject to the RFC Conservation Easement, and adjacent
lands previously owned by CI is provided as Exhibit I in Appendix C of the impact Analysis
(Binder 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application). A list of owner's names and mailing
addresses is also provided as Exhibit 2 in Appendix C of the impact Analysis. The property
boundaries, distances, and ownership information were drawn from the records of the Garfield
County Assessor.
Maps depicting adjacent land uses and adjacent zoning are provided as Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 in
Appendix C of the impact Analysis. The adjacent land use and zoning information is drawn from
the records of the Garfield County Assessor and Garfield County Geographic Information
System ("GIS") and includes all properties within 1500 feet of the exterior boundary of the
Project Site as required by Section 4-502.E.2 of the ULUR.
The Project Site generally abuts fallow agricultural land to the north (land under contract from
CI to new buyer) which is flanked to the north by moderate to high density single family
residential and commercial uses; right-of-way [i.e., RFTA and Colorado Department of
Transportation ("CDOT")] bounding the Project Site to the east with commercial uses lying
immediately to the east and northeast of the rights-of-way and residential uses immediately east
of the highway fronting commercial uses; conservation areas lie immediate to the south along the
Roaring Fork River which are flanked to the south by agricultural, open space, utility [i.e.,
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District ("RFWSD") Wastewater Treatment Plant ("WWTP")
and industrial (i.e., sand and gravel mining) uses; and conservation areas along the Roaring Fork
River bound the Project Site immediate to the west which are flanked further to the west by open
space and recreational lands and backed further by moderate density residential uses. Several
tracts within the immediate vicinity are vacant and one public land tract (i.e., BLM resource
land) is located immediately to the southeast of the Project Site.
The surrounding area is generally zoned for residential or commercial development in either
conventional zoning districts or as Planned Unit Developments ("PUD" or "PD"). Many of the
adjacent parcels zoned PUD/PD are zoned for use as some form of open space or recreational use
2
Attachment F PUD Description
River Edge Colorado
Project Description
as part of larger residential developments similar in nature to what is proposed at REC. The
adjacent RFC Conservation Easement was originally zoned PUD as part of the previously
proposed and approved Sanders Ranch PUD and retained as PUD under a form of open
space/conservation use as approved in the original PUD action when the Garfield Board of
County Commissioners ("BoCC") rezoned the remainder of the Sanders Ranch PUD to
Residential Suburban in 2008 pursuant to BoCC Resolution No. 2008-112. As noted above the
immediately adjacent uses include conservation, RFTA recreation trail and rail right-of-way, SH-
82, and agricultural uses. These adjacent uses are discussed in detail below along with the
residential and commercial uses flanking these uses within 1500 feet of the Project.
The Project is generally similar in nature, scale, and density of nearby uses and has in no adverse
impacts on nearby or adjacent properties or uses as detailed in Section liLA of the Impact
Report.
4. The staging and timing for the proposed development.
The Project is proposed in several stages or filings. There are 6 filings and 5 subfilings. The
Project will be constructed over a period of5-10 years. The development stage of the Project is
preceded by a pre-development reclamation phase described in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix
U of the Impact Analysis, Binder 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application). The development
staging and construction is detailed on Drawing No. CPOI.Ol of the PUD (Rezoning) and
Subdivision (Preliminary Plan) Drawing Package submitted as part of the PUD/Preliminary Plan
Application.
5. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
River Edge Colorado fully conforms to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 as
detailed in Section 1.4 of the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report submitted as part of
the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application (Binder I, Tab 2). Rather than reproducing the entirety of
the text here, the reader is referred to this citation for a more comprehensive analysis.
6. Source of and legal right to water. Written confirmation of service availability from a
water and sanitation district if the property lies within the district boundaries.
CI has adequate water resources available to supply the maximum water demand required by the
PUD for both potable and irrigation water supplies which meet the requirements of Section 7-
105 of the ULUR. As determined by Cl's Water Resource Consultant, Michael Erion of
Resource Engineering, Inc., the maximum potable water demand for the Project would be 163
acre feet per year to satisfy the demand of 375 EQRs and up to 42 acres of irrigation based on
350 gallons per day per EQR. This water will be obtained through surface diversions from the
Roaring Fork River and/or through groundwater withdrawals from the well fields of the Roaring
Fork District. These surface and ground water supplies are dependable physical sources of
supply for the Project, which can and will be treated to meet drinking water quality standards
adopted by CDPHE.
3
Attachment F PUD Description
River Edge Colorado
Project Description
The water rights decree entered in Case No. 01CW187, as amended by the pending application
in Case No. 08CW198, authorizes the diversion of a potable water supply to serve 349.55 EQRs,
together with three acres of irrigation, within the Project. Another water rights application
pending in Case No. 07CW164 authorizes the provision of a water supply to serve up to 1,200
EQRs, and a total of seven acres of irrigation. These water rights cases are close to being
resolved and decrees entered. To offset out-of-priority depletions resulting from the exercise of
these water rights, CI holds rights in Allotment Contract No. 381b with the Basalt Water
Conservancy District for 74.9 acre feet per year, more than enough to offset anticipated out of
priority depletions for up to 1,200 EQRs and seven acres of irrigation.
CI also holds reliable irrigation water rights in the Glenwood Ditch (12.23 c.f.s.), represented by
367 shares of capital stock in the Thompson Glen Irrigation Company, and in the Staton Ditch
(4.69 c.f.s.). As decreed in Case No. W-2206, these rights have historically be used to irrigate
260 acres on the Project (formerly the Sanders Ranch). These rights will be used for the open
space and lawn and garden irrigation within the PUD, less the maximum of seven acres that are
irrigated with the potable water system. Because the Project is located within historically
irrigated areas under these ditches, these irrigation rights are currently available and adequate to
meet the outdoor irrigation needs of the Project.
A "can and will serve" letter from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District is included as
Appendix C in the Water Supply Plan (Binder 3, Tab 1, Item F of the PUD/Preliminary Plan
Application).
7. Method of wastewater treatment and disposal.
Wastewater treatment and disposal for the PUD will be provided through a centralized sewer
system owned either by the POA or the Roaring Fork District. The Roaring Fork District's
current wastewater treatment plant on the Roaring Fork River is located approximately 1000 feet
from the Project, is not presently sized to provide wastewater service to the PUD and an entirely
new phase of the treatment plant would have to be financed and constructed for that purpose.
Nonetheless, CI is currently negotiating with the Roaring Fork District over a pre-inclusion
agreement that would, upon final platting of the first phase of the Project, provide for the
inclusion of the Project into the Roaring Fork District and the connection to the Roaring Fork
District's sewer plant. Given that those negotiations have not been completed, that the parties
have not fully defined the cost of connecting to the Roaring Fork District's wastewater treatment
plant, and that such a connection presents environmental permitting challenges, CI seeks to
reserve the opportunity to develop its own wastewater treatment plant on the west side of the
Roaring Fork River, to be owned and operated by the POA, with the expectation that the facility,
as well as all associated sewer lines and lift stations, will be transferred to a special district
approved for the Project.
A "can and will serve" letter from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District is included as
Appendix D in the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Plan (Binder 3, Tab 1, Item G of the
PUD/Preliminary Plan Application).
8. Type or method of fire protection.
4
Attachment F PUD Description
River Edge Colorado
Project Description
The Project is served by the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Hydrants and water
supply meeting the requirements of the applicable fire code and ISO standards as detailed in the
Water Treatment and Distribution Design Report (Binder 3, Tab I, Item D ofthe
PUD/Preliminary Plan Application).
9. The names and addresses of mineral rights owners on the affected property and mineral
rights lessees; names and addresses of water rights owners.
C.R.S. §§ 24-65.5-101 et seq. and ULUR § 4-103.F.2 require that notice of hearings be given to
the owners of mineral estates within the boundaries of the Property.
The title commitment prepared by Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Order No. 941686 and
Effective Date December 28,2010, references two interests in oil and gas in the property.
I. A 6.25% royalty interest, conveyed by quitclaim deed dated December 18, 1964, to T.M.
Sanders, recorded in Book 362 at Page 445; and
2. A reservation of an undivided !/50 interest of all oil and gas lying under the property, by
Ella J. Chase in the deed dated June 12, 1948 and recorded in Book 258 at Page 594.
The title commitment does not indicate that a mineral estate owner has filed a request for
notification as provided in C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103(3).
8140 Partners, LLC searched the telephone directory of general use in Garfield County, and
conducted a search of the tax records at the Garfield County Assessor's Office. Neither the name
nor the address of the above persons could be located in either record. Moreover, a search of the
Garfield County Assessor's records did not reveal any mineral estate owner under the Property.
Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103(2)(b), since the Garfield County records do not identify any
mineral estate owners, including their addresses of record, CI is deemed to have acted in good
faith and shall not be subject to further notice obligations under the statutory or County notice
requirements. Therefore, there are no mineral interests that require notice under the ULUR or
statute with respect to the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
10. Description of natural and manmade hazards.
Based on the independent Geotechnical Engineering Report, enclosed with the Application (the
"Geotech Report"), and the hazard mitigation plan enclosed with the PUD/Preliminary Plan
Application (the "Hazard Mitigation Plan"), no significant risks from natural hazards are posed
to the Project, and the Project will not exacerbate existing natural hazards within and adjacent to
the Property. Notably, the Hazard Mitigation Plan incorporates the recommendations made in
the Geotech Report and proposes additional mitigation measures or options to ensure a safe and
successful Project and to comply with requirements of the ULUR. See Geotechnical Report
provided in Appendix J of the Impact Analysis; and Hazard Mitigation Plan provided in Tab 6,
Item b. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
5
Attachment F PUD Description
River Edge Colorado
Project Description
The Geotech Report identifies the following five conditions of a geologic nature that were
considered in Project planning and are addressed by the Hazard Mitigation Plan:
a. a potential sinkhole hazard,
b. potential terrace escarpment instability,
c. active stream bank erosion,
d. potential debris flows and floods, and
e. earthquake considerations.
First, the Geotech Report identifies nine (9) general sinkhole areas and (3) three sinkhole hazard
zones within or in the near vicinity of the Property (Hazard Zone I, Hazard Zone 2, and Hazard
Zone 3). Hazard Zone I is described as having a high risk of new sinkholes or existing sinkhole
reactivation occurring during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed development.
Consistent with the Geotech Report recommendation, no buildings or movement sensitive
facilities, including utilities, are proposed for Hazard Zone I. A few roads are planned for
Hazard Zone I but the sinkhole risk will be mitigated, in accordance with the Geotech Report, as
detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Hazard Zone 2 is described as an area having an uncertain risk of new sinkholes based on
currently available information. The Geotech Report recommends that additional subsurface
exploration occur to assess whether the sinkhole risk is acceptable to locate buildings in this
zone. Consistent with this recommendation will conduct additional testing prior to development
of the Project, including as part of Phase 0, in order to determine if the risk is acceptable. If it is
determined that risks demanding mitigation are present, CI will take necessary action to mitigate
potential building damage, protect utilities and roads, and/or relocate facilities as necessary in
accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Hazard Zone 3 is described as an area having a low risk of new sinkholes developing during a
reasonable exposure time for the proposed development. Because such area is not risk-free,
consistent with the Geotech Report's recommendation, CI will conduct additional testing prior to
development of the Project, including as part of Phase 0, in order to determine if the risk is
acceptable. If risks are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented in
accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. .
Second, the Geotech Report notes that steep terrace escarpments are present along the Roaring
Fork River and the lower reaches of Cattle Creek. These escarpments are not suitable for
building sites and buildings should be setback from the top of such escarpments. Consistent with
the foregoing, the proposed areas for development within the Property do not encroach into these
escarpments.
Third, the Geotech Report notes that active stream bank erosion during high flood flow is
occurring along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek in several areas where these streams
flow along the base of the steep terrace escarpments. These areas fall within the RFC
Conservation Easement, and do not place the Project at risk. As such, no mitigation is required.
However, CI has proposed to RFC that some mitigation be done to these areas to preserve the
conservation values within the RFC Conservation Easement. CI will seek RFC's approval of
certain mitigation actions within these areas as part of Phase 0, such as, armoring these areas to
6
Attachment F PUD Description
River Edge Colorado
Project Description
prevent further erosion. If approved by RFC, these areas will be further investigated and a
detailed mitigation program will be developed as part of the reclamation plan for Phase 0.
Fourth, the Geotech Report notes that coalescing alluvial fans developed at the mouth of the
numerous, small drainage basins on the east side of the Roaring Fork Valley where the
ephemeral streams discharge on terrace surfaces. With the exception of the Executive Lot at the
southern end of the Project, development is not being proposed on the alluvial fans. Mitigation
measures, such as flow diversion or deepened foundations, on the Executive Lot will be
incorporated into the final design based on further field investigations and the construction
activities planned for this lot.
Lastly, the Geotech Report found that moderately strong ground shaking should be expected
during a reasonable exposure time for the Project, but that the probability of stronger ground
shaking is low. Moderately strong ground shaking generally is felt by most people and may
cause alarm, but it results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction.
Therefore, consistent with the Geotech Report's recommendation, CI intends to design buildings
and facilities within the Project to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no
damage and to not collapse under stronger ground shaking consistent with Garfield County
Building Code.
In addition to the foregoing, per the Geotech Report, prior grading activities on the Property may
pose a risk because it is unclear whether the fill in all areas were adequately placed and
compacted. To eliminate any potential risk, CI will conduct additional geotechnical testing prior
to development of the Project, including as part of Phase 0 described above, in order to
determine if soils should be removed, replaced, and/or compacted. CI will take necessary action
based on the results of such testing in accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
CI's proposed mitigation strategies are detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The actions
proposed ensure the protection of structures and facilities from damage. To the maximum extent
practicable, CI has avoided development of areas that pose more significant risk.
11. Discussion of impacts on County services, schools, town services and any other unique
operation that may be pertinent to a review of the proposed zone change
The Property will have minimal, if any, impact on infrastructure in the area, County services,
schools, or Glenwood Springs or Carbondale services.
The Project will not be accessed by nor impact any County roads. The main entrance of the
Property and the two (2) EV As will access SH 82, which falls within the jurisdiction of the
CDOT. In addition, as noted above, all internal roads will be privately owned, operated, and
maintained by the POA, and will provide no demand on County services.
The density of the Project, and increase in school age children in the area anticipated from the
Project, does not warrant the construction of a new school. CI will make a cash deposit to the
Roaring Fork School District RE-I (the "School District") in lieu of dedicating land. This said,
7
Attachment F PUD Description
River Edge Colorado
Project Description
CI has preserved its ability to work with the adjacent property owner to secure land for the
School District if public access issues associated with the Property are resolved.
The Project's impacts on water and wastewater services are discussion in criterion 6 of Section I
and criterion I of Section II in the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report (Binder I, Tab
2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application).
The existing fire and law enforcement services are available and adequate to serve the needs of
the Project. The Project is within the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. CI has met
with the Fire District about the Project and the Fire District has expressed no concerns with
serving the Project.
Law enforcement services are provided by the Garfield County Sheriffs Department. The
potential fiscal impacts of the Project, including, without limitation, impacts to the Sheriff's
Department, were assessed in the River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared by Economic
Planning Systems ("EPS"), dated November 16,2010 (the "Fiscal Impact Analysis"). Based on
EPS's analysis of the Project's fiscal impacts to the County in absolute and relative terms, EPS
determined that the Project may result in a marginal fiscal loss to the County when the Project's
affordable housing component is included in the analysis. However, when the Project's
affordable housing component is excluded from the analysis, the Project provides an ongoing
fiscal benefit to the County. Per the Fiscal Impact Analysis, this discrepancy is attributable to
the fact that affordable homes generate significantly less property and sales tax as a result of
lower market values and household incomes. This said, given that the Project's affordable
housing program will alleviate a key issue of concern and several goals of the Comprehensive
Plan, as detailed above, the Project will provide significant public benefits to the County.
12. Discussion of impacts on existing flora and fauna, air quality, wildlife, historical lands or
sites, drainage or mineral extraction
Please refer to criterion 4 in Section I in the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report
(Binder I, Tab 2 of the POD/Preliminary Plan Application) with regard to the Project's impacts
on flora and fauna/wildlife.
The Project will have no negative impact on air quality. Rather, as noted above, by providing
housing closer to employment centers located within the Roaring Fork Valley, the Project will
promote energy conservation, improve air quality, shorten trips, and reduce traffic congestion.
Based on CI's review of maps and records on file at the State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation Office, there are no historic or prehistoric sites in or in the immediate vicinity ofthe
Project.
The Project will not disrupt any drainage or have any negative consequences to water quality or
flooding. The Project is designed to provide adequate site drainage and meet all applicable
discharge standards. The Project will utilize the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's
("UDFCD") Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual ("USDCM"), as amended, as the criteria for
analysis and design of channels and hydraulic structures and as the primary guidance document
8
Attachment F PUD Description
River Edge Colorado
Project Description
for the selection and design of storm water quality BMPs. The USDCM is the authoritative
criteria manual in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Region for drainage facility design.
The Project will not impact mineral extraction within the Property. No mineral extraction
activities currently take place on the Property. However, CI proposes to conduct materials
processing within the Property over the course of development of the Project. Specifically, CI
intends to process onsite sand and gravel deposits, claimed as a result of site development, for
use in the construction of the Project. This use will include screening, crushing, washing, and
the creation of concrete from processed sand and gravel resources. All activities will be
conducted in a manner that meets or exceeds applicable noise, air quality and water quality
standards and minimizes visual impacts through appropriate or necessary screening.
In addition, in response to the County's request during the Pre-Application Conference for this
Project that CI address the requirements ofC.R.S. §§ 34-1-301 et seq. (the "Mineral Resource
Statute"), CI contracted RMG Engineers to prepare a Mineral Resource Study of the Property.
See Mineral Resource Study enclosed with the Application at Appendix P of the River Edge
Colorado Impact Analysis, prepared by 8140 Partners, LLC, dated January 14,2011 (the "Impact
Analysis"). The purpose of the Mineral Resource Statute is to ensure that the state's "commercial
mineral deposits" are "extracted according to a rational plan, calculated to avoid waste of such
deposits and cause the least practicable disruption of the ecology and quality of life of the
populous counties of the state." C.R.S. § 34-1-301(1). Although CI has caused this study to be
prepared as a courtesy to the County, CI maintains that this Mineral Resource Statute does not
apply to the Project. The statute specifically provides that "[i]t is the intention of the general
assembly that the provisions of this [Mineral Resource Statute] have full force and effect
throughout such populous counties, ... , but shall have no application outside such populous
counties." !d.§ 34-1-301(2) (emphasis added). The statute defines "populous county" as "any
county or city and county having a population of sixty-five thousand inhabitants or more
according to the latest federal decennial census." Id. § 34-1-302(3). The most recent federal
decennial census (i.e., Census 2000 because Census 2010 is not yet released) provides that the
population of Garfield County is 43,791. Because the population threshold of65,000 is not met,
the Mineral Resources Statute does not apply to the Project.
Even if Garfield County's population threshold was met and the Mineral Resources Statute did
apply, based on the Mineral Resources Study, the mineral deposits located within the Property
are not "commercial mineral deposits" as such term is defined by the statute. Per the study, the
deposits within the Property have limited economic significance and strategic value in the
context of Garfield County's overall resources and development, and do not constitute a
significant economic or strategic value to the state or nation. Moreover, extraction of any such
deposits on a commercial scale from the Property is infeasible for various reasons, including,
zoning and planning designations, surrounding development, conservation values adjacent to the
Property, groundwater, and the location and preservation of the RFTA ROW for a rail corridor.
9
Attachment F PUD Description
Attachment G-Summary Maps [See al so full siz e (24 x 36) sheets accompanying this letter]
)
)
~
0 a:
~ u
I
0
0 ~
/
E w
X •n
~ z
2
~
0
.;;
" z
0: w w z
(3 z w
/
5 a. .. :::;
w g:
N
0
"' ~
H
G
0
c
5 8
RIVER EDGE COLORADO
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUMMARY SHEETS
VICINITY MAP
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
NO . SHEET TITLE
SU PPLEMENTAl SUMMARY SHEETS
SSOO.OI COVER SHEET
SSOI.OI EXISTING CONDITI ONS/LAND SUITABILITY 1/.M'
SS02.01 SUB-ZONE DISTRICTS OVERALL ZONING PLAN
SSOJ.OI OVERAL L STREETS , TRAILS. WAL KWAYS AND BIKEWAYS PLAN
SS04.01 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN FINAL CO NDITIONS
SSOS.OI OVERAL L DRAINAGE STRUCTURES PLAN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
l'lt~ fiiG-II IUPI'OIITO.-CIAIINUI COUNTYPUD ~)AND
.__(l'ltaliii!IMY PUN) llmiWI'ItOCUI FOR NI/Ul iXIfCOI.OIIADO
Th 1 soN ~ of thtMI mac» tnd drawlnp,. aNI dw assoda.d pllN aM rtp«t'o h to JUHOft thl Garf'ltkl
CcM¥y flU> tlta:onln&) lind SubciWion (Prdmlnaty ,..,. ,..,.._. proca& b.Kd on t-.1 ~ d G.wfteld
COCriY Unl'ltcl Lar.d Use KesoUion of 2001. • ll'l'llf\deCL Ttlt m~c:& and 6ttwlnrs. t\.:1 th4l as.odlttd I)Wd and
report~, .....,.nt th4l O'ltfd cStllcn Went. tr;rcM. fldltSel ~ and oplf"IUotolll con..,...tlon6 '*t4 on
Garfllld County,·~ ,.ncy, and ~stttld&rft. 1M IMPS tnd dra_,. N1d lhl t ssoeilted ~,. •nd
~ •• W«ded to show prac11Abllty Wid ..... no.!~ f approwd. tnd .,. holt lntenct.d to ptOI'Ide the
pnllmlnwyotflntl~ lriOf'ftlatk)n MCI:SNII'Yto suppctt the ptnnl1if'l:ot tppi'OYII JtOCUU' of othet ...,US.
That IMPS lf'ld dr~ t l'dtht as'<ldlttd ,.,... Mel rtSIOfU Mrlt preparl!d by Of"U'Io."ff the dirtdion of t
t't&(ltltnd profeublalt,......, CWIJ1att11. Otem, stMa of Cd«ado ~ ~. Afskttatb'l t llW).
8 9
10
10
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
r~~ Rl~r!dge ,
COLORADO
Carbondale lnvutmenta, LLC
7 G~ HWY 82 Phone No:
Carbondale, CO 81 623 G70.45U325
CIVIL ENGINEER/PLANNER:
KEY MAP:
8140 Partnara, LLC
PO Bo<0428
Eagle, co 81 631.0426
Phone No: 866.$3-4.81 40
www.81 40partnera.com
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
J/}0/1 REZONING (PLD) AND
SUBDIV1SION (PRELIMINARY PLAN) SUBMITTAL
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NUMBER: 10-001
PROJECT MANAGER: S. OTERO
DRAWN BY: C. LOWRY
CHECKED BY: S. OTERO
SH EET TITLE:
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUMMARY SHEETS
COVER SHEET
SHEET NUMBER:
H
G
0
c
8
A
250 0 250 500
SCALE IN FEET
m
0
EXIST. SLOPES GREATER TIWi 20'1
EXIST. SLOPE INSTABILITY AREA.
EXIST. TOP SOIL STOCKPILE AREA
CONSERVATION EAS£MENT
BOOK 1171 PAGE 929 &
RECEPTION NO. 760571
[XIST. BUILDING
EXIST. EASEMENT LINE
EXIST. PROPERTY LINE (PROJECT LI~ITS)
EXIST. TOWNSHIP LINE
EXIST. SECTION LIN[
EXIST. ZONING BOUNDARY
EXIST. COOT R-0-W MONUMENT
EXIST. PROPERTY PIN, NO. S REaAR & CAP {L.S.
2om)
EXIST. PROPERTY PIN, NO. S REaAR & 1)1.0 {L.S
22f>BO U.N.O.)
EXIST. COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP
EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT
EXIST. WA.TER VALVE
EXIST. WA.TER J.'.ANHOLE
EXIST. WELL
@ EXIST. S/INITARY SEWER t.'ANHOLE
@ EXIST STORM SEWER I,'.ANHOLE
~ EXIST. STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN
@] EXIST. GAS METER
~v EXIST. GAS Vi\LVE
@ EXIST. GAS MANHOLE
9G EXIST. GAS MARKER
[] EXIST. ELEC. METER
® EXIST. ELEC. t.'.ANHOLE
[I) EXST. TELE. RISER/BOX
Q) EXIST. TELE. MANHOLE
91 EXIST. TEL€. MARKER
00 EXIST. JUNCTION BOX
0 EXIST. POST
0 EXIST. TRAfFIC POLE
---GD-
---0-
---CT-
---OT-
--CE-
-0[-
>-----"'-ST-{
---PW-
---RW-
0
rYYYYY'>
--x--x-
EXIST. GLENWOOD DITCH LINE
EXIST. GAS LINE
EXIST. UND£RGROUN0 TELE.
EXIST. OVERHEAD T[l[.
EXIST. UND£RCROUNO ELEC.
EXIST. OVERHEAD ELEC.
EXIST. CULVERT
EXIST. SANIT~ SEWER
EXIST. STORM SEWER
EXIST. OITCK FLOW
EXIST. GUARORAll
EXIST. POTABLE WATER LINE
EXIST. RAW WATER LINE
EXIST. TREES
EXIST. TREELINE
EXIST. FENCE
EXIST. SIGN
EXIST. POWER POLE
EXIST. TELL POLE
EXIST. LIGHT POLE
LEGEND ,_
0
0
<i'l
----~----------
EXIST. GUY WIRE
EXIST. POST
EXIST. TRAfFIC POLE
EXIST. BOULDERS/ROCKS
EXIST. 1/AILBOX
EXIST. RETAINING WALL
EXIST. WETLANDS LIMITS
EXIST. RIVER/LAKE/WATERWAY
EXIST. CONTOUR
-----------
EXIST. CONTOURS -CONCENTRIC CIRClES WITH
TICKS INOICATES DEPRESSION
EXIST. CONTOURS -CONCENTRIC CIRClES INOICA.TES
Hill
---------
EXISTING VEGETATION TYPES
AGRICUL JURAt GRa.SS
NA.TIVE GRASSES
WETLAND GRASSES
SA.GEBRUSH SHRUBLANDS
MIXED SHRUBLANDS
RIPARIAN SKRUBLANO
WILLOWS
OAKBRUSH
COTIONWOOO
MIXED COTTONWOOD
RIPARIAN FOREST
--"""=TOWNSHIP liN!:
FOR DETAILED EXISTING CONDITIONS/lAND SUITABILITY PLANS,
SEE SHEETS EC01.01-ECOI_Q4.
WILDLIF"E:
I. THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA IS ELK WINTER RANGE.
2. SH82 IS MAPPED AS AN ELK HIGHWAY CROSSING AREA, BUT
SUBSEQUENT FENCING l-AS ELIMINATED THE ABILITY FOR ELK TO
CROSS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
3. ELK AND MULE DEER SEVERE WINTER RANGE IS LOCATED EAST
OF SH82.
VEGETATION: THE VEGETATION INSIDE THE PROJECT LIMITS IS
PRIMARILY EARLY SERAL FORBS GRASSES UNLESS SHOWN
OTHERWISE.
EXISTING
••••••
1111111111
NOXIOUS WEEDS TYPES
CANADA. THISTLE
ST. JOHN'S WORT
BURDOCK
COMMON TANSY
HOUNOSIONGUE
MUSK THISTLE
OXEYE OA.ISY
PLUMELESS THISTLE
SCOTCH THISTLE
COMMON TANSY AREAS
PLUMELESS THISTLE AREAS
SCOTCH THISTLE AREAS
r~~
Rl\terEttae
COLORADO g
CaTbondala lnvestmanta, LLC
71mHWY82 PhonaNo:
'="";;::;' ~iE;;:---""=-j
SURVEYOR:
8140 PaTinell, LLC
PO Box 0426
Eagle, co 81631-0426
Phone No: 866.934.8140
www.8140partnara.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUMMARY SHEET
EXISTING CONDITIONS/
LAND SUITABILITY MAP
G
0
c
8
A
250 0
SCALE IN fEET
RES!O!fATIA,L I'
SUBCRBAJ\
(VACANT)
RURAl,
(S'!NC/,P,
f~1MILY
ffOME)
250
RFS!DF:NT!A/,
SUBUN!)/uV
(Vi1CANT)
500
./ __ ___. (:'JINGLE
,'~-:-::~~
RESOOIML IJSE
OTHER CQ~IIUNITl SPN:I: 1./5[ 1
IJliLITTIJSE
H[FI(I~ PR(ll[CTOON ZONE
H[~ loCTfi/TY ZONE
DISf. EMIL"NG
(XJST. li[IWIOS
OISf.fLOQ()'~l~IIS
PRW. LOT{!AACJ UN[
PRO!'. BlOO< BOUIOIRY
LEGEND
4 5
PLANN£0 UNIT DEVuOP,WENT
(OP£N SPACE :J.'INCLE J'AAflLY NA~)'JiJKNTIAL) -----··
[liST. 4c PROP. L'SEIIrnl LitlE
[liST. PROPI:Rrt LINE (PRQ..{CI U~IS)
[liST. PR()P(RTY j)j[
[liST. TOIINSHP li<E
[liST. SI:CTOO Lll[
[liST. ZONfiG !JO\.I'ItiART
0 [liST. COOT R-0-~ ~O~JWrnT
@ EllS!. PR()P(RTY ~.flO. 5 REIWI I< CAP (L.S. 201~)
0 EllS!. Pf!OP(RTY PJI, NO. 5 REtW1 /l CAP [L.S. 226&l U.M.O.)
~ [liST. COUh'T'r SI.JRIIOOR IIIW>S CAP
1 TOR CONYOH[I(;[ AN() ~ Of PRES(NTAT~. ~HT-0F-11Af IS
SKI«O AS I)Tli(R COio!M~ITY sPACE US!:, Bl/1 SHli.L BE
RECUL.AT£0 IS RICHT-OF-IIAT.
' 5
8
1. FOR DETAILED PUO PLANS, SEE SHEETS PUD03.01-PUD0.3.04.
8 9
OWNER/DEl/ELOPER:
r~~
RJ.Ver!tlge
COLORADO
Carbondale Investments, LLC
7999HWY82 Phone No:
970.456.5325 Carbondale, co 81623
CIVIL ENGINEER/PLANNER:
SURVEYOR:
6140 Partner a, LLC
PO Box0426
Eagle, co 61631-0426
Phonu No: 868.934.8140
www.8140partners.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
KEY MAP:
J/YJ/11 REZONING (PUD) AND
SUBDMSION {PRELIMINo\llY PlAN) SU81dlfTAl
ISSUE D.a.TE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NUMBER: 10-001
PROJECT MANAGER: S. OTERO
DRAWN BY: C. SNYDER
CHECKED BY: S. OTERO
SHEET TITLE:
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUMMARY SHEET
SUB-ZONE DISTRICTS
OVERALL ZONING PLAN
SHEET NUMBER:
s
H
G
F
E
0
c
8
A
z~
250 0
SCALE IN FEET
, ..
••
250
'
500
56' -ROll
TYPICAL SECTON A-A
, .. , ..
r·rnfl
2(' -ROll
r··1 It It
I
' I I I u:.~ i ~1 ~rrAAY :1 il POT>&[
I 5.00' ~Ill. OSEIJE~ OIIAI'ER I 10' MUI.
TYPICAL SECTON B-8
'
, ..
"'"'
•
68' -ROll •. ,. PAVED SHOl.\.CJER
~·« I ,.
OOTCH ,. RAJSEO ~(OW! ,.
-.._.....-. I ktd
TYPICAL SECTON C-C , ..
mrn! 5J'-ROll ,. ,. ""' S()£111.1.~ ,. ,. ""~ ,.
-.2;_~-w r-!_
I 1 I
··j ••
0POTAElE
10' ~J", I !lATER
TYPICAL SECTON D-D
4
,.
f~\IEO SHO\.tOOl ,.
I
, ..
'"'"' ,. ,. SOCWALK
-
I I I ..
-----------
,.
-«
~"
I ...............
-------
TYPICAl SECTON F f
(rOOT Trull)
a
I
)
' '
/
I
L
J
PI!OP. lOT U~( ·----r..... . . PRQI'_ f\Jll.IRE: ACCESS
'-.../
FOR DETAILED STREETS, TRAILS, WALKWAYS AND BIKEWAY PLANS,
SEE SHEETS C01.01-C01.04.
2. FOR DETAILED STREET AND TRAIL TYPICAL SECTIONS, SEE SHEET
C04.01.
JYP!CAL SECTON F -F
(RnA IRAJL)
VAllES -EXIST. COOT ROll
TYPICAL SECTON G-G
(SHS2 ~IO[H,NG. LOOKJNG NOR~ BOI.INJ)
VIIII(S
EI!5T.~E
t I t I ====I===== :::r.._..~
OWNER/DEVELOPER;
Carboncla!a Investment&, LLC
798$ HWY82 Phone No:
i70.456.S32S Carboncla!a, CO 81623
CIVIL ENGINEER/PLANNER:
KEY MAP:
8140 Partner a, LLC
PO BoxC42&
Ealjl!&, CO 81831-0428
Phone No: 866.934.8140
www.8140p.tneru:om
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
J/J0/11 REZONifiG (PUO) ANO
SU801VIS10N (PRELIMINARY PLAN) SUBMITTAL
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NUMBER: 10-001
PROJECT MANAGER: S. OTERO
DRAWN BY: C. SNYOER
CHECKED BY: S. OTERO
SHEET TITLE:
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUMMARY SHEET
OVERALL STREETS, TRAILS,
WALKWAYS AND
BIKEWAY PLAN
SHEET NUMBER:
s
G
F
0
c
250 0
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
>-=-•
250 500
PROP.
PROP •
PROP.
CULVERT & OUTLET
CURB INLET/CATCH BASIN
CHANNEL/DITCH
EXIST. BUILDING
EXIST. FLOODPLAIN LIMITS
EXIST. EASEMENT LINE
EXIST. PROPERTY LINE
(PROJECT LIMITS)
EXIST. PROPERTY LINE
EXIST. TOWNSHIP LINE
EXIST. SECTION LINE
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL
~ PIPE OUTLET PAVING
1
_
1 2 ~ (PER COOT M&S M-GO
STANDARD DRAWING)
' '
,~
' ' ------~------------
I
' I
I I
,I /
~-'
8
,'
NOTES: NO SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS FINAL
1. FOR DETAILED EROS~~~Tt ES0 4.o 1-[504.04.
CONDITIONS, SEE S SEE SHEET
2. FOR SECTION DETAILS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION,
OR03.01.
CIVIL
Phona No:
1170.4!!6.5325
8140 Perlnera, LLC
PO Box0426
Eagle, co 81631-0426
Phone No: 666.&34.6140
www.8140partnare.com
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
r r
SHEET TITLE:
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUMMARY SHEET
EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL PLAN
FINAL CONDITIONS
SHEET NUMBER:
G
E
0
c
250 0
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
>-=-•
250 500
"-,• ____ ....
PROP. CULVERT & OUTLET
PROP. CURB INLET/CATCH
PROP. CHANNEL/DITCH
EXIST. BUILDING
EXIST. FLOODPLAIN LIMITS
EXIST. EASEMENT LINE
EXIST. PROPERTY LINE
(PROJECT LIMITS)
EXIST. PROPERTY LINE
EXIST. TOWNSHIP LINE
EXIST. SECTION LINE
------
BASIN
' ,;
(
/I
f 1 c·,
I
I
1. FOR DETAILED BRIDGES, CULVERTS AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
PLANS, SEE SHEETS DR01.01-DR01.04,
2. FOR SECTION DETAILS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE SHEET
DR0.3.01.
KEY MAP:
8140 Pe1tner•, LLC
PO Box 0426
Eagle, co 81631.0426
Phone No; Be$.934.6140
www.B140partnars.com
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUMMARY SHEET
OVERALL DRAINAGE
STRUCTURES PLAN
SHEET NUMBER:
Attachment H-COOT Coordination Documentation
)
COOT Communication Documentation via Email and Attached Meeting Minutes
From: Roussin, Daniel <Daniei.Roussin@OOT.STATE.CO.US>
Sent: Tuesday, April12, 2011 8:53AM
To: Sam Otero <sam otero@8140partners.com>
Cc: 1Betsy Suerth 1 <bsuerth@garfield-countv.com>; Babler, Alisa <Aiisa.Babler@DOT.STATE.CO.US>; 1Kathy A. Eastley 1
<keastley@garfieid-county.com>; Carey Gagnon <cgagnon@garfield-countv.com>; Rockwood Shepard
<rockwoodshepard@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: River Edge Project traffic
Sam -In our meeting on March 30, 2011, it was indicated that COOT should provide some comment on the viability of access
for River Edge Project on SH 82 on the west of CR 113. I stated in the past, access to the west is In a good logical location, and it
will be the 41h leg of a major Intersection and it meets the State Highway Access Code for spacing for major intersections. The
west side isn't the problem; it is the east side. I believe the Intersection will work in the short-term and long-term the east side
of the CR 113 will need to be reconfigured. It will get complicated once the CR 113 is signalized. The traffic study will need to
demonstrate how the signal will work in the 20 year outlook. This will be the challenge. That is why the County and the
applicant will need to have consensus on the future look of the Intersection. I do believe there is viability in the access and we
can work it out.
I look forward in getting a solution that will work for all parties.
thanks
Dan Roussin
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
222 South 6th Street, Room 100
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-683-6284 Office
970-683-6290 Fax
From: Babler, Alisa !malllo'AIIsa.Babler@DOT.STATE.CO.USI
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:58 AM
To: Sam Otero
Subject: RE: Thanks
Always good to talk to you. Let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Alisa
From: Sam Otero [mallto·sam.otero@8140partners.coml
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 9:11 PM
To: Babler, Alisa; Roussin, Daniel
Subject: Thanks
Alisa and Dan:
Thanks for meeting with me today. I will incorporate your recommendations into our process and we will be getting prepared
to submit the interim step "technical memorandum", knowing that will be an expected comment from you all on our County
application.
Thanks again.
W. Sam Otero
8140 Partners, LLC
Logistics-Planning-Design
Attachment H COOT Documentation
Mail: PO Box 0426, Eagle, CO 81631
Street: 1143 Capitol Street, Suite 205, Eagle
Direct: 970.445.8810
Main: 866.934.8140
Fax: 877.934.8141
CONFIDENTIALITY: This message Is Intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which It Is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you believe you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and delete the original
message. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roussin, Daniel [mailto:Daniei.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.USJ
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:05 PM
To: Emily Gloeckner
Cc: Sam Otero; David Millar; Babler, Alisa; rshepard@westpaclnv.com
Subject: Comments on Feasibility Study
Emily-Here Is our comments about the traffic analysis provided at our July 21, 2010 meeting. I think these comments are
similar to what we discussed at our meeting.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Comments:
1. A Ieveii II traffic study will be needed for the access permit. The study provided was a feasibility study to examine
three alternatives.
2. Based on the information provided, it appears that a second connection to SH 82 will be acceptable as proposed in
alternatives 2 and 3.
3. Alternative 3 is preferable as it provides more of a public benefit with the connection under the trail between the two
parcels and will allow a balancing of the traffic volumes between the intersections. Additionally, this connection will provide for
secondary access which Is generally required by local fire departments.
4. The level Ill traffic study needs to include the following information:
a. Recommendations for the entire Intersection, including the east half of the intersection. This may include short term
recommendations If the final intersection layout cannot be constructed at this time.
b. Please provide copies of the signal warrants. While the peak hour warrant is a good indicator that a signal may be
warranted, it does not appear that the peak hour warrant is applicable to this location.
c. Please provide documentation for any traffic reductions being assumed in the trip generation.
d. Sight distance.
e. Queue lengths
f. Other standard Ieveii II requirements, see attached document.
5. It is our understanding that the local fire district requires secondary access for the development. Please provide
documentation for our files.
6. The study will need to look at the Cattle Creek intersection as a whole, and may need to coordinate with the County
to determine what improvements can be completed in the short term (developer responsibility) and long term.
Dan Roussin
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
222 South 6th Street, Room 100
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-683-6284 Office
970-683-6291 Fax
·---·Original Message····-
From: Emily Gloeckner [mailto:E.Gioeckner@fehrandpeers.coml
Sent: Thursday, August 05,2010 1:30PM
To: Roussin, Daniel; Babler, Alisa
Cc: Sam Otero; David Millar
Attachment H COOT Documentation
Subject: Rivers Edge meeting minutes
Attached are meeting minutes from our meeting on July 21 for the River Edge Crossing development. Thanks for taking the
time and we look forward to review comments on the TIS.
Emily Gloeckner, P .E.
Fehr & Peers
Transportation Consultants
62117th St, Ste. 2301
Denver, CO 80293
303 296-4300 X 1611
Attachment H COOT Documentation
RIVER EDGE CROSSING TRAFFIC STUDY
Coordination Meeting Minutes
Meeting: COOT Coordination Meeting
Date:
Time:
July 21,2010
9:30a.m. -10:30 a.m.
Location: COOT Region 3 Office, Grand Junction
Attendees: Alisa Babler-COOT, Dan Roussin-COOT, David Millar-F&P, Emily Gloeckner-
F&P, Rocky Shepard-Carbondale Investments, Sam Otero-8140 Partners
Meeting Minutes
An appendix needs to be added to the report that shows the trip reduction backup. Access
Code allows an internal reduction of 2% and 8% in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
The 5% internal reduction is acceptable in theory as long as the backup information is provided.
Justification is needed for the transit reduction. In general the reductions are so low that COOT
is not too concerned with the numbers, simply the justifications.
Glenwood Springs and Garfield County is undergoing an access control plan for the Highway in
the Glenwood Springs area. Dan has requested that the plan be extended south to Cattle
Creek. The request may or may not be accommodated. He will let us know.
COOT appreciates the respect given to the access code and the category of highway for the
study. Because a full access is not being requested with the study and the plan, COOT can
support the plan. According to Rocky, the Marand Road access can be moved in order to meet
the access code requirements of 1 mile spacing if necessary.
The Michigan U turn concept was discussed to accommodate left turning traffic at Marand
Road. In general, the concept was supported. However, more detailed look will be required to
ensure trucks can make the turn. The area north of the intersection maybe difficult due to grade
differences between the northbound and southbound travel lanes plus the spacing of other
access. The concept maybe more feasible south of the Marand Intersection.
fp
Fli\R & f'llltS
~~·"~'HIMI~-H~IVIU~n Attachment H COOT Documentation
RIVER EDGE CROSSING TRAFFIC STUDY
Coordination Meeting Minutes
It would be helpful to have support from CDOT regarding the preferred scenario to order to get
the PUC to agree to the concept of an underpass at the RFTA trail. Scenario 3 is the scenario
that the development is pursuing. The additional connection internal to the site will allow for
better distribution of traffic and smoother operations along the Highway in general.
CDOT can include that the 2 access points is also in line with emergency access requirements,
if that is the case. Considering the large size of the development (280 acres), 2 access points is
not excessive.
Public roads are easier for CDOT to support when granting access. They prefer the roads be
public.
The next steps will be to look at the intersection concepts to ensure the intersections can be
built and the short term and long term concepts work together especially with the layout of the
frontage road on the east side of the highway.
A meeting will be necessary with the county and the resident engineer once the concepts are
laid out.
fl>
tlHR & Pill($
I~U ... OUUIO" 10.\VIU~l\ Attachment H COOT Documentation
Meeting Agenda
Carbondale Investments Property (River Edge Development Project)
SH 82/CR 113 Traffic and Access Meeting
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
10:00 a.m.
Garfield County Building and Planning Office, Glenwood Springs
108 81h Street, #401
Agencies: Garfield County Building and Planning and Colorado Department of Transportation
Applicant and Representatives: Carbondale Investments, 8140 Partners and Fehr and Peers
Meeting Facilitator: Sam Otero, 8140 Partners
1. Introductions
2. Agenda Review
3. Process Coordination
• Current (Where are we as of today?)
o Project
o County
o CDOT
• Future (Where do we need to be tomorrow?)
o Coordination of process
4. 113 Intersection Discussion and Concept Development
• Traffic Study (summary of River Edge Project analysis prepared to date)
• 113 Intersection Discussions
• 113 Intersection Concept Refinement/Development
5. Next Steps
Attachment H COOT Documentation
Meeting Notes
Attendees: Dan Roussin (COOT), Alisa Babler (COOT), D'Wayne Gaymon (COOT), Roland
Wagner (COOT), Kathy Eastley (GARCO), Betsy Suerth (GARCO), Carey Gagnon (GARCO),
Rocky Shepard (CD!), David Millar (F/P), Lee_ (SGM) and Sam Otero (8140)
Note: the information presented below is not Intended to provide the full context of all the
discussions, but to provide the highlights or primary points.
High Points of Discussion
1. To date, the Applicant has submitted the PUD/Preliminary Plan application and
received comments requiring additional data/clarifications prior to being deemed
complete. The estimated PC Hearing dates being sometime in June/July.
2. Four meetings have been held between Applicant and COOT over the past year.
Beyond the requirements for preparing the traffic study, COOT requested a three
step process (of sorts) while moving towards an Access Permit:
a. Traffic analysis
b. Intersection concept development (near and long term)
c. Level3 Traffic Impact Report
3. Coordination of the processes is required and running them in parallel is acceptable,
assuming major milestones can be achieved. Applicant (Sam) indicated that a
schedule could be developed to assist in this effort.
4. GARCO is currently assessing 28 State/County intersections to establish priorities for
further analysis and possible funding. GARCO staff will be taking their findings to the
BOCC in the near term to gain further direction. In addition, public outreach will be
Initiated to gain input on the process. CR 113/SH 82 is one of the primary
intersections being assessed and concepts have been developed by SGM. SGM
indicated that this intersection, in their opinion, currently warranted a signal due to
pm peak volumes. COOT (Aiisa) stated that pm peak volumes alone would not
necessarily create the warrant for a signal. However, both (GARCO/CDOT) agreed
that special conditions at this location may exist and support the placement of a
signal (further discussion is necessary).
5. COOT (Dan) requested that the County involve CDOT directly in their intersection
analysis process going forward and GARCO (Betsy) agreed.
6. Applicant (Sam) inquired if SGM could provide applicant a copy of their intersection
concepts developed for the CR 113/SH 82 intersection.
7. GAR CO (Kathy) stated that it remains the responsibility of the Applicant to gain a
complete understanding of the State requirements associated with the full
intersection (west and east) and proceed towards gaining an access permit prior to
Final Plat.
Attachment H COOT Documentation
8. GAR CO will continue their intersection assessment process with much of the primary
effort to be completed before the June/July timeframe.
9. Development timing for the Applicant will be market driven, but it is anticipated that
development construction will be initiated in 2014/2015.
10. COOT (D'Wayne) mentioned that the project may require both a construction access
permit (for reclamation and intersection construction) versus a final project access
permit.
11. CR 113 is the priority roadway and easements shown on developed mapping on the
east side should be verified.
12. Interim conditions-concepts discussed that would remain within existing rights-of-
way and provide some initial intersection benefits.
13. Final conditions-concepts discussed that would achieve staking and intersection
spacing requirements for full buildout conditions.
14. COOT (Aiisa) requested that an assessment of performance for interim condition
concept be performed to determine when it no longer provides benefit.
15. COOT (Dan) indicated that continued coordination between all parties is critical for
this process going forward.
Attachment H COOT Documentation
Attachment 1-Revised Application Materials based on Property Transfer
)
)
ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
ALTA Commitment Form
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued by
c§!2~~~~
Stewart Title Guaranty Company, a Texas corporation ("Company"), for a valuable consideration,
commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the
Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land
described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with
the Requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions of this
Commitment.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of
the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company.
All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate six months after the
Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided
that the failure to issue the policy or policies is not the fault of the Company.
The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request.
This commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized
signatory.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to
be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A.
Countersigned:
~\~
Authorized Counlerslgnature
Stewart Title
Roaring Fork Division
60 South s"' Street
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
(970)-704-1000 ph
(970)-704-0205 fax
Order Number: 941686-C4
Ai?iM-f~.J
Senior Chairman;( e Board
~tf4.
President
ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
I. Effective Date: February 9, 2011, at 8:00 A.M.
2. Policy or Policies To Be Issued:
(a) A.L.T.A. Owner's
Proposed Insured:
To Be Determined
(b) A.L.T.A. Loan
(Standard)
Order Number: 941686-C4
Amount of Insurance:
The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
Fee Simple
4. Title to the referenced estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in:
Carbondale Investments, LLC
5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
See Attached Legal Description
Purported Address:
82 Highway
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623
Statement of Charges:
These charges are due and payable before a
Policy can be issued:
Search Fee-$100.00
SCHEDULE A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcel A (South 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 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 comer of said Section 7, bearsS 78°49'20"
E a distance of2150.14 feet;
thence, along said right 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 ofS 21°41 '02" E a distance of621.41 feet;
thence, S 33°46°54 E a distance of387.28 feet;
thence, 294.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of2815.00 feet, a central angle of
5°59'26" and subtending a chord bearing of S 30°47°11 E a distance of294.19 feet;
thence, departing said right of way lineN 89°53°16 W a distance of218.07 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 W a distance of 8.28 feet;
thence, N 24°16°24 W a distance of25.22 feet;
thence, N 69°00°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 of26.07 feet;
thence, N 46°21°12 Wadistance of9.99 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 Wadistance of55.18 feet;
thence, N 68°49°21 W a distance of25.14 feet;
thence, N 47°41°50 W a distance of78.78 feet;
thence, N 30°26°40 W a distance of24.58 feet;
thence, N 25°47°01 W a distance of30.08 feet;
thence, N 18°11°39 W a distance of34.61 feet;
thence, N 30°58°21 W a distance of29.32 feet;
thence, N 21°59°14 W a distance of27.50 feet;
thence, N 30°16°07 W a distance of22.97 feet;
thence, N 25°41°38 W a distance of 169.44 feet;
thence, N 41°17°39 E a distance of82.61 feet;
thence, N 38°34°52 E a distance of 15.89 feet;
thence, N 34°26°44 W a distance of262.40 feet;
thence, N 57°58°09 W a distance of 102.47 feet;
thence, N 53°43°31 W a distance of I 05.38 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 I 02.14 feet;
thence, N 37°44°19 W a distance of 552.12 feet;
thence, N 18° I 0°02 W a distance of 4 7.26 feet;
thence, N 27°58°19 W a distance of 109.20 feet;
thence, N 35°01°36 W a distance of71.09 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 of34.06 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 3r39°02 W a distance of79.09 feet;
thence, N 37°32°30 W a distance of 63.32 feet;
thence, N 20°02°15 W a distance of33.98 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 ll 0 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 of393.54 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 of33.08 feet;
thence, S 81°39°50 E a distance of89.61 feet;
thence, N 56°07°00 E a distance of26.86 feet;
thence, N 07°38°31 E a distance of27 .93 feet;
thence, N 37°41°57 W a distance of28.06 feet;
thence, N 50°00°15 E a distance of22.23 feet;
thence, N 82°02°30 E a distance of 36.49 feet;
thence, S 63°34°38 E a distance of54.05 feet;
thence, S 45°59°58 E a distance of20.95 feet;
thence, S 14°44°20 E a distance of29.18 feet;
thence, S II 0 11°17 W a distance of26.42 feet;
thence, S 14°58°41 E a distance of30.14 feet;
thence, S 43°42°10 E a distance of69.77 feet;
thence, S 31°36°59 E a distance of56.76 feet;
thence, S 49°38°46 E a distance of 40.12 feet;
thence, S 45°30°55 E a distance of 40.88 feet;
thence, S 60°!6°38 E a distance of43.39 feet;
thence, S 73°!6°24 E a distance of67.60 feet;
thence, S 53°05°15 E a distance ofl5.86 feet;
thence, S 63°37°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 of61.04 feet;
thence, N 31°59°09 E a distance of 47.07 feet;
thence, N 06°58°38 E a distance of32.16 feet;
thence, N 72°08°07 E a distance of7.98 feet;
thence, S 24°5!0 03 E a distance of72.35 feet;
thence, S 41°52°47 E a distance of50.71 feet;
thence, S 54°44°21 E a distance of38.31 feet;
thence, S 83°39°39 E a distance of87.15 feet;
thence, S 57° II o 12 E a distance of 77.06 feet;
thence, s 41°51 °!6 E a distance of88.65 feet;
thence, S 57°39°13 E a distance of65.60 feet;
thence, S 49°55°38 E a distance of74.96 feet;
thence, S 61°04°52 E a distance of 43.44 feet;
thence, S 71°46°03 E a distance of 55.45 feet to the point of beginning.
Together with Parcel B (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 particularly described as follows:
Beginning Garfield County Surveyor's 2 1/2" Brass, found in place, and correctly marked as the southeast
comer 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 EasementS 19°38°52" E a distance of2644.53 feet;
thence, 494.34 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of2815.00 feet, a central angle of
10°03°42 and subtending a chord bearing ofS 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 of64.72 feet;
thence, N 49°54'1 0" 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 of93.00 feet;
thence, N 29°35'31" W a distance of 119.58 feet;
thence, N 78°00'43" W a distance of33.84 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 of28.23 feet;
thence, N 59°07'03" W a distance of95.71 feet;
thence, N 71 °20'44" W a distance of 85.73 feet;
thence, N 36°43'10" W a distance of93.22 feet;
thence, N 25°39'22" W a distance of 181.92 feet;
thence, N 65°10'24" W a distance of98.43 feet;
thence, S 85°02'33" W a distance of 52.20 feet;
thence, S 56°33'52" W a distance of39.34 feet;
thence, S 20°49'33" W a distance of 42.96 feet;
thence, S 37°27'43" E a distance of21.60 feet;
thence, N 77°02'57" W a distance of 89.66 feet;
thence, S 70°24'18" W a distance of70.95 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°22'48" E a distance of 68.20 feet;
thence, N 05°11 '46" W a distance of77.59 feet;
thence, N 18°20'05" E a distance of10.82 feet;
thence, N 22°53'40" E a distance of 44.14 feet;
thence, N 10°34'58" E a distance of35.11 feet;
thence, N 08°59'51" E a distance of47.16 feet;
thence, N 03°48'08" E a distance of36.48 feet;
thence, N 04°40'52" E a distance of71.03 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" W a distance 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 of37.73 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" 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 of24.70 feet;
thence, N 28°51'45" W a distance of209.99 feet;
thence, N II 0 58'37" W a distance of 33.82 feet;
thence, N 41°03'46" E a distance of78.19 feet;
thence, N 06°29'0 I" W a distance of 117.20 feet;
thence, N 20°05'27" W a distance of 94.24 feet;
thence, N II 0 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 of50.76 feet;
thence, N 19° 17'44" 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 of72.23 feet;
thence, N 00°16'30" E a distance of217.77 feet;
thence, N 00°16'30" E a distance of312.94 feet to the point of beginning.
Together with, Parcel C:
A tract of1and 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 comer of said Section 7, bearsS 78°01'43"
E a distance of 2054.18 feet;
thence, along said westerly right of way lineN 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 of2915.00 feet, a central angle of
5°33'17" and subtending a chord bearing ofN 12°21'49" W a distance of282.49 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 of202.70 feet;
thence, S 04°34'58" E a distance of260.70 feet to the point of beginning.
County of Garfield, State of Colorado.
Order Number: 941686-C4
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE B-Section 1
REQUIREMENTS
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
I. Payment to or for the account of the grantor(s) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate
or interest to be insured.
2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for
record.
3. NOTE: This product is for informational purpose only. It is not a title insurance product and
does not provide any form of coverage. This product is not a guarantee or assurance and does
not warrant, or otherwise insure any condition, fact or circumstance. This product does not
obligate this Company to issue any policies of title insurance for any subsequent transaction
based on the information provided or involving the described herein. This Company's sole
liability for any error(s) relating to this product is limited to the amount this was paid for this
product.
Order Number: 941686-C4
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE B -Section 2
EXCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are
disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the
title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the land and not
shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished,
imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing
in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the
date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage
thereon covered by this commitment.
6. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents, or in acts authorizing the
issuance thereof.
7. Water rights, claims or title to water.
8. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and unredeemed tax sales.
9. The effect of inclusion in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation
or other district or homeowners association or inclusion in any water service or street improvement
area.
I 0. Reservations or exceptions contained in United States Patents, Acts authorizing the issuance thereof,
recorded November 17, 1893 in Book 12 at Page 255 as Reception No. 16539, recorded June 24,
1893 in Book 12 at Page 235 as Reception No. 16010, recorded December 4, 1894 in Book 12 at
Page 339 as Reception No. 11720, recorded January 15, 1896 in Book 12 at Page 394 as Reception
No. 19002 and recorded January 24, 1906 in Book 56 at Page 534 as Reception No. 31514; reserving
I) Rights of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom and 2) rights of
way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States.
II. Right of way granted unto the Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company as set forth in
instruments recorded July 31, 1931 in Book 164 at Page !53 as Reception No. 110551 and in Book
164 at Page !54 as Reception No. 110552.
12. Easement Grant unto The Thompson Glen Ditch Company as set forth in instrument recorded
January 26,2011 as Reception No. 798016; and Quit Claim Deed unto Carbondale Investments,
LLC, a Texas limited liability company recorded January 26, 2011 as Reception No. 798018.
13. [Intentionally Deleted]
14. Oil, Gas and other minerals reservations as set forth in instrument recorded December 17, 1964 in
Book 362 at Page 445 as Reception No. 228037.
15. Agreement recorded August 19, 1994 in Book 912 at Page 970 as Reception No. 467450.
16. Easements and Rights of Way as set forth in License Grant recorded August 2, 1999 in Book 1142 at
Page 979 as Reception No. 549752 and Amendment recorded November 15,2000 in Book 1217 at
Page 601 as Reception No. 572246.
17. Oil and Gas reservations as set forth in instrument recorded June 12, 1951 in Book 25 8 at Page 594
as Reception No. 176326.
18. [Intentionally Deleted].
19. Easements and Rights of Way as set forth in Easement Grant recorded August 2, 1999 in Book 1142
at Page 963 as Reception No. 549751; and Amended to Easement recorded November 15,2000 in
Book 1217 at Page 588 as Reception No. 572244.
20. Easements and Rights of Way as set forth in License Grant recorded August 2, 1999 in Book 1142 at
Page 993 as Reception No. 549753 and Amendment recorded November 15, 2000 in Book 1217 at
Page 596 as Reception No. 572247 .
21. Easements and Rights of Way as set forth in Grant of Easement, Open Space Easement recorded
August 2, 1999 in Book 1143 at Page I as Reception No. 549754; and Amendment to Grant of
Easement, Open Space Easement recorded November 15, 2000 in Book 1217 at Page 593 as
Reception No. 572245.
22. Grant of Irrevocable License and Fiber Optic and Communications Protection Agreement as set forth
in instrument recorded December 15, 1999 in Book 1164 at Page 818 as Reception No. 556678.
23. Grant of Conservation Easement as set forth in instrument recorded February 7, 2000 in Book 1171
at Page 929 as Reception No. 559036; and matters shown on Overall Conservation Easement Plat
recorded December 24, 2008 as Reception No. 760571
24. Easement Agreement as set forth in instrument recorded November 15,2000 in Book 1217 at Page
610 as Reception No.572249.
25. Ditch Relocation, Operation and Maintenance Agreement as set forth in instrument recorded October
3, 2001 in Book 1292 at Page 61 as Reception No. 589535; and First Supplement and Amendment to
Ditch Relocation, Operation and Maintenance Agreement recorded January 26, 20 II as Reception
No. 798017.
26. Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Resolution No. 2008-112 as set forth in
instrument recorded October 7, 2008 as Reception No. 756914.
27. Grant of Easement Agreement as set forth in instrument recorded December 22, 2009 as Reception
No. 760451.
CONDITIONS
1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security
instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse
claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such
knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or
damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure
to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the
Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien,
encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of
this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability
previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and
such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for
and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with
the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or
create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such
liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such
liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions
from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured
which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as
expressly modified herein.
4. This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of
title or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed
Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate
or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and
are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
5. The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of
Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured
as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at
www.alta.org.
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall be
addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252.
Stewart Title
MINERAL DISCLOSURE
To comply with the provisions ofC.R.S. 10-11-123, the Company makes the following disclosure:
(a) That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise
conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds
some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and
(b) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface
owner's permission.
NOTE: THIS DISCLOSURE APPLIES ONLY IF SCHEDULE B, SECTION 2 OF THE TITLE
COMMITMENT HEREIN INCLUDES AN EXCEPTION FOR SEVERED MINERALS.
Stewart Title
DISCLOSURE
The title company, Stewart Title -Roaring Fork Division-Carbondale in its capacity as escrow agent, has
been authorized to receive funds and disburse them when all funds received are either: (a) available for
immediate withdrawal as a matter of right from the financial institution in which the funds are deposited,
or (b) are available for immediate withdrawal as a consequence of an agreement of a financial institution
in which the funds are to be deposited or a financial institution upon which the funds are to be drawn.
The title company is disclosing to you that the financial institution may provide the title company with
computer accounting or auditing services, or other bank services, either directly or through a separate
entity which may or may not be affiliated with the title company. This separate entity may charge the
financial institution reasonable and proper compensation for these services and retain any profits there
from.
The title company may also receive benefits from the financial institution in the form of advantageous
interest rates on loans, sometimes referred to as preferred rate loan programs, relating to loans the title
company has with the financial institution. The title company shall not be liable for any interest or other
charges on the earnest money and shall be under no duty to invest or reinvest funds held by it at any
time. In the event that the parties to this transaction have agreed to have interest on earnest money
deposit transferred to a fund established for the purpose of providing affordable housing to Colorado
residents, then the earnest money shall remain in an account designated for such purpose, and the interest
money shall be delivered to the title company at closing.
~=10"' lllll'"""""=~"' ,. rn JrO<C/rJ/> .:lJio/J.nu '~"'
OIIOSo:>""JlrOl »JJ.., .,.,._:w\SI»<<" r.r>r\WM W\r\ar:>\..:>9l ':>lllllll'~Ja\t>'\1 .,._?II JJS>.I-(<loo\s~• I<>Ul oo<O\~\lrUUU. J-..os.w:>\o _, J>:
!
2
' I
' i
i
!
i
I
I
I
' !
' ' !
!
' ' ~~ t
'' I .. ~ ~ I. ' ~~~A -. ,~.,
--~Iii ~~~! f.l~~tlt
"J;,t.J/:~tm~':. ~'..:' ,:/,/;::!-Hnlli ....
Carlxmdale bwesl7nenfs ££C Pa'I"N'(
~-Q F""M C-StoM ..,., .. ., (hpl -.. c.., R-<J-11' """""""''
a -Oolo• No>"""" .. ,.., LS2tJIJJ
-o-oor.>No>-,.<"""'n!)lJO""'-""""'
-~·.?'E-,.? p:: t:::::z.::;::.::;.,-:::-...... ""':':.<:"::
-~~E~~~£:..;.~7:f&.
-~:J-:&.::..-::~~;z:ft7i..:.
:::.::.~.""'""'-.,_,. .. ,_-c< __ '" -6---'" _, __ ..,.,.,_,..., _____ .,_~_, .,,........, ...... _,_,.._,. __ ., ... ,_,., ... ..,.
---·~ ,..,,,.. 1£17. .... ,., ... ,,_ ... _.,.., _____ ....
~-
,....,.,.,.,,~ .... ~~ ....... ,~--... -..... -""'-~--.. ___ ...,....,, ____ _ -:=:.::-------·-·--·---·--
=~~"';.,""',::, ______ .. _.,. __ .,_., __
0,"'-"'-MP'S~----"'-A--Io ............ l-.. _,..,.._ ..... ..,._~-~ ... ,.. .... .,,.....,..,. _ _.,._.......,_.._...,~my
~~.;;.·----~-s"''""'_ ... __ _,~--
"
__ , __ , ____ ..... _~/10011
._,..,,,.._"' __ --·"'-"'-'"'"'-"'--::::::: ;::.y"::t:::::....-:~~';...~~-:::::",.::!, =~" : ..... -""'-"
"""""-d--.:."-""""""" ,,..,..,_,_,.,.,_ ..... O!Iko.,,.."""*""" _.,_,,_, """"'~ c-"-.·.--"'·--;;;:--__:::__"'--. """· .. ---"'-----
~
""""'"
ALTA Survey Hap
~~"';.!'""-~-= '::::.-=-' .EJ"" :1-...... =--~ :-::r:::lfi:::;_
A Tract of £and situated in Sec Nons 7 and 18_ 7'. 7S., /?.88/r.
and in Sections I and /Z, 7'. 7S., ./?.89/r. of the 6'tl1 P..U.
County of Car./iefd, State of Colorado
And beinp more futty described befow.
Yioz"nity Hap, I" = £(1(1()'
~
\
/A.S~/sl<lbf«<lolllt~~f""IDitl~.--.
-"""""""'-'""""""'-'
1a :::;:-...:;_ "'"'f't':l!'JJ-:-;:,."',~,:;, ~ ~ "",:::;:--~
li!>J .. -I?oi-2J5"'-"" /B/1~--·· , ... .,_17 oi,.,..J.J9.,._..,No llnti.,__.-,.,5.1/Mi>-llOII'ovoSI .. _,..,!101); ___ 2<. l!/li6<1-~oi-5J< .. f<K_,.. Jm,,,...,..,..,,_.,.,._., • ....,.,-.,_,.,--.,.,..,.,. =--"'"""'"'..,.""*"""'""""""'_.,. ... _, ... _ _of..,. __ ,.. ____ , __ .. ,.,_ ..
--.u;Jt.t!)J/i>_l .. ,,...," .. -...... 110$>1"""' ,.,., .... ,...., .... ,...,... ... "=
1?. _,_,_,_/!lon(J;/d...._,. .. ,.,_ .. __
-~·"'"'"-No.19/JOI~·-o.ila.im/M<f-c-t.-llC.o,._ __ , ___ .l$..i!l)ll"-"'l'WIOI~
ll [>. __ ,
"· ~.,.... ____ .. _,_, ___ ,7,196<"' _ JQ,,... .. ~ ................. 2JtJIIJ7.
11 __ __,,._,,,.,._.,2,,...97/J .. _Mo.<tm!JIJ
~~ ___ "..,."'""'"""'"'"-"""""--1.1!199il>-mt ,,.m .. -""·"'!52""'_"'.,.._'~2IJIXJ"'"""'2'' .tl'ovo6()1..---ND.5~2Ni.
'' m ... ,;,.,..........,.,..,....,.,""'"'"""'"""""".._'l.t'J!il""""l» .. ,... m .. -~~o.rl&J2ti.
1a r~-1
~~ -. ... llifi>.,..,..,..,.,..,£ _ _, _ __,.?. rmit!-
'"'l"',...m .. -"""tm':--tol"_.__,~ 21XJ().,,.,..,217ol_!i8t! .. _No :;n;m
·7:--·-"·
' .
,_
~ _____/ ~
.M ~--"' .. '"'""""""'u....""""--.?.l!mit!-11<2 M-J9.J .. -No.5#7SJ ____ I421J1Xii>-/217
.. ,.,. ..... _No.!Nff<7,
2f. [---"'"'"'"'-""'""'"'£-<)><o-¥o<o£--_ .. ,.w.,,.,.,,Q.,,...,.,_.., ... ,.. ..... _,.""""
E---.c....-"""""-'421J1Xi"-'1""',.,.m .. _,_.,;,..~
22. l><olol __ , ___ <l>O<_~--...... -
.,.._ __ ,~ rm"'-""'"',...a/8 .. _.,.,_~
tl lhn/of....__£_ .. ..,,_ .. ......._, __ ?.21J1Xi .. -ll, .,,.,.92'J .. -No.!i590.J6:""' __ ,._, __ c_,,.,
--l<.lflM .. ~N<\HiQ511
N. [ __ .. _,_., ___ IJ.21Xit)il!-12/tol ,.,...,o .. ...._,.sm4'J. """" ______ ..... _ .. __ a.:-
~2(1(}1;.-mt .. ,...,, .. ,.._ .... 5/l9!ili:_F.., __ _., ______ ,_~26;1'011
.. _ ... 191/()U
-ofC-C<m--.oi-C.....,,-""'tiiiM-112••"'-" --a.-?..lf1Mm~""l'56'/U.
2~ l><olofl--o>I»>_;. __ DK_22.2rXJ9ot-
'*>. MIH51.
0'1'/NER/~I.OPER'
--<"'"~ ~~~,~ ...... COLO~ge
::=-.. -= -00--~ -,_
Te~ Iii~~
1"U~HE >UR~UING S<RVIC[S
J't/JT££ SURYEJ7HC SERY/C£S
72 7 Bloke A..,.,.,""
(;/~wood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 928-9708 (Fo" 947-9007)
.fr.tjf)h...-ou.=m
ll/22/•~ ·--~ .,_,. ~""-----·
_su......,.J~""!"""'
o....w~ "" .,.
SHEET~
-~-
~
Ol/<>!>/2C)j,
RIVER EDGE COLORADO
SUBDMSION
ALTA SURVEY MAP
(20F3)
5t<EET NU~BEI<•
V01.02
! ;
g
' i
I
I .
!
I
i
' !
' I
i
' ~ ~il: f'i ,, I
!; " ~~ !II ~~~~. <!!' l•i1 i,J~~~
ALTA Survey Nap
A Tract o/ £and situated in Sections 7 and /~ 7'. ?S., R.88!f:
and in Sections I and /2, 7'. ?S., /?.8!/!f: of the 6'th .P.H.
County of Car.f'ie!d, State of Coforado
And being more /uf!y described below.
llWiJ! ~:7~ff=:~ "'-0 __ ..,,_,.., ... u. ........... __ ,.._,..,_ ............ .,"""'"""
~-
1 >
PARCEL C t :::r""'=--
0.231 AC +-• I' . I ~·~ -. ~ \ i ~---· . /<' -J>
--=..-·-·-;;~::= ~--J/ \-==--"'-·==\ = //~#·. / + -
·-·-·-·---·--:..~·-· •" I ~ • )( -;."~ ~ _,~--
~::~:::-~
OW"fR/OMCOP[O,
--= -........ ......... .... ,__co..... 010AOUS2tl .__
.,..e~
Iii :;;:~
TUTTLE <URVniNC <EIWICn
Tl/7'1'U' SUPYEY/A'C SERY/CES
72 7 Blok~ A~""'
Gl"'"'"'"'" Springs. Colorado 81601
(970) 928-9708 (Fox 947-9007}
fr//flf:<#-O<P.f»m
c::T -.) . . ---· , ·· · --. _. . ·.-r-• _:::=:::::.r::::::.~~~--..,.,.;-._ :-:17-~~-:-:-_-l;c~c''~-.;;;~~~~~·" .,,:v.\ "-.....;. ... ~
·---• ~~~ + -=ot.::.::oo1:;,.' -. ' II '' =··""'·"""'~""' --.-:··, .. --=~ "'"""' .. ' ....... 7 •' •' >#'' ~-"'..-""· "' -7 -' -' ~ -· f / .1 e.~ c.' -"_,.,~__..!:~~---?~'"";/ · /j f {•. 1
85."JJ-~~HfEL) II .. /~v, ', />::;:.-;:....::...:..: I ---~>""':~ -/ ~.... /tiHD"O>I§" I . -... .{ i1:; 1 .{ "-~--~ .. ,; ... ,..--------
=·-/" ~--<""'-~ --"· ' , '"'' . / '
I
. :=:=::tr~J-' _c,,c>" >filii"'"" -""' h. =··=~ [ •. ' / ... ~A _../ ••' f I 5"? .,/'
1
'\ /// '""' --~ . ,_. --"' .~· -;/? ---"""' :.z' ' ~ ';';e;-,r.;J{[;;IC-~· ~--·r OWf'._:::::-PAne;; D (NORTJf PARCEL' -~~~~~· ~,., I " ./· /"-: : ,,Y:>·
// , •• ~----«•· • .v ' p' • • ~ • •• --" I :.=.-I ... -··-----o~o+' ' , I ,/ + +;'):/::' ( ' : 1 f'"'r::·_.:o""""-: __ ..ri-~ §L.:yr •""'; ~ I w , : =:-,/' ,. .. / ~C"i(;~i~"~\-~ --/~ ', / • i ~ I ! !"'~.,:-· 5'!"3·,-./ f' )'' ,'"'>·-:,~ >'. "' ·~· h·.~;:t/:·~-lEila/"'.::__
V 1 • / • r-'' · ---· ' ' -~ ·
L
~. I #:/ .~ ... -:-~ __ 41, I R--. ', /", / "-% w,_ '"' J-'
1
""-'' -"' .-~-•<r f · ~,.. r~. II , z .~-·· ··~·· . ..-..~.&---=~-/ "'' ~ ' ' ' '" . / <"'' ' "" /' :: T --+-·-;.;:!;-"""·;·""~-·-" . .1'::""'""*'= ,,_, / \. I ~ ,,": ~--fO~ _,,. ¥ I " ' ' ---y -~ " ·---",, --~--.., .. // ""'' . i Li,/ //'' j ... ,_,. "'"~~:;~-" -.. .-~~ v" -· .
\. . . : 7 ... :;:(, '"" •• ,_ "!' -.. -... 1 ."-. ·q I B. : I '-',.. , ·. ~ .4iiJ>-1 -. •·•··"
[.....<:1::·Y .~~~. I 8"' ' .· . B . ~ A\~ -.. ~·"'"'"''" ... · .· ... ·. ·. ~ , .:-·-'•-_ CcnuiC<TIIIirm£~ml.
!:.t":.~:.-i.:."f.:,_
~Ul2/l~ REIOSED "'-" SLollmOJ. i/_~/~ ot!CI<I.C (PIJD) ""0
""""""""l""l-PIAIO)SI .......
.so;u<IBO!rl ~---•
DRAwN t<Y: AS
OATEo 01/0>/2011
~
RNER EDGE COLORADO
SUBDNISION
ALTA SURVEY MAP
(30F3)
SHE:ET HUUBO/!,
V01.03
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
1 08 81" Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470
www.qarfield-county.com
m PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
D PUD Amendment
(Check the Appropriate box above)
GENERAL INFORMATION (Please print legibly)
);> Name of Pro[!erty Owner: Carbondale Investments, LLC
J;> Mailing Address: 5121 Park Lane Telephone: (_)See Owner Rep.
);> City: Dallas State: TX Zip Code: 75220 Cell: (_)See Owner Rep
J;> E-mail address: See Owner Rep. FAX:(_ )See Owner Rep.
Note: All mailings concerning this application should be sent to Owner Representative
);> Name of Owner's Re[!resentative, if any, (Attorney, Planner, Consultant, etc):
);> Rockwood Shepard, Project Executive
);> Mailing Address: 7999 H~ 82 Telephone: (EQ_) 945-2113
J;> City: Carbondale State: co Zip Code: 81623 Cell: (EQ_) 456-5325
);> E-mail address: rockwoodshepard@gmail.com FAX:(_)
J;> Property ParceiiD 239318200102
);> Existing Property Zone District: Residential Suburban
);> Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential High Density (Comp Plan 2030)
);> Proposed Zone District: Planned Unit Development
J;> Purpose for the proposed rezoning to Planned Unit Development:
To allow for the development of a "clustered-form" residential subdivision with a variety of lot sizes and
overall residential densities similar to those allowed by the current zoning, extensive community open
space and parks, and suburban-type infrastructure and amenities.
Note: Although the tenn "clustered" is used to describe this development throughout the application, this application Is NOT being made under the Cluster or conseNa!ion
provisions of the ULUR. See Attachment A-Project Narrative tor a more detailed description of the Project
Last Revised 12112108
' -{
' '
i= 't-_---------
,~~/
! ~~ \
~~ ~"' 0 ~ '§ ~ SCALE FEET
;; ~ ~ Owner/Developer:
50 I 00
~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ r..c_~'-J,_:::C:, .
: ~~ ~ Riv~r :edge ~ ~ ~ ~ COLORADO
w b 5 b Carbondalelnve~tment., LLC f1 /t Q!. i[ 7999 HWY 82
Carbondala, CO 81823
PhonaNo:
(170.45&.532$
' \
' "'
RIVER EDGE
COLORADO
PROPERTY
DEVELOPERS PROPERTY AND
RIVER EDGE COLORADO PROPERTY
Prepared by:
8140 Partners, LLC
"'
Date:
04/18/2011
Exhibit:
App. E-1
•
' ' ' '
ili
'~ ~
'
'
.,
'
' I
'
II
' '
~ '
' ~ ' ~ ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
'
' ' '
' '
' '
' '
II '
'
' ~~'
Owner/Developer: ntle:
.,..p~
r-'._ &'\ ~"" Rl~r:atge·
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP MAP
(2 OF 2)
COLORADO
Carbolldata lnvntmentll, LLC
7W9 HWY 112 Phona No:
Carbondata, co 81823 870.4S6.5325
Prepared by:
8140 Partners, LLC
Date:
04/13/2011
Exhibit:
2
App. E-2