Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application• REC YrD APR 1 3 2O Cerise Ranch Preliminary Plan Application February 3, 2000 Prepared by: The Land Studio 100 Elk Run Drive Basalt, CO 81621 phone: 970-927-3680 fax: 970-927-4261 Prepared for: Wintergreen Homes P.Q Box 978 Avon, CO81620 phone: 303-322-4119 fax: 303-322-4320 Cerise Ranch preliminary plan • • Owner/Consultant List Client/Owner Wintergreen Homes Art Kleinstein P.Q Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 phone: 303-322-4119 fax: 303-322-4320 Land Planner The Land Studio, Inc. Doug Pratte 1002 Lauren Lane P.Q Box 107 Basalt, CO 81621 phone: 970-927-3690 fax: 970-927-4261 Attorney Balcomb and Green P.C. 818 Colorado Avenue P.Q Box 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: 970-945-6546 fax: 970-945-8902 Geotechnical Engineer CTL/Thompson, Inc Liv Bowden 234 Center Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: 970-945-2809 fax: 970-945-7411 Civil Engineer High Country Engineering Joe Hope 923 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: 970-945-8676 fax: 970-945-2555 Wetlands, Vegetation, and Wildlife Consultant Ecological and Environmental Consulting, LLC Andrew Antipas P.Q Box 2467 Basalt, CO 81621 phone: 970-963-8297 cell: 970-948-3446 Traffic Engineering Consultant Leigh, Scott, and Cleary, Inc. Phil Scott 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 phone: 303-333-1105 fax: 303-333-1107 Drainage Engineering Consultant Zancanella and Associates, Inc. Tom Zancanella P.Ct Box 1908 1005 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 phone: 970-945-5700 fax: 970-945-1253 Cerise Ranch preliminary plan t • • Table of' Contents Cerise Ranch Preliminary Plan Exhibits 1. Subdivision Application Form 2. Project Introduction 3. Property Ownership and Project Applicant 4. Title Policies 5. Existing Conditions Plan/Vicinity Map 6. Preliminary Plan Drawings 7. Site Plan Rendering 8. Perspective Rendering 9. Design Guidelines 10. Protective Covenants 11. Phasing Plan 12. Soils/Geology Report 13. Vegetation and Wildlife Analysis 14. Division of Wildlife Letter/Response 15. Drainage Plan 16. Water Test Results/Water Rights/Water Supply 17. Percolation Test Results 18. ISMS Requirements 19. Statements Regarding Grading, Roads, and Utility Plan 20. =Access Permit Application 21. Adjacent Property Owners 22. School District Letter/Response 23. Fire Protection Letter/Response Cerise Ranch preliminary plan Jan -13-00 1O:Z1A i Sker,01 VIan Preliminary Plan Fina]. Plat SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM SUBDIVISION NAME: '� t `' 6 OWNER: ENGINEER/PLANNER/SURVEYOR: Section c , n 1,41'777' TownshipZaraMRanger„ LOCATION: WATER SOURCE: 1 SEWAGE DISPOSAL METHOD: PUBLIC ACCESS VIA: EXISTING ZONING: EASEMENTS: Utility TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA: (1) Residential Single Famiy Duplex Multi -family Mobile Home (2) Commercial Number Acres c8 sr+(4a.d'.u, Floor Area Acres sq. ft. sq.ft. (3) Industrial ---- (4) 121A.Ja 5 i -Publ ichZ a w (5) Open Space/Common Area ea4dopi ' v(°� TOTAL: PARKING SPACES: Res identialw--Z, (4x's)av iwcQ a.'c,/c%rxii5c Commercial • • • I NTRODUCTI ON TO THE CERI SE RANCH P RELI MI NARY P N N APPLICATION The Cerise Ranch resides in the Roaring Fork Valley west of the Dakota subdivision and contiguous to Colorado State Highway 82. It has been owned and operated by the Cerise family since 1916. Since that time the agricultural operations have included cow production, horse pasture, potato production, and hay production for the feeding of livestock. Wintergreen Homes intends to purchase the property and currently holds an option to purchase it. Wintergreen Homes recognizes the importance of the Cerise Ranch to the area and will strive in this application to create a rural residential subdivision per the Garfield County Agricultural / Residential / Rural Density (A/R/RD).zone district and retain the open agricultural lands that run along Highway 82. This document contains the required submittals for a Preliminary Plan for the Cerise Ranch. Cerise Ranch preliminary plan • • • PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND PROJECT APPLICANT Wintergreen Homes is the equitable owner pursuant to the purchase agreements dated January 23, 1997 and May 21, 1998 between Wintergreen Homes Limited Liability Company and Mumbert Cerise Family Co. Limited Partnership. The purchase agreements have been prepared by Basalt Realty. Cerise Ranch preliminary plan Date: 01-27-2000 Property Address: VACANT LAND BALCOMB & GREEN 818 COLORADO AVE. GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 Attn: TIM THULSON Phone: 970-945-6546 Fax: 970-945-8902 Copies: 1 Sent Via US Postal Service PETRE & PETRE PO BOX 400 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 Attn: GEORGE PETRE Topies: 1 . nt Via US Postal Service WINTERGREEN HOMES 305 MADISON DENVER, CO. 80206 Attn: ART KLEINSTEIN Copies: 1 Sent Via US Postal Service HELEN GORELL BOX 428 DARBY, MT. 89829 Phone: 000-000-0000 Copies: 1 Sent Via US Postal Service III Land Title Guarantee Company CUSTOMER DISTRIBUTION Our Order Number: GW221754-4 BASALT REALTY 206 CODY LANE BASALT, CO 81621 Attn: DARRYL Phone: 970-927-3174 Copies: 1 Sent Via US Postal Service CERISE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 17072 HIGHWAY 82 CARBONDALE, CO. 81623 Copies: 1 Sent Via US Postal Service SENN, LEWIS, VISCIANO, STRAHLE 1801 CALIFORNIA SUITE 4300 DENVER, CO. 80202 Attn: HAZEL LEE Phone: 303-298-1122 Copies: 1 Sent Via US Postal Service Date: 01-27-2000 Property Address: VACANT LAND • Land Title Guarantee Company CUSTOMER DISTRIBUTION Our Order Number: GW221754-4 Date: 01-27-2000 Property Address: VACANT LAND Land Title Guarantee Company YOUR CONTACTS Our Order Number: GW221754-4 Buyer/Borrower: WINTERGREEN HOMES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Seller/Owner: MUMBERT CERISE FAMILY CO., A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP If you have any inquiries or require further assistance, For Closing Assistance: Margaret Joy 817 COLORADO AVE. #102 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 Phone: 970 945-2610 Fax: 970 945-4784 please contact one of the numbers below: For Title Assistance: Glenwood Springs Title Dept. Cindy Cochran 817 COLORADO AVE. #102 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-2610 Fax: 970-945-4784 ESTIMATE OF TITLE FEES Alta Owners Policy 10-17-92 Alta Loan Policy 10-17-92 Tax Certificate Miscellaneous Charges ADDITIONAL CHAIN $2,586.00 $60.00 $20.00 $100.00 TOTAL $2,766.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER! Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Our Order No. GW221754-4 Schedule A Cust. Ref.: Property Address: VACANT LAND 1. Effective Date: January 07, 2000 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured: "ALTA" Owner's Policy 10-17-92 $3,000.000.00 Proposed Insured: WINTERGREEN HOMES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY "ALTA" Loan Policy 10-17-92 $2,500,000.00 Proposed Insured: MUMBERT CERISE FAMILY CO., A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: MUMBERT CERISE FAMILY CO., A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED PAGE(S) FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION • • Our Order No. GW221754-4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1, 3, 14 AND 15 OF SECTION 33, AND IN A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 2, 7, 8, 20 AND 21 OF SECTION 32, AND THE SW1/4SE1/4 OF SECTION 29, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST, 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO AND IN THE SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 33,TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH. RANGE 87 WEST, 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD AND EAGLE COUNTY. COLORADO AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33: THENCE S. 89 DEGREES 14'35" E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 A DISTANCE OF 1371.19 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE WEST 1/16 CORNER OF SECTION 28, SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE, AND OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE S. 89 DEGREES 14'54" E., CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 A DISTANCE OF 1371.88 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE S. 01 DEGREES 40'33" W. ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 33 A DISTANCE OF 664.14 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4 OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE S. 89 DEGREES 14'55" E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4 A DISTANCE OF 686.80 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4; THENCE S. 01 DEGREES 40'52" W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4 A DISTANCE OF 663.00 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4; THENCE N. 89 DEGREES 20'38" W. ALONG THE SOUTHLINE OF SAID SW1/4NWI/4NE1/4 A DISTANCE OF 686.76 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4; THENCE N. 89 DEGREES 20'16" W. A DISTANCE OF 739.11 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S. 02 DEGREES 39'57" W. A DISTANCE OF 1147.79 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 AND ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2964.79 FEET; THENCE 383.72 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7 DEGREES 24'56", HAVING A CORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N. 75 DEGREES 42'50" W., 383.45 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N. 80 DEGREES 48'50" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 213.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N. 81 DEGREES 31'13" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 2415.28 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,359.16 FEET; THENCE 512.48 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2 DEGREES 35'06", HAVING A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N. 80 DEGREES 13'40" W. 512.44 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N. 79 DEGREES 35'30" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 872.27 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S. 79 DEGREES 15'50" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 53.85 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N. 78 DEGREES 56'10" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 295.38 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N. 02 DEGREES 27' 10" E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 637 AT PAGE 200 A DISTANCE OF 273.18 FEET TO A POINT; SAID • Our Order No. GW221754-4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND: THENCE N. 78 DEGREES 56'08" W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL A DISTANCE OF 550.72 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE S. 02 DEGREES 27' 10" W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL A DISTANCE OF 273.18 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82; THENCE N. 78 DEGREES 56'10" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 65.35 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 7; THENCE N. 03 DEGREES 07'11" E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 7 A DISTANCE OF 1061.81 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE S. 81 DEGREES 17'42" E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 7 A DISTANCE OF 652.09 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING ON THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE N. 01 DEGREES 41'13" E. ALONG SAID NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 32 A DISTANCE OF 693.38 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE 1/4 CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 29 AND 32; THENCE N. 03 DEGREES 14'16" E. ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 29 ALSO BEING THE WEST LINE OF SAID SWI/4SE1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29 A DISTANCE OF 1368.86 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTH -CENTER 1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE S. 89 DEGREES 17'20" E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SW1/4SE1/4 A DISTANCE OF 1359.72 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHEAST 1/6 OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE S. 04 DEGREES 42'48" W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SW1/4SE1/4 A DISTANCE SOF 1378.02 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE EAST 1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29 AND SECTION 32; THENCE S. 88 DEGREES 58'50" E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 32 A DISTANCE OF 1323.90 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-1 (Requirements) The following are the requirements to be complied with: • Our Order No. GW221754-4 Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Proper instrumentds) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit: 1. A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED MUST BE PROVIDED TO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. WARRANTY DEED FROM MUMBERT CERISE FAMILY CO., A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO WINTERGREEN HOMES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. 3. DEED OF TRUST FROM WINTERGREEN HOMES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF GARFIELD COUNTY FOR THE USE OF MUMBERT CERISE FAMILY CO., A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO SECURE THE SUM OF 52,500,000.00. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. GW221754-4 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 of claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore 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. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office. 7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land. • Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. 9. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA. 10. WATER RIGHTS OR CLAIMS TO WATER RIGHTS. 11. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 08, 1898, IN BOOK 12 AT PAGE 471. 12. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1923, IN BOOK 138 AT PAGE 298 AND 299, RECORDED APRIL 17, 1917 IN BOOK 91 AT PAGE 310 AND RECORDED JUNE 22, 1965 IN BOOK 367 AT PAGE 147 13. THAT THE GRANT HEREBY MADE IS RESTRICTED IN ITS EXTERIOR LIMITS TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SAID MINING PREMISES, AND TO ANY VEINS OR LODES OF • QUARTZ OR OTHER ROCK IN PLACE BEARING GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR, LEAD, TIN, COPPER, OR OTHER VALUABLE DEPOSITS, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED WITHIN ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. G W 221754-4 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: SAID LIMITS SUBSEQUENT TO AND WHICH WERE NOT KNOWN TO EXIST ON MAY 20. 1920 AS FOUND IN PATENTS RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1923 IN BOOK 138 AT PAGE 298 AND 299. 14. THAT SHOULD ANY VEIN OR LODE OF QUARTZ OR OTHER ROCK IN PLACE BEARING GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR, TIN, COPPER, OR OTHER VALUABLE DEPOSITS, BE CLAIMED OR KNOWN TO EXIST WITHIN THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED PREMISES AT SAID LAST-NAMED DATE, THE SAME IS EXPRESSLY EXECUTED AND EXCLUDED FROM THESE PRESENTS AS FOUND IN PATENTS RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1923 IN BOOK 138 AT PAGE 298 AND 299. 15. THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF NECESSARY LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS, THE LEGISLATURE OF COLORADO, MAY PROVIDE RULES FOR WORKING THE MINING CLAIM OR PREMISES HEREBY GRANTED, INVOLVING EASEMENTS, DRAINAGE, AND OTHER NECESSARY MEANS TO COMPLETE THE DEVELOPMENT THEREOF AS FOUND IN PATENTS RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1923 IN BOOK 138 AT PAGE 298 AND 299. _6. EXCEPTING AND RESERVING, ALSO, TO THE UNITED STATES OIL, GAS AND POTASH IN THE LAND SO PATENTED, AND TO IT OR PERSONS AUTHORIZED BY IT, THE RIGHT TO PROSPECT FOR, MINE, AND REMOVE SUCH DEPOSITS FROM THE SAME UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE ACT OF JULY 17, 1914 (38 STAT. 509). AS RESERVED IN PATENT RECORDED JUNE 22, 1965 IN BOOK 367 AT PAGE 147. 17. EXCEPTING AND RESERVING, ALSO, TO THE UNITED STATES ALL THE SODIUM IN THE LAND SO PATENTED, AND TO IT OR PERSONS AUTHORIZED BY IT, THE RIGHT TO PROSPECT FOR, MINE, AND REMOVE SUCH DEPOSITS FROM THE SAME UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS, AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE ACT OF JULY 17, 1914 (38 STAT. 509), AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1933 (47 STAT. 1570), AS RESERVED IN PATENT RECORDED JUNE 22, 1965 IN BOOK 367 AT PAGE 147. 18. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED TO THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 2, 1975 IN BOOK 478 AT PAGE 221. 19. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 IN BOOK 842 AT PAGE 135 • AND IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 6, 1993 IN BOOK 861 AT PAGE 613. • ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. GW221754-4 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: 20. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 17, 1992 IN BOOK 850 AT PAGE 81. 21. ACCESS RIGHTS TO AND FROM COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82 AS FOUND IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 17, 1982 IN BOOK 850 AT PAGE 81 AND INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 6, 1993 IN BOOK 867 AT PAGE 946. 22. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 6, 1993 IN BOOK 867 AT PAGE 950. 23. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 24, 1993 IN BOOK 876 AT PAGE 414. NOTE: EXCEPTIONS NO. 11 THROUGH NO. 23 AFFECT GARFIELD COUNTY PORTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. . 24. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 1965, IN BOOK 187 AT PAGE 327. 25. ALL OIL, GAS, POTASH AND SODIUM AND THE RIGHT TO PROSPECT FOR, MINE AND REMOVE SUCH DEPOSITS FROM THE SAME UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE ACT OF JULY 17, 1914, (38 STAT. 509), AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1933 (47 STAT. 1570), AS RESTRICTIONS IN PATENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 3, 1965 IN BOOK 187 AT PAGE 327. 26. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 02, 1993 IN BOOK 623 AT PAGE 689. NOTE: EXCEPTIONS NO. 24 THROUGH NO. 26. AFFECT EAGLE COUNTY PORTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. . 27. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR ROADS, STREETS, HIGHWAYS, DITCHES, CANALS, IIPIPELINES AND UTILITY LINES AS CONSTRUCTED AND IN PLACE. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. GW221754-4 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: NOTE: UPON RECEIPT OF A SURVEY, MEETING THE ALTA MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CONTENT AND ACCURACY, THE EXCEPTION SHOWN ABOVE WILL BE DELETED. PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD ANY EXCEPTIONS IT DEEMS NECESSARY FOR MATTERS DISCLOSED BY SAID SURVEY. 28. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF GARFIELD COUNTY RESOLUION NO. ZBOA 98-1 RECORDED DECEMBER 02, 1998 IN BOOK 1101 AT PAGE 609. LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Required by C.R.S. 10-11-122 A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district. B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained from the County Treasurer's authorized agent. C) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder. or the County Assessor. Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left. right and bottom margin of at lease one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that. the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available(typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material -men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un -filed mechanic's and material -men's liens. D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless the above conditions are fully satisfied. • • Vicinity Map EXISTING SITE CONDI TI ONS A. General Cerise Ranch is an approximately 301 acre parcel located west of the Dakota Subdivision along Highway 82 in the Roaring Fork River Valley. The majority of the site is in Garfield County with a small portion at the east end being in Eagle County. The site is situated on the north side of the valley floor and lower slopes of the valley sides. Vegetation on the valley floor and edges consists of irrigated pasture grasses and weeds. Cn th slopes above the valley, vegetation consists of pinion and juniper trees and sparse weeds and brush. B. Zoning The existing zoning at Cerise Ranch is Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (A/R/RD). Cerise Ranch preliminary plan J: \SH.A99\99054\04Vx_cond.dwg itqf FeU 02 13:0L55 2000 • WINTERGREEN HOMES GAMUT) COUNTY, COLORADO CERISE RANCH EXISTING CONDMONS MAP DES. EPT , DR. EPT CIC NOE OATS 2-4-00 flLE:EX_COND HO, DATE BY • us t i ologd 8661 ` i.id l 1 sad. cdr rt, At; C7 • • (1q (1q X • s r CIG p 1'- • 1 i/ % 1 GARFT�D COUNTY EAGLE COUNTY XO(1 wn -°P non ' 88Eio yi:0b y LA 60 gl a.n`° S 0 O .auMO/3uagD aauuPId Purl JaauOu'H HAD M� pci 0-c •-4 ci) griA r LJ z r r� c9, pc1 • • • IL . Culi P CID cr) v once t perspective sketc" • • a) 0 a.) w' BO tba O p Lr. U U 0 O+U+ °� b" O•°,•:)-2, ° O o i o� ° �x z U �aa, o ° • ;.4 w `Z C ei cn U• cd p O .1:3 0.01; G O A "-cpA=a> gO,4 0 3 Qw°'o o 0. 4:2 d G cA w V2. O 1 0' B b 5 5nzO A b ai O ' aw'- Oy•0 tat) • UU U Q y• 18Q cU E <'d p ° U O ? 00 • acu 4CC g � t, og 4) vO . av w Qb'°al°a,• .o o°ai .x 4_'fd° ." bio��� $ 4 V) ZAE8cdv ►.�*,a�cd ►�► C" 0 v N i O 0) •v5. att 8 6. U b U V1 U + oo Ai A.cCaa) ci)cJ c°i�� H g8bU00. 4.10 SIGNS 1A A cn w bnCO �bo ct O CO 0 6. '8 a� rnb G � � 0 a'o • • • 1 v) a) 04b Co C7 0 A A a) cl)0 a, o Cii 0, 14 CI 0 cd §w u 023 °ti 4ca o �U v 4, 10 cz CI W A Ley �S !+ y Cl. to t. ,,,cii0 o P. W q q c� cA v�o ,, �3 o a o° o x g q 3 t.3) ''A B.Q U� °Fo oGQ'oa,� '� Z 4. . 0 4; 80 . a lc n. 0 c.) 0. ° C.) 0 0 :4 oj i 0 wz 4 CD,sClC7C4 aCa0 .14)01 `gwpaca3U4.n.CI0< Uc4U a4)>C) aE-0 W�cvrt�InccNoorn0� .1cvCl.r;�cotioOrn°• -1cvclt4.10. ��a)� .. (.) ri t4cNi cVNNNc,icvcvNc,i CO Cr) Cr) CO C*)MCriCrie')Mc'') di d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' coin 0 w nq cd p o >, 0 U -�10 Lil4.i ° b ❑ 0 'c o 7, :n W b o 0 0 wv 4 o . gr. o� A Cl.) (,) cu 0 a o m o to• ° oau o 0 b q.9vcc ° (,) r.,) $ 1-4 al o mnoo ob G a ..... 0 nno o Q. b5-8 ON at N nn ��x b; on •d�ao '°° to ;11�Wp A a 4.04 4.o ;� o a^' ° V 6 °','-1 o�nffn� nno 10 � o +8 4j w5° 0 �' oo'z'Gbeto 4-,° o as ° oo t,� b a, oo4.4 64 � ao a)cd nn c .. .g oa g 1 +r b. coo 4 a 'oM 01 �'°' oo 02 A to t1,0 �vi0 — o aN. nn8 °t 4E4.'go.4!'t-,y0UHH 0.o7:5 2 0 �� „� � fo i: -?00C v°'� � gcluiic S 3 g2a5 co Gz1cg0 G7 cn�°ova .4N cx —4 N M 0C4 N N N N N N N N N o 0 .0y o o 0 4., u ,v ,C7 tom.. a) E 5 y p c� cd . a� o o °t Co 0ao � Ao a , o b.o 8aod 1 t° . ' p p �0 ? v U U a• �4vcevy U ab o o U•O as ct v'V°b 76 o o-. t'o P o i 4 'a • (j cd o a (I)� °' ��• �A0 o y ,.0 6 0 .5 .o $.o o °o ' ab •.n,o n,c1.0 p 4 �, b o o1dag , bbU ' ' a) 0 �'o °:e v° aD,o1:3 b c °: o 0Wy qb UPbwCe. cn d 3 �°'*cc .0 0 0 yQ'5 vg ',vh ' a 0 0b ''° ° .. U 2 ) cuA i ji cut,C> o = c° •7) E'" d p4a z ° �a ,v 0 � 4U 0 o ga� va � N .g ua,3 ,g 'k u ! ! a c:164 0) 0) .5 (i) 0 0 -8 ' >'o ' oo°tea°Oti ,oaocotooscC .N0aoU°� ��°0 A0 1°%°.9."E.8,—,°° i 0 a o° o ad v °-0 i1.a) a) u) ° 661 w 5 aV ip�. ' d h .a ,° .4 . 0 , o., p U p 'daG a , 0.5 a, g4 o_Rt�0p aod4°gya) gyi'"v, nuOQ p 0 L.au«'d)o.0 0 a Oo yC��o+,U y . nn . ° p y ," 7 a � •d a.) ap :94) vi w G'�dpbva"b x o d' ^oo+�'oo 05,, ocd R0+9O ¢' O W O0 ,000 . �q O cd vA c., g a•P.o a)4aaCA0c)al as ,5 E g O3�b u) '2Z cn ‘. 0 G ° d ov4ao •� , o o x 0 o aCt 0a0°2�o oa=uoaOo› , c.) ��u • a ,o II a`�vo °'°fib °aa.n �4'�B �>...1:14ro B d>o pb�bo uocii, 0'0 : b. o AbANO oy000QNObAbU .x am Ypa) 0 tio, ug. 000g cp.,)1):.5.5.xm u 1°1!!'61°14" 00 •a� ° p a, a� a> o� �; `� o� .b .o.5;).'— b °A °n' au) F O a .0 co tu > ;c` co ' amu, • a� '� • . 7 o ,§ x § '° ' U . 721,5-47,...Vm1)1:;-)P 87.1,.s---51z4to v 0075 0 'd a _. 5,0 .o , = cd , ,o .«`� o ti o n'",o'd `� � ate, a� uo o � e u v � C � '� o �..�aa, Via. ou,a,°"'o9w;0>O,1 ���,��g o oo u�v9'i aaco 00 o�cb o rgD o a .O A l t a g'oln auo�19by ° '' W cQ abbo , w.s�,ao4m�b) >0a., 2 B Ea,Noct t iR., -u U �q �o co w oo O° bov� .�°°' �W a; ' w'Gas vn boa{nA�4r? o oaU0,, �, CC p o E-� .: c� G. ctS v a. o c� Ui,��, ai i6 'C3 u, ca B --,N M d! ilk' cc cc CD CD cj N N N CIO b U v, O 2 p az tO +7 � cLia v, a' w c° O .�' o d roab °= 0 o .0 aa.� '›,50 �nAos�y)�� .0 E'er a,4. wva;�a iP!' N. Q6. a, u, Dov cd �0 cu a) 7 06 50E .ct �, o a� I 6. 0 '�' "� w=Z• 054E- ohI 8.oa.0.2-vo 0�.o E. Og a bca� �� °,��a""a 0 •�a, 0 il5 4 o Gb co c' gOt!.1t)1 a. 0 141 it ° u g 41)1.5 a) cn �+ ' , o t b v ..; C) y a� v n cd cs x w a b G A a �, c� �o N a, o a, �o 3 � .0 o. A Q A Ga u w`55,9. 0.(2)..81,."88 uv 0 O. 0 F 8 •E 8 .71, N C7 .-i N .di 1E1 tD CD Gp (6 h N h CV N N CV N N N N C`1 o., ct O go -o.0 TI • U�g)too 71I., ct4 moo• o at .8 G U a) G c 0 w U K to cv :0u .ti 'a O o b� cu ai a v al 0 cu .. o cz. " Q v4a cnoa o5 5 � cd F. +: 44 m x A o 6o aE78 a, 0 Q L3� .d — U cn U �' ct U 4111V • Outdoor sculpture elements shall not exceed five feet in height. 0 o0) z g UU7 g A list of prohibited styles include: ci N. ( a, w v) t �'-14) z � cn cu a a. cn ob 5 a) �� ° �' cd' °c9 i g § -a p ) _i ce ,., a) '4 O vt .9 aQ 29.4a)4o� .a .1g Ti(53 t +>- a, , .0 0 0 J ° •-' a .4.) i y 4i ,c D w F. 5 'C Q o °. — o a ` U q '()O t).1) 1 0 y g 'o 'CS a o ,oa) o av G O G cd *) a•M�J aUo 'b4. .0 O +) G a) o U cCt'-' d -0 0 k a) OqO p > .4 ° ° o .2„.>)G '—o v od°Ti nU , �' u) 9 `O o .1 u)d a) ° O GR b b .0 c •�a, ���oa,� 5° > o" N Q wa�b ��s°° , pct ,0�poc L�. .0 rn °;74 o y p G>"d ° Qo �°'a)54) cna)>,°r .3Eu55 0�>Ecn to c..-. U o ,.,..op b�ovSip t v, 0 (c44 'a ""-.) ;, .) g 'S E = 4.) - v cn >1 .)6 ii ot.:00 cl),4 F 3b0 v '�. �. 5 E w., 5 V cd z a s �b�1Wo�z� �°a�H7 :�?1o,;h'q ¢uot%FU N a? ao W (7°,., 2., •' N N CN ci N N N N N Gabled -end Facing Street • One-story Covered Porches ciple Mass 1 1/2 -Two Stories Wood Siding or Shingles Shed or Hipped Porch Roofs Porch Railing a, uo 4 6 a ,. •o§: .ri� a, a, , v . b id 2 +'7 -C cg 4 4 .8 M cin flh � m O ga'' a,a,awa;OUwz 54 4. �cr' cn�.cd1"c�, �v,›,na)U b A CU :§k1 `lCOo nn .°a�UbAo 8 .oA.E/ R2 t ...(1., � a g >1 M �w f•�f uti g nq�00.��ot. am `4O o a -o E 0�4 `ho 0 m c aga, a, .5:50 '0 O m 2� ,im'1 w bno 9-4 C7 ' 0 b+0 k§ m A b 0 R x• 0 Ts U b A CV 4- 0 w, J.4 r. m x 8 • 4 w x Efl b o0 a, C.) 0.ca W 0 i� bA 0. 71 0 0 y n, U .0 c Al' ' a Q co U O U Steeply Sloping Main Roof (8:12-12:12) Full Width One -Story Front Porch Steep Pitched Gable or Low Pitched Lift -up Dormers 4 a, U U.x 60 a, .n .ti B ct O c� U a, 4 N voo 5 Steep -pitched Roofs (8:12-12:12) cC 0 0 N w. 0 054 ra0 o °¢, E a., 'o Qocu cn � 00�bA U G Q aov: an at a� 0 ,2 A v o Go act 'O o .D y ,0 .0 8 (ntag °'o x�Ca� .o 0, b., 0 aW$= ,. zonescn .0 o. ,6 two �b4.g. 4 1 Egg �3� cbA c a, . o0 cd 5 b C; O co E c: SU�, tea, �'Ua,�,bnrn o5 o . c ale ^, n cv• w :<. y.d o 'dA5 0 o o wboo a�,nFog1j3a • v P) mw. cn 1. Com /) dUjfl w . b a„, . o 'OA .f..) oAb• 0 ab�o a. ��oa) t'd 'd'0U w E),° Q /1 a .5 'a o .0 c.., 2,•)) cppcitf an icad O d +AU� ''tia) a, - ,° A(1‘2,+bb�oO �a'ao$aoa b.0 fY w:oc b�° o, Cn 4.: . • c! 1 § 0 °A o A o w5 '8 a ° ca t� O U o b� av 244.8�Oo W g a, 3 o a) W p cd . b m ... co N N M M C7 M C7 b a. al aa O cu6fl o cDal Ab. L 4, 7 �• o o o 0 a, a, o a� . a4 ki °o 'ap �°.�3 o 0"o 4; o G., G o° "o 0 co �565 �, 0>a. 0 ed a c,@'� o oo o v°k O o pO a, A•awg ix •g0 N o„: v�QaV -8a) = a31:3 °boO In +., •�O O �.,b°�°CI g tia, o�iot�� o ^ 1a,g�oAoa�0,„a;? o° _ N0Uom o0 g O G.La s k m p Etsu 4,— i :0 0 0 .8 _ ad an .0 .�'. alna''0•.,.•••,R2,40.)-(zv�''w°m`n o cu oaia b� 0cu o qCIE � o�a' 81, c.)(%Q0 $ . ns) k5 6�4.wbo° C�pa,�jxa+ a.) c-),... u 6. a i.. d ��a04.)=ac59.5a�o �o�o � 44 0 44-i oEo vi oo a, o oo$�,b ago o +� aq � 46 •o `6 v �'' o a .0 .� a cz 01 ;§ Tz § cd v Ti ” U v U o O O �' 0.7 ° n i 0 ci c:si (-•cu an O O^2 v 0 Cl)O4. O O O cd Z �� 0^" ai mw a w c�4', vA W E 'D UUcb� `� d w a: a, 6, .-i Cl M d; to CO N N N N N N Cl N Cv Cl, M M CO M M 0 w a a~ ate,. ESS 00 U 0 1) a-) Lt al _0,4) o ,.., .5 0 t A..> ;`1..) O .5 00oa 8E0N g.cu; m tvRG N — v «d 0 d A n °> 0 U cn O EctS d1s bA b 0 4 O ''„ ti 5 il!i! . tr.i gcli , O a U" 'd W CO 6A .6 vcC •v a, 0 A ��5�' ctS• CU U°°AT'" oo .rz•No 2 ' '(7)' P.. '„„ . ?....). •.., �b g °' coci.„_, . � Qo ��A OO�0 1 0...0 .,.., ,... b .01 ow . . . 2 °^ b A ti. 1-40 .tit)w�v .t4b °aOro O U 0 G �ai: ctb°o nn�a o ° G4 -�AO°r,o co v) ,6-, c4 0 n b 0 g ... v w. U 0� b° o a,0v ;-00a.� aoia aU p °d�ow°g bo.0 oao gEto v1 N N M M N M co) *'6. .0 mN 0� 4.., Vids�E c� 0 .0 ca to 0'c� Q. a �' b o 0 0�5 t-5�— 00.E 0�-aOO.notu.5 .0 �b �n� o ° .0 o .. 0 u z .. O :� a .� O 2 0 a w, C U :5 Ti cn ‘1 o icn 0 • t. w'c�OpS o 0 0 I. 4) O 7 w. b 9, p .r0° cd oOOb1:1 V igoO...D; G,., -. 0°O.+O•0q'vO , y0 °. n 8.0 413 O cn x '5 +•' 0 UC O I-. 0 a -. b cu n o a, 0 b b v0, - .0 -•- ° �� O b0 z ,5b A�°,G.nch oc oC U t +- b a0. q:0 t 00 A 'd b E „owzo0 6. 0 � ° • a q= oo cd ..0 'O rn a)�ca +, b 0 to N a, U +r 0 ui g , , ) g 5 : 0 t”' ab '0' I:! a b 000 u' Uxb 0boo Sg pU b 'qqmo 0 og g °a;'0 ° a ,0 =cC�'o0v LEft'tg'6. c:14 g 4 All colors are subject to DRC approval. 3.10 ACC a, e 5 • 0V � to b � � 4,0 � cd 44 4A o o Q a �n L.ct 4t o 0)E oto0 0 0 4 r•, a) A a) O cd V vO� gb C� �"r ° O 61 °0 .5 ,li a ,..,0 "e:64,4 qk":3' o - =n a) gc �aiteoaci U ,a o) ° p ab yw ocdU a x ")p1O U o + O O ) p t- '�, �n b a)a'1 O O 6 'a' Cd) • 70t -0 t = a v�' �* a.) -W u ru o m o +' � a W00 ao gtu ct q ,0 c,0 o cd°.0 o; '0; o v b8� Gv a)au 34ct atcga M 1.. a) a) a) 0t. Cil ,..1 a O U,*.+ aGm. a �o .0 .E1 o oo° O 0 000onao °'°�o�oO O A CG'a° �m E+ a).cd cd cu +., a) 0 4 °4a)a)ba) o0b.0 C/)Ob� Ua .o • t >, a)8c) to oQ' cd A .a .5 48 +arop•d ;142 O fli ga • c� 4nvp 0 U ° >,�> i, a a) '0.0 O o c°O my wO o .ict$ q �a)�: a ac° • ° ca. '&1 Q O Qr qpO om>, Q Opo6 O) G o 013 4 8 nn O U bse U''Ute0O �, a Ocu .0 O 1U)ii' ab cat p I1H1U U• ° . b�aa' nV a ?: a BoaEi o rd E0a)a) Uoa) 0 vabo4,Q° z cO jw8 0a g1 .g H) Q. g .° q ° a v a° ° › 0 v Ncz b av�H a) O 6 a) 'v) m ti vo ?� > E ,1:3 ,E e° >a A b ° 8 Cf) ° ' �oth7 a.qq 00 Cli u) G«tA Q , Ub U �o U U b 4 oFy.5 o o yOa) c:4A 0 t: a • Aa• O O " o ua O U a C_ a ENav a'>a' b Oy p a) 0 o a d as 3 ob.rv Z(A a)cup U oci U ii a)y "U, z !:. U O O aO— °) O0 Q 4 oz ° X.50 w 4 ( a) 0.0 ccs cnU0E O � ,-0 o +ry UU �vLa O ° y F, 0 ounoo• i 0 ggl g y. 6"O°00 ) .O l.Ct .E 40q+1 oQ� @a� .b�a to uv ch .. O o.0 a'an o as ¢'U o u 0� c�°�Q 00 0 ° � ' >, ; U O ',O y 5I. a) vUi • O �o o a) �o a) a) b w to O a) O 5 cts 0 . , oQ aA4Gc3°; g n 4. .0 cd0 •O ae'°�°� , 0.,,cs •0 `..c 4 ,...,1) .1) t 8 , ta t t)., :g to 6 g o . a i ' ! ' f) 20 ,a) i ti , ,g (8f - - - .11flE,y O v �..+ U O G U cg p a r•i O ti �,' RS v) +�° +V V1.°4'�. a)a).e..bv) �,�z°U O ��o °ooa O �� o0 o cd�°' w o� H U a t- 0v U aU U c5 v w c�.. 3 Uwtg¢ �U w t%) g o gZ o,g 0 '-4 CI M 4 d' d' d' • • • Cerise Ranch Memo TO: Jeff Laurien, Garfield County Planning Office FROM: The Land Studio, Doug Pratte DATE: 4/12/00 RE: Phasing Plan The following narrative has been submitted to clarify the Phasing Plan provided in the Preliminary Plan. Phase C)ne Lots 1- 6 & Lots 46 - 68 29 Lots Total All lots in phase one are illustrated on sheet 3 of 5 in the Preliminary Plat. A utility and drainage easement will be platted in phase one across the unplatted phase two property to service the phase one properties with water from the Willow well which resides in the southeast corner of lot 27. See sheet 5 of 5 of the Preliminary Plat for the location of this utility and drainage easement from lot 27. Common area easements will be platted across phase one lots as this phase is platted. Phase Two Lots 7 - 45 39 Lots Total All lots in phase two are illustrated on sheets 4 of 5 and 5 of 5 in the Preliminary Plat. Common area easements will be platted across phase two lots as this phase is platted Cerise Ranch preliminary plan rrtb-10-000 WCL' Uig, IU 1111 .)IL ULLi1iNvvV Ni ni„uu September 8, 1999 Mr, Art Kleinstein c/o The Land Studio P.O. Box 107 Basalt, CO 81621 Attention: Mr, Doug Pratte Subject: Radiation Survey' Cerise Ranch Garfield & Eagle Counties, Colorado Job No. GS -2852 Gentlemen: As requested, we performed a radiation survey of Cerise Ranch in Garfield and Eagle Counties, Colorado. The site was the subject of our previous report titled "Preliminary Geologic Hazard Evaluation and USDA Soil Conservation Data for Cerise Ranch, Garfield and Eagle Counties, Colorado." (CTL/Thompson, Inc. Job No. GS -2309, dated March 26, 1998.) This letter describes our survey procedure and presents the results of our radiation survey. On September 8, 1999 o ttir4 e In 1kJohn Mechling visited the site and performed a radiation survey. Our surveyon,sted of walkingalong length of the site in an east -west direction and observing radiatiomeasurements.eOur survey lines were through the part of the site shown on a conceptual plan to be developed with residential buildings. Radiation measurements were taken with a Ludlum Instruments, Inc. Model No. 19 Micro -R -Meter carried at arms length (approximately 2 feet above the ground surface). Radiation readings were observed by continuously glancing back and forth from the Micro -R -Meter to the line of travel, We observed radiation measurements that ranged from 18 to 21 microroentgens per hour. In our opinion, our data Indicates normal background radiation at this site. We appreciate the opportunitytowork with you on this project. If you have any questions, please call at your convenience. Very truly yours, CTUTHOMPSON, INC. Reviewed by: Wilson L. "Liv" Bowden C.P,G. John Mechling, P.C. Engineering Geologist Branch Manager LB:JM:db (3 copies sent) CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINE5RS 234 CENTER DfIVE 1 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 01601 $ (970) 945-2007 • February 3, 2000 Mr. Art Kleinstein c/o The Land Studio 123 Emma Road, Suite 204A Basalt, CO 81621 Attention: Mr. Doug Pratte Subject: Revised Geologic Hazard Evaluation Cerise Ranch Garfield & Eagle Counties, Colorado Job No. GS -2953 Gentlemen: IICTL/Thompson, Inc. has previously published the following reports for the subject site: 1. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Evaluation and USDA Soil Conservation Service Data for Cerise Ranch, Garfield and Eagle Counties, Colorado, CTL/Thompson, Inc. Job No. GS -2309, dated March 25, 1998; and 2. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Cerise Ranch, Garfield and Eagle Counties, Colorado, CTLlThompson, Inc. Job No. GS -2933, dated January 27, 2000. During ourfield investigation for our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation we identified the following geologic concerns not previously identified. 1. An approximately 41 acre, rectangular shaped parcel at the northwest part of the property has been added to the area addressed by our initial investigation. This additional section needs to be evaluated for geologic conditions and geologic hazards. 2. A rockfall hazard exists on and along the base of slopes at the north part of the site. 3. A debris flow hazard is associated with two alluvial fans in the north central and northeastern parts of the site. CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 234 CENTER DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • (970) 945-2809 • The following paragraphs present our Revised Geologic Hazards Evaluation for Cerise Ranch. Site Description Cerise Ranch is an approximately 466 acre parcel located in the Roaring Fork River Valley. The majority of the site is in Garfield County with a small portion at the east end of the property located in Eagle County. Catherine Store is approximately 1 mile to the west. Highway 82 is along the south property boundary with the Roaring Fork River beyond to the south. The Dakota, Eagle Dakota and Soderberg Subdivisions are adjacent to the southeast, east and northeast, respectively. Agricultural land is to the west. Land to the north has not been built on. A residence and agricultural operation with several barns, sheds and outbuildings is located on the west part of the property. The Roaring Fork River Valley trends from the east, down to the west in the vicinity of Cerise Ranch. The site is situated on the north side of the valley floor and lower slopes of the south facing valley sides. Ground surfaces drop steeply from the north down to the south on the valley sides, decreasing in steepness in a transition area at the edge of the valley and flattening on the valley floor. A small pond is on the east part of the property. Several irrigation ditches cross the property from east to west. Vegetation on the valley floor and edges consists of irrigated pasture grasses and weeds. On the. slopes above the valley, vegetation consists of pinion and juniper trees with a sparse undergrowth of weeds and brush. Proposed Development We understand the parcel is to be developed for single family residential usage. Approximately 67 Tots ranging between 2 and 10 acres each will be developed. The remainder of the site will be open space. Access to the lots will be provided by constructing approximately 10,000 lineal feet of roadway. Sewer service will be individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS). On some lots at lower elevations at the property ground water may be within 8 feet of the ground surface and standard percolation fields may not be appropriate. Feasibility of ISDS should be evaluated on a lot by lot basis. Water service will be centralized. Geologic Setting In our opinion, no geologic conditions or potential geologic hazards exist that will preclude development of the site. The property is underlain by bedrock consisting of the Pennsylvanian aged Eagle Valley Evaporite. The top of the slopes to the north of the site are capped with Quaternary to Tertiary aged basalt. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is exposed on the slopes above the valley floor. Quaternary aged colluvial deposits overlay the bedrock and thicken on the lower slopes towards the edge of the valley floor forming a colluvial wedge. On the valley floor, bedrock is covered with Quaternary aged terrace gravels deposited by the Roaring Fork River. Three coalescing alluvial fans are along the north side of the valley floor covering the terrace gravels. A map of interpreted MR. ART KLEINSTEIN CERISE RANCH JOB NO. GS -2953 2 • geologic units is shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 1. The Eagle Valley Evaporite consists of gypsum, anhidrite, halite and other evaporite minerals with interbedded siltstone and sandstone. The evaporite minerals have undergone plastic flow deformation due to overburden loading that has caused highly distorted and swirled bedrock orientation resulting in a highly varied heterogeneous geologic unit. Potential Geologic Hazards We identified several potential geologic hazards at the site that need to be considered when planning the development. Areas to be developed that are within geologic hazards areas will require mitigation. In our opinion, all of the potential geologic hazards can be mitigated using engineering and construction methods considered normal for this type of development in the locale. In our opinion, the geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards are similar to other developments in the area and typical of mountainous terrain. Potential geologic hazards include rockfall, ground subsidence (sink holes), debris/mud flows and potentially unstable slopes. Potential geologic hazards are delineated on Figure 2. A rockfall hazard is associate with the slopes along the north and east part of the site. The top of the slopes is capped with basalt rock underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is a poorly consolidated geologic unit that is very susceptible to weathering and erosion. As weathering and erosion progress, the basalt is undermined causing it to break off and slide and/or tumble down to the slopes producing a rockfall hazard. We did not observe rock outcrops with sufficient vertical relief to produce high velocity rockfalls. Our field observations indicate that the rocks appear to have migrated down the slopes via numerous episodes of sliding and tumbling for individual rocks. The rockfall hazard can be mitigated by providing a catchment structure such as a trench between the base of the slopes and proposed buildings. The trench would likely need to be on the order of 6 to 8 feet deep and 15 to 20 feet wide. A mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) berm could also provide mitigation. We recommend buildings in the rockfall hazard areas shown on Figure 2 be evaluated for rockfall hazards on a site specific basis when building plans are developed. Evidence of ground subsidence was observed in the southeast part of the property. Evaporite minerals in the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite are prone to being dissolved and removed by circulating ground water forming "solution cavities". Overburden soils cave into the solution cavities. When caving propagates to the ground surface, a sink hole can form or an irregular, rolling surface topography can develop. The presence of the evaporite minerals is random due to the highly variable nature of the geologic unit. We observed two well defined sink holes as well as areas of irregular surface topography in the subsidence area. In our opinion, the subsidence mechanism is strongly influenced by historic flood irrigation. Development of the site for the proposed residential usage will likely reduce flood irrigation and therefore reduce the amount of circulating ground water and potential for additional ground subsidence. Although the degree of risk of damage to structures cannot be completely eliminated, we believe that structures sited outside of the identified subsidence area will be subject to no greater risk than structures in other developments in the area in a similar geologic MR. ART KLEINSTEIN CERISE RANCH JOB NO. GS -2953 3 • • environment. The two alluvial fans to the east are not as active as they were in the past since their source basins have been "pirated" by the drainage feeding the western most alluvial fan. The western most alluvial fan appears to be the more active geomorphic feature. Potential debris/mud flow hazards are associated with each of the alluvial fans. We anticipate mitigation for debris/mud flows can be achieved with site grading to provide channelization and conveyance of debris/mud flows around and away from buildings. Sizing of mitigation should anticipate sediment loading of 40 to 50 percent in developing the site drainage plan. Site drainage structures need to be designed such that blockage and overflow do not occur. If further quantification of the magnitude of potential debris flows is needed, a drainage basin hydrologic analysis could be performed. A drainage basin hydrologic analysis is beyond the scope of this report. The slopes in the north part of the property are steep. A landslide was observed at the northwest part of the site. Excavation into the toe of the slide for a jeep road appears to have caused a slope failure. It appears the landslide may be active. Excavation into the landslide could cause reactivation of the slide mass and will need to be carefully evaluated. Subsurface drainage and retainage systems will likely be needed for any excavations into the landslide mass. Excavation into the landslide mass may not be feasible. Potentially unstable slopes are underlain by bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite with a mantle of residual and colluvial soils. Excavation into slopes steeper than approximately 30 percent is likely feasible, however, the slopes should be considered potentially unstable. In our opinion, excavation into slopes steeper than 30 percent should be addressed by a geotechnical engineer on an individual basis. We observed three adits (excavated tunnels) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. In our opinion, the adits were excavated to develop springs and are not the result of previous mining activity. The adits may present a safety hazard. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you require any further service or have questions, please call. Very truly yours, Wilson L. "Liv" Bowe' Engineering Geologi6j7 LB:JM:cd (8 copies sent) MR. ART KLEINSTEIN CERISE RANCH JOB NO. GS -2953 Review chling, P.E. anch Manager 4 6/13/98 1-111UL C vv 17.11upu u LL LL i .3J L..ct1 Environmental Consulting, LLC Doug Pratte The Land Studio 100 Ell: Run Drive, Suite 122 Basalt, CO 81621 Dear Doug, The following is my review of natural resources for the proposed Cerise ranch PUD. Executive Summary Slope aspect and altitude have a powerful influence over the distribution of plant communities in the Rocky Mountains. These two limiting factors also influence available moisture, length of the growing season, and effective day length. The Anderson Land Use and Land Cover Classification system developed by the US Geological Survey was utilized to map the Cerise Ranch land uses and plant community types. An aerial photograph acquired from the Natural Resource Conservation Service was used as the study base map (approximately 1 inch = 600 feet). Land uses were determined in the field and transferred to the base snap. Three types of plant communities /ecosystems were identified within the Cerise ranch study area. They include oak/seryiceberry shrubland, herbaceous pasture lands, and wetland communities. Based on the preliminary Cerise ranch sketch plan, the majority of the proposed development would occur on herbaceous pasturelands near the toe -of -slope that delineates the boundary between the two upland plant communities. Preliuninary review of wildlife resources. for the sketch plan phase. consisted of reviewing the Colorado Division of Wildlife's GIS wildlife database, and meeting with Kevin Wright and Rick Adams the DoW District Wildlife Managers. Based on the database, important wildlife habitat in the vicinity of Cerise ranch include Elk and Mule Deer migration corridors and winter range. The DoW would discourage the disturbance or impacts to oak/serviceberr\- plant conununities, and at the same time favor the institution of covenants which would protect wildlife activities in the vicinity of Cerise ranch. Introduction This report describes the variety and distribution of plant coinununities present at the Cerise ranch, which is an active cattle ranch located in Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). The results of this investigation will be utilized during the early planning stages of the planned united development (PUD) in order to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive natural resources. The proposed project is to develop a diverse community consisting of a variety of single family homes, to\ynnhonnes, condominiums, and an elementary- school site for the Roaring Fork School District. Descriptions of Mountain Ecosystems There are many factors that drive the distribution of ecosystems across the landscape. The term ecosystem refers to a unique assemblage of living organisms and their surrounding physical environment. The livMg and non -living therefore function as a single interacting unit (Mutel and Emerick, 1992). The term couuinunity refers to the living component of the ecosystem. Therefore, conununity boundaries in the Rocky Mountains help define ecosystem boundaries. PO Box 2467 Basalt CO 81621 970-963-8297 aantipaz@sopris.net • • • In the Rocky Mountains, slope aspect and altitude have a powerful influence over the distribution of plant communities. These two limiting factors also influence available moisture, length of the growing season, and effective day length. The following are brief descriptions of the community types identified in the vicinity of the base area of the Cerise ranch. Montane Shrublands and Herbaceous Rangeland Montane shrublands range in elevation from 5,500' to 10,000' (Mutel and Emerick, 1992). Dominated vegetation usually consists of Gambel oak, serviceberrv, greasewood, mountain mahogany, rabbitbush, and big sagebrush. These species can be found on the south facing hillside within the project area and are important Nvinter range for elk and mule deer. Wetlands and Riparian Ecosystems Wetland and Riparian communities are found throughout the montane forest communities ranging from 5,500' to 11,000' and are a critical link in maintaining the health of surrounding plant communities and wildlife. Typical vegetation consists of cottonwood, willows, alder, and birch. Plus, there is a wide variety of herbaceous species usually dominated by sedge and rush species. Wetlands provide water, food, and cover for all types of wildlife. In addition, wetlands protect water quality by filtering runoff before it reaches the rivers or streams. Wetlands also act as a sponge during high flows. absorbing water and then slowly releasing it back to the stream after storm events or spring snow melt. Because of the western slopes semi -arid climate water is an important limiting resource. Therefore, the protection of wetland communities is critical to the long term survival of most of the animals found here. Typically. the Army Corps of engineers requires 2:1 mitigation for impacts to wetland communities on the west slope. Study Methodology A land use and land cover classification systeni developed by the US Geological Survey (Anderson et al., 1976) was utilized to label ranch land uses and plant community types. A 1990 aerial photograph acquired from the Natural Resource Conservation Service was used as the study base map (approximately 1 inch = 600 feet). Numerous field visits were used to determine the aerial signature of the various plant communities in the study area. The approximate boundaries between the communities were sketched onto the base (Figure 2). Aquatic and Wetlands Consultants, Inc. and Andrew Antipas Ecological and Environmental Consulting, LLC have delineated wetlands in the study area and will provide a delineation report under separate cover. However, approximate wetland areas are shown in Figure 2 for preliminary planning purposes. Results Three types of plant corruuunities/ecosystems were identified within the Cerise ranch study area. They include oak/serviceberry shrubland, herbaceous pastureland, and wetland/riparian corrununities. Figure 2 illustrates existing land uses and the location of the plant communities throughout the study area. The wetland types found within the study area include emergent and wet meadows. Based on the preliminary sketch plan no wetlands would be impacted. Development would occur on the herbaceous pasturelands. However, if design plans change. impacts to wetlands will require Section 404 permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers prior to construction. A more complete discussion of the wetland resource in the study area is available under a separate cover. 7 • • 1 Oak/servicebeny shrublands are typically found on south facing slopes and are important winter habitat for elk and mule deer because they do not hold snow during the winter. Avoiding this community type will be valuable in preserving winter habitat for the native big game species. The herbaceous pasturelands have been created by agricultural activities in the valley. Historically, oak/serviceberry covered the pasture areas as well, but were removed when the valley was homesteaded. Much of the pasturelands on the Cerise ranch have been flood irrigated for many years and it appears that some of the poor draining and low lying areas have become wetlands. It is also possible that the construction of the 4 lane portions of highway 82 may have lead to the present drainage condition and wetland formation. A meeting was held with Kevin Wright and Rick Adams of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DoW) on May 26, 1998 to review and discuss the proposed development. Based on this meetings with the DoW, the piJposed development will have impacts to elle and mule deer winter range. An increase in humans and their pets have the potential to disturb the elk and mule deer during the winter when food supplies and the animals energy reserves are low. In addition, the DoW has been monitoring the movements and activity of a female mountain lion and her cubs. The DoW intends to leave the mountain lions alone and educate the community to their presence. The DoW recommend limiting the number of pets in the development. Dogs and cats should be restrict to kennels or kept in doors and not allowed to run free. A complete discussion of the DoW recommended wildlife mitigation strategies are included in the meeting summary, which is included in the appendix. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DoW) GIS database was reviewed and a suminary form is also in the appendix. The database indicated that big game species such black bear, elk, and mule deer have important habitat in and adjacent to the study area. Conclusions Plant and wildlife communities are closely linked and make up the living portions of ecosystems. Therefore, impacts to plant communities will have a corresponding affect on wildlife. If the development plan can avoid impacting the oak/ sagebrush habitat, impose pet restrictions, and institute a residential education program we will have addressed the Division of Wildlife's concerns. Please call me with your questions and comments or if you need additional information. Vent' Truly yours, 471, Andrew Antipas Literature Cited Anderson. J. R., R. Anderson, E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Witmer. 1976. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Reunote Sensor Data. U. S. Geological Survey, Alexandria, Virginia. 28 pages. Mutel, C.F. and J.C. Emerick. 1992. Froin Grassland to Glacier. 2nd Edition. Johnson Books, Boulder. 3 Garfield County Planning Department GIS Resources Rob Hykys, GS Analyst, gatcopin©rot.net 970.945.8212, FAX: 970.945-T785 6/1/98 1118 AM COLORADO DMSION OF WILDLIFE DATA (1:24K), one contiguous county -wide coverage. UTM meters, -4,000 km y -shift. 1998 (By agreement with CDOW, digital source data can not be shared.) Wildlife habitat lies: Entirely Partly Within 1 Out in Area in Area Mile of Area Bald Eagle Active Nest Site Bald Eagle Winter Range Black Bear Overall Range Black Bear Human Conflict _ Black Bear Fall Concentration Area _ Black Bear Summer Concentration Area Bighom Migration Patterns _ Bighom Overall Range Bighom Winter Range _— Bighorn Winter Concentration Area Bighorn Summer Range Bighorn Production Area Boreal Toad Canada Goose Brood Concentration Area Canada Goose Feeding Area Canada Goose Production Area Canada Goose Wintering Area _ Canada Goose Winter Concentration Area Chukar Colo River Cuthroat Trout Elk Migration Corridors Elk Winter Range Elk Winter Concentration Area Elk Severe Winter Range Elk Overall Range Elk Summer Range Elk Summer Concentration Area Elk Production Area Golden Eagle Nest Site Golden Eagle Nest Unknown Status Great Blue Heron Nesting Area Kitfox Potential Habitat Kitfox Field Sightings Lynx Mule Deer Migration Pattems Mule Deer Winter Range _— Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Mule Deer Overall Range Mule Deer Summer Range Mule Deer Resident Population Area Mule Deer Hi hway Crossing Native Fish (3 si7c5) Osprey Active Nest Site Peregrine Falcon Active Nest Peregrine Falcon Nesting Area 4.7 J- • • • Wildlife habitat lies: Peregrine Falcon Miaratory Huntinn Habitat Pronghom Antelope Overall Range Pronghom Antelope Winter Range Pronghorn Antelope Winter Concentration Area Ptarmigan Potential Habitat Raptors Razorback Sucker River Otter Overall Range Sage Grouse Brood Area Sage Grouse Overall Range Sage Grouse Production Area Sage Grouse Winter Area Wild Turkey Overall Range Wild Turkey Production Area Wild Turkey Winter Range Wild Turkey Winter Concentration Area • Wild Turkey Roosting Sites Willow Flycatcher Potential Significant Habitat Wolverine Possible Sighting Entirely Partly Within 1 Out in Area in Area Mile of Area 2 i -w ureal hiILlpas Lwluglun UL Environmental Consulting, LLC Meeting Suinniary Meeting Date: 5/26/98 Project: Preliminary Planning for the Cerise Ranch Participants: Rick Adams, CO Division of Wildlife Kevin Wright, CO Division of Wildlife Doug Pratte, The Land Studio Andy Antipas, Ecological & Environmental Consulting, LLC Prepared by: Andy Antipas on 6/1/98 The meeting began at approximately 3:00 PM at the Park and Ride adjacent to Catherine's Store along Highway 82. Mr. Pratte reviewed the project sketch plan and discussed the need for a waste water treatment plant near the Roaring Fork River. Mr. Wright explained that the Cerise property falls under Mr. Adams jurisdiction and all future correspondence should be directed to him. The Division of Wildlife concerns were as follows: • Eliminating or severely restricting dogs in this area is critical. Dogs should be limited to one per household. When outside, dogs should be leashed or in a kennel. Kennels should have a roof to insure containment of the dogs and to keep wildlife out. Pet owners who allow there dogs to run free should be fined and fines should double with each offense. • Cats should be kept in doors or kenneled because of their threat to song bird populations. Free ranging house cats will prey on songbirds and small mammals. • Homeowner association covenants should included clauses which prevent wildlife protection measures from being changed without permission of the DoW. • Dead wildlife (deer) removal is the responsibility of the homeowner. Winter kills and highway injured animals will be a common in the project area. • There should be no perimeter fencing which would interfere with wildlife movements. Fencing between the homes and open space should consist of 30 inches of mesh with a barbed kick wire at the top or an alternate approved by the DoW. • Down lighting should be utilized in the development to protect evening wildlife activities. • Preserve a wildlife corridor so the deer have access to the open space. • The proposed development will be adjacent to active mountain lion home range. A female lion and her cubs have been observed in Missouri Heights and the hillside adjacent to the Cerise ranch. Homeowners should be aware of this and the DoW has no plans to remove the lions from the area. • • Hay piles must be enclosed in order to discourage feeding by deer and elk in the open - Pspace. PO Box 2467 Basalt CO 81621 970-963-8297 aantipas@sopris.net • • • • The 40 plus acre parcel above Richard Cerise's house is a migration corridor for elk and deer and should be kept as open space. The construction of a water storage tank would not significantly impact the area for animal migration. • Areas that are disturbed need to be revegetated as soon as possible to reduce soil erosion. Many of the gullies along the hillside will run Ivith Nvater during stone events. • An environmental education program which included brochures and interpretive signs throughout the proposed village will help property owners minimize impacts to wildlife and visa versa. • Sagebrush/scruoak plant communities should be avoided because they are valuable winter habitat for elk and deer. The sketch plan illustrated home sites above the northern most inTigation ditch which contains sagebrush and gambel oaks. If would be best for wildlife if these homesites could be moved below the irrigation ditch. • During construction of the development, construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs to the site. Typically, these dogs are unsupervised for most of the day. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:20 PM. Andrew Antipas Ecological & Environmental Consulting will proceed on this report. Any discrepancy should be brought to his attention in writing within seven (7) days of the report preparation date. • Cerise Ranch Land Uses b ca CP E Lei b 4. Forest land FIGURE 2 0 E c a8 C N 4.1O. a.) C 0 C • 1 1 FROM : AMDREW ANT IPAS ECOLOGICAL FAX NO. : 9707040305 =rte her iter STATE OF COLORADO ON owMs. Govwsex DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RE DURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE John W. Mumma, Director EOM afo.oN.,l DwTMer, Colorado ewe Twee► =s) 297-1182 TO: Andrew Antipaa FROM:Eric Schaller, CDOW RE: Cerise Rauch meeting Jan. 24 2002 04:49PM P2 970-524-2255 p,2 01/18/00 For f;'ild/ife- For Propl This letter is to confirm our dissuasions regarding the Cerise Ranch meeting between you, Doug Pratte and myself on December 7al, 1999 In. that meeting a number of the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW) concerts were discussed, with posstbie options to *void, or in some asses mitigate tile impacts caused by the proposed deveiopmeat. Location of building envelopes seemed to he the issue needing the most attention, however, a number of other topics were also discussed. My recollection of discussionswagreements made during the meeting are as follows: 1) Lots 44.47 would be reconsidered as to the need to have them located Oct the upper puaion/juniper bench. The CDOW' a preference is to not btn7d on any of the P/7 slopes is this area as they are used for winter range by deer and elk. If the developer deemed that these lots were necessary- for whatever reason, agreement was made to cluster the building sites more righty and to avoid any building/development overlooking the draw to the north and cast of this area (site of the potential water tank), 2) The need to reove/remove lot 48 was discussed in order to avoid the riparian and wetland areas within that lot. 3) Lots 49.63 and 1.22 were discussed and deemed to have minimal wildlife impacts. In fact, if other lots needed to be moved, higher densities in the areas occupied by these lots would not be detritveatal from a wildlife perspective given the current condition and use of these areas. 4) It was felt that the location/deasity oflots 37-43 would have minimal impacts on wildlife considering the present condition and use of these areas. 5) The location of lots 23-36 were also discussed with the CDOW having concerns with the development of these sagebrush flats. Agreement was made to move the iota and building envelopes lower down the slope to the edge ofthe meadow to mmintize impacts by these tots. 6) The divided road 'issue was also discussed. 7) The location of lots 65.67 and concerns about their impacts to wetlands were dismissed. My recollection is that these lots might not be pursued by the developer (for geologic or other reasons) and that ifthey were, their location would be placed in a manner as to not impact any wetlands by DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL, RE&OURCE6. Crop Weimer, ExeCubveDireaca WILDL!F£ COMMISSION, Cfrtek I.en7s, Chairman • Marti .1Vaby. Vico-Chairman • Barest,' L, Stack Jr.- &crew) Rick Enetom, Member *Philo Jamas Merv:ex • WsrisVn Rat'.epeutoc. mast aw An -cid Salaam Member • 8vb Shoemekar• Member • • • FROM : A DREW ANTIPAS ECOLOGICAL FAX NO. : 9707040305 Jan 24 UO 03:410 Eric Schaller Jan. 24 2002 04:50PM P3 970-524-2255 p.3 their location or the access road to them. 8) The agricultural open space in the meadow was discussed ac to its proposed uses and the possb$ities to enhance this area for wildlife. The erection of fencing to exclude grazing, development of ponds, and restoration of Blue Creek which runs through he property were all discussed. 9) The establishment of a wildlife mitigation trust fund or real estate transfer fcc to be used to mitigate for wildlife impacts on site or adjaccnunear this site was discussed. Agreement was made to look into past dcvelopmeats that have used such options and to present these possibilities to the developer for their consideration. 10) it was obvious to all parties that significant weed control would be needed on this property. 1 1)The need to remove old barbed wire fencing en the property was agreed upon. 12)Cther general suggestions by the CROW in prior 000mueats seemed to be well received with agreement to incorporate the majority of them. To the best of my recollection, these were the issues discussed at that meeting • Response to Division of Wildlife Letter dated 01/18/00 The applicant has reviewed the Letter from Eric Schaller with the CDOW and has developed the following responses to his letter: I tem 1. Lots 44-47 have been reduced from 4 lots to 3 lots and those 3 lots have been clustered around a shorter cul-de- sac in an effort to avoid development overlooking the draw to the north and east of this area. I tem 2. Lot 48 has been moved to the other side of the drainage away from riparian and wetland areas. • Item 3. Lots 49-63, and 1-22 have not been moved. I tem 4. Lots 37-43 have not been moved. I tem 5. The upper road has been eliminated resulting in all building envelopes being lower down the slope and now fronting on the lower road. Item 6. The divided road has been eliminated. I tem 7. Lots 65-67 have been moved farther away from wetlands than originally shown. Item 8. • The applicant is willing to use fencing to discourage grazing. Development of ponds in the common area has been included as an allowed use and may be addressed by the Homeowners Association. For restoration of Blue Cerise Ranch preliminary plan • • • I tem 9. x Creek see I tem 9. The applicant will establish a wildlife mitigation trust fund to be used to mitigate for wildlife impacts on site or adjacent to the site. The applicant will contribute $100.00 per unit to the wildlife mitigation trust fund upon the sale of each unit. Use of the trust fund money will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. Cerise Ranch preliminary plan • Gtech • • January 26, 2000 Cerise Ranch c/o Wintergreen Homes Attn: Art Kleinstein 77 Metcalf Road Avon, Colorado 81620 Hepworth -Paw lak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com Job No. 100 106 Subject: Percolation Testing, Proposed Cerise Ranch Residential Development, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Kleinstein: As requested, we conducted percolation testing at the subject site to evaluate the feasibility of individual septic disposal systems. The work was performed in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical services to Cerise Ranch c/o High Country Engineering dated December 30, 1999. A profile pit and a percolation pit were dug at 16 locations throughout the proposed development area with a rubber tired backhoe. The tests were generally conducted in the lower part of an assumed building area on the lots at the approximate locations shown on Fig.1. The subsoils encountered in the pits were variable and consist of silty clays and silty to clayey sand and gravel with cobbles. The logs of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. Groundwater was encountered in Pits 8, 9 and 16. Seepage was encountered in Pit 6 at 31 feet. Percolation tests were performed in hand dug holes (about 1 foot deep by 1 foot in diameter) at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits. The percolation tests were performed by a representative of Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The percolation holes were soaked the day before testing and covered with foam insulation for protection against freezing overnight. The profile pit and percolation test results are summarized below. • • • Cerise Ranch January 26, 2000 Page Profile Pit/Percolation Rate Summary Pit Pit Depth (ft) Depth to Groundwater (ft) Percolation Rate (min/in) 1 8 NE 45 2 8 NE 20 3 8 NE 13 4 8 NE 60 5 81/. NE 70 6 9 NE (seepage at 31/2) 120 7 8 NE 24 8 8 7 9 9 8 71/. 15 10 8 NE 30 11 8 NE 30 12 8 NE 4 13 8'h NE 30 14 8 NE 15 15 8 NE 30 16 8 7 120 The measured percolation rates were typically in the acceptable range of 5 to 60 minutes per inch for an infiltration system. The slow percolation rate at Pit 16 could be due to large rocks and not representative of the overall gravel alluvium. • • • Cerise Ranch January 26, 2000 Page 3 Based on our findings, the tested areas generally appear suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. There could be localized conditions such as slow percolation rates and groundwater that will require engineered disposal system. Tested area which encounter groundwater may require a mounded system. The subsurface profile, percolation rates and groundwater conditions should be evaluated on a site specific basis for the final septic disposal system design. This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at the locations indicated on Fig. 1 and to the depths shown on Fig. 2, the proposed type of construction, and our experience in the area. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for feasibility purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to our findings. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK STFQ•. 1%5222 6 / 43,0 !�s 0�'il.taG�J cc: The Land Studio - Attn: °'att tiy1 Steven L. Pawlak, P.E SLP/ksm High Country Engineering - Attn: Eric Tuin • • HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I PERCOLATION TFCT RFcl ii Tc JOB NO. 100 106 s a ow ac oe pits and soaked on January 10 or 11, 2000. Rigid insulation was used to protect the test holes against freezing overnight. The percolation tests were performed on January 11 or 12, 2000. The average percolation rate is based on the last two to three readings on each test. , , V V V L 1 V rage - I ot b HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P-1 35 15 11 10 1 10 9 1/2 1/2 9 1/2 9 1/2 9 8 1/2 1/2 8 1/2 8 1/2 8 7 3/4 1/4 7 3/4 7 1/2 1/4 45 P-2 38 15 7 1/4 5 2 1/4 5 3 3/4 1 1/4 3 3/4 2 3/4 1 water added 2 3/4 2 3/4 6 1/2 4 1/2 2 4 1/2 3 1/2 1 31/2 3 1/2 26 P-3 36 15 12 9 1/2 2 1/2 9 112 7 3/4 1 3/4 7 3/4 6 1/2 1 114 6 1/2 5 1/4 1 1/4 5 1/4 4 1 1/4 4 3 1 13 P-4 40 15 12 11 1/2 1/2 11 1/2 11 1/2 11 10 1/2 1/2 10 1/2 10 1/2 10 9 3/4 1/4 9 3/4 9 1/2 1/4 9 1/2 9 1/4 1/4 60 NOTE: Percolation tests were hand dug in the bottom ofh II b kh s a ow ac oe pits and soaked on January 10 or 11, 2000. Rigid insulation was used to protect the test holes against freezing overnight. The percolation tests were performed on January 11 or 12, 2000. The average percolation rate is based on the last two to three readings on each test. • HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 100 106 Page 2 of 5 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) P-5 37 15 water added WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) 12 9 1/2 WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) 9 1/2 7 3/4 DROP 1N WATER LEVEL (INCHES) 2 1/2 1 3/4 7 3/4 9 7 3/4 6 1/4 7 3/4 6 3/4 1 1/2 1 1/4 1 6 3/4 6 6 5 1/4 3/4 3/4 5 1/4 4 1/2 P•6 24 15 10 9 7/8 3/4 1/8 AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) 20 9 7/8 9 3/4 1/8 9 3/4 9 1/2 1/4 9 1/2 91/4 1/4 9 1/4 9 1/8 1/8 9 1/8 9 1/8 9 8 7/8 P-7 45 15 water added water added 9 1 3/4 1/8 120 7 1/4 8 112 7 3/4 3/4 10 1/4 8 3/4 1 1/2 8 3/4 8 3/4 8 7 1/2 1/2 7 1/2 6 3/4 3/4 6 3/4 6 1/4 P-8 46 15 water added water added 9 3 1/2 1/2 5 1/2 9 3/4 7 3/4 2 10 1/2 8 1/4 2 1/4 8 1/4 6 1/2 1 3/4 6 1/2 4 3/4 1 3/4 4 3/4 3 1 3/4 3 1 1/2 1 1/2 24 9 N., �. widuun tests were nand dug in the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and soaked on January 10 or 11, 2000. Rigid insulation was used to protect the test holes against freezing overnight. The percolation tests were performed on January 11 or 12, 2000. The average percolation rate is based on the last two to three readings on each test. • • • HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE! PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 100 106 NOTE: Percolation tests were hand dug in the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and soaked on January 10 or 11, 2000. Rigid insulation was used to protect the test holes against freezing overnight. The percolation tests were performed on January 11 or 12, 2000. The average percolation rate is based on the last two to three readings on each test. Page 3 of E HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN. P-9 44 15 water added 10 8 1/4 1 3/4 INCH) 8 1/4 5 3 1/4 11 1/4 9 3/8 1 7/8 9 3/8 8 1/4 1 1/8 8 1/4 7 1/2 3/4 7 1/2 6 1/4 1 1/4 61/4 51/4 1 15 P-10 48 15 9 7 1/4 1 3/4 30 7 1/4 6 1/2 3/4 6 1/2 5 1/2 1 5 1/2 4 3/4 3/4 4 3/4 4 3/4 4 3 1/2 1;2 3 1/2 3 1/2 3 2 1/2 1/2 P-11 46 15 11 1/2 10 114 1 14 30 10 1;4 9 1/8 1 1/8 9 1/8 8 1/4 7/8 8 1/4 7 3/8 7/8 7 3/8 6 3/4 5/8 6 3/4 6 1/8 5/8 6 1/8 5 5/8 1/2 5 5/8 5 1/8 1/2 NOTE: Percolation tests were hand dug in the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and soaked on January 10 or 11, 2000. Rigid insulation was used to protect the test holes against freezing overnight. The percolation tests were performed on January 11 or 12, 2000. The average percolation rate is based on the last two to three readings on each test. 4 1/4 3 1/4 5 1/4 4 3 2 1 3/4 1 1/2 1/2 1/2 3/4 5/8 5/8 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 JOB NO. 100 106 Page 4 of 5 AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) 4 30 1 1/2 1 1 1/4 1 1/4 1 1 1 15 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) P-12 P-13 40 41 2 15 6 1/2 5 3/4 4 3/4 4 1/4 3 3/4 9 1/2 8 3/4 8 1/8 7 1/2 7 6 1/2 6 WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) 5 3/4 4 3/4 4 1/4 3 3/4 3 1/4 8 3/4 8 1/8 7 1/2 7 6 1/2 6 5 1/2 DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) P-14 43 5 water added 8 7 7 6 1/4 6 1/4 5 3/4 5 3/4 4 1/4 6 1/2 5 1/4 4 3 2 • • HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 1 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS NOTE: Percolation tests were hand dug in the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and soaked on January 10 or 11, 2000. Rigid insulation was used to protect the test holes against freezing overnight. The percolation tests were performed on January 11 or 12, 2000. The average percolation rate is based on the last two to three readings on each test. • • HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 100 106 NOTE: Percolation tests were hand dug in the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and soaked on January 10 or 11, 2000. Rigid insulation was used to protect the test holes against freezign overnight. The percolation tests were performed on January 11 or 12, 2000. The average percolation rate is based on the last two to three readings on each test. rage 5 of 5 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P-15 37 15 9 1/2 7 3/4 1 3/4 30 7 3/4 6 1/2 1 1/4 6 1/2 5 1/2 1 5 1/2 4 1/2 1 4 1/2 4 1/2 4 3 1/2 1/2 3 1/2 3 1/2 3 2 1/2 1/2 P-16 34 15 10 9 3/4 1/4 120 9 3/4 9 1/2 1/4 9 1/2 9 1/4 1/4 NOTE: Percolation tests were hand dug in the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and soaked on January 10 or 11, 2000. Rigid insulation was used to protect the test holes against freezign overnight. The percolation tests were performed on January 11 or 12, 2000. The average percolation rate is based on the last two to three readings on each test. • II `1 r,° \ \ 1 ,'moi,,// '\,, ,. \\x‘,.\ \\s'i ik„,:sk:,\ .\.,.lit‘\.\\V,\X ‘1.latk\\\*: It \ \::• \\\ \NIV, Ir.i \imk\N\ • ' WNTERGREEN HOMES GARFIELO COUNTY. COLORADO CERISE RANCH PREUMNARY SITE PLAN Fig. 2 4111- ° y 0 L L c a) 0 5 10 PIT 1 FIT 2 PIT 3 PIT 4 PIT 5 ELEV. = 6536' ELEV. = 6403' ELEV. = 6339' ELEV. = 6355' ELEV. = 6346' / � J • /2114 / / / / / _J _J - _J 7-1-••-r PIT 6 PIT 7 PIT 8 PIT 9 PIT 10 ELEV. = 6346' ELEV. = 6354' ELEV. = 6351' ELEV. = 6361' ELEV. = 6418' • 10 5 / / / / / / / / f / / / / 0 5 10 0 5 10 ?IT 11 PIT 12 PIT 13 PIT 14 PIT 15 PIT 16 ELEV. = 6361' ELEV. = 6412' ELEV. = 6367' ELEV. = 6413' ELEV. = 6413' ELEV. = 6360' 10 / / f / / / / J NOTE: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3. 0 5 10 Depth — Feet 100 106 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 3 LEGEND: 411111 TOPSOIL; silt and clay, organic, moist, medium stiff, dark brown, upper portion frozen in Pits 6, 9, 11 and 13. CLAY (CL); silty, slightly sandy to sandy, soft to stiff, moist to wet, light brown, porous, occasionally clacareous. SAND (SM); silty to clayey, gravelly to very gravelly, occasional cobbles, medium dense, moist, brown, porous. GRAVEL (GM); silty to clayey, sandy, with cobbles and occasional boulders, medium dense, slightly moist, light brown, basalt rock. Colluvium. GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GP—GM); sandy, slightly silty and clayey, medium dense to dense, moist to wet below groundwater, brown, rounded to subrounded river rock. 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample. Disturbed bulk sample. Free water level in pit at time of excavating. Water seepage into pit at time of excavating. NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on January 10 and 11, 2000 with a backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were provided by High Country Engineering. 3. Elevations of the exploratory pits were provided by High Country Engineering. Logs are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. • 100 106 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS • • • SEWAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERISE RANCH Due to recent concerns in Garfield County regarding traditional Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) and the potential for these systems to reduce the quality of surface and shallow ground water, Cerise Ranch proposes that all 68 lots be required to provide Secondary Treatment of their wastewater, through an Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS). An ISTS treats wastewater aerobically, maximizing the oxygen level in the system to enhance bacterial growth. The abundance of bacteria then digest the wastewater and break down the harmful pollutants. There are many different types of aerobic systems available on the market today and each system employs a unique method of treatment. Aerobic treatment systems use technology such as Sequencing Batch Reactors, Activated Sludge, and Trickling filters or a combination of these processes to achieve the desired quality of discharged water or effluent. Most systems have options for further treatment such as denitrification, disinfection, and even treatment up to drinking water standards in the extreme case. Since aerobic systems require oxygen as an essential part of treatment, they use mechanical pumps, compressors, motors and electronics to maintain ideal conditions for bacterial growth. Because of the mechanical components, these systems are more expensive to purchase, install and maintain. Therefore, all of the systems installed on Cerise Ranch will be required to have bi-annual tests and routine maintenance to insure that each system functions properly. These systems can even be designed with a remote warning system so that if there is a problem, a technician will be notified and the problem can be fixed immediately. The Colorado Department of Health (CDOH) has approved various systems that meet the NSF International Standard 401 (ANSI/NSF 40 —1999) for Residential Wastewater Treatment Systems. Although some of these systems treat water to a quality that could be released safely into surface water drainages, the CDOH does not allow this type of discharge. CDOH requires that these systems discharge into an absorption field similar to a traditional ISDS. This type of release will further treat the effluent before being returned to the environment. In summary, Cerise Ranch will require as a minimum: • An engineered ISTS and subsurface drain field for each lot. • All ISTS systems shall meet the minimum requirements of ANSI/NSF 40 • System sized by the engineer or manufacture adequate to treat the wastewater produced by the lot ' NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) International Standard 40 is available at: http://www.nsf.org/publications/ t STATEMENTS REGARDING GRADING, ROADS AND UTILITIES CERISE RANCH PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL February 3, 2000 UTILITIES: Shallow Utilities: Electrical service will be provided by Holy Cross Electric. Phone service will be provided by U.S. West. Natural Gas Service will be provided by KN Energy. Water: Water will be provided by a well (or wells) and pumped to a 300,000 gallon storage tank. The tank would be located at elevation 666± and will provide working pressure at the highest fire hydrant of approximately 20 psi. 411 Fire flow protection provided by the tank will be 1500 gpm for two hours. Hydrants will be located as shown on the utility plan. • Sewage Disposal: Sewage disposal will be provided by individual sewage treatment systems. Location of Utilities: - All standard rural utilities are already available adjacent to the site, including underground electric and telephone. Extensions can easily be made to service each proposed lot. We understand that copies of this plat will be submitted to these utilities by the County and comments will be requested. GRADING AND ROADS: Grading - No mass over -lot grading is proposed by the developer, and none is envisioned to be necessary. Roads/Traffic - All lots will have access directly to a public right-of-way. All roadways within the project will be public access roads privately maintained by the HOA, and will be built to Garfield County roadway standards. Plan and Profile drawings for the major access roads for the subdivision are included with this package. All roads within the subdivision will be maintained and repaired, including snowplowing by the HOA. Surfacing on all roads within the subdivision will be asphalt with the paving section as required by the geotechnical engineer. • • • Offsite Roadway Improvements - The developer will be making substantial widening improvements to SH 82. Improvements will include both left and right turn accel / decel lanes with associated tapers. The improvements are reflected on the plans. LEGAL ACCESS: This subdivision is accessed via SH 82 from which the single access road enters the property. In the event of need for emergency access to the site a separate emergency access road will be constructed near the east boundary of the project. Highway access permits for both accesses have been submitted to the state for approval. A copy of the submittal package to the state is included with this package. PROPOSED USES: The proposed uses for the property will be single family residential lots. DRAINAGE ON SITE See the attached Drainage Study prepared by High Country Engineering, Inc., dated April 25, 1997. • • dileL"�NG/NEE. PING DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM AND FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS FOR THE CERISE RANCH SUBDIVISION GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO HCE JOB NUMBER: 99054.01 Prepared for: Wintergreen Homes Art Kleinstein P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 January 26, 2000 923 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone 970 945-8676 *far 970 945-2555 14 Inverness Drive East, Ste 13-144 Englewood, CO 80112 phone 303 925-0544 • jar 303 925-0547 Project COME +'c Job No. `1 9DSyJ2L- By1-1J Date 1 2!1 '' Ck'd by Date Subject W (NTE Page of ITER r` /6O �) c 8,15c 7� f/v.D LC. U MJ i -� z?P&/7 2--R1Z r/7ro.A./ Ozoo • v r O o, (3) IZo 1Lo,go • FLRE FoR 2 i- ooes orNDem X Eng Olvy — 3C0 Goo 2 1 Zo vvw I,491T:.: 1 L j 4. ...-41,N4A re,.—. -4 i. • ....._:s. -....y •t ; 1 7.4 923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: (970\ 945-8676 • Fax: (9701 945-2555 (iE-r /J 1 Dcaw,' pry (ter o of — (.3 , a) - ) 4-3O0 3 tb-n1 4401=4 t pm t000 z .1. -b -r 403 too 4/3 S(0oo Z ,50 F14 -/-0r-50 3t00 = Z So TeE-Lr�( F i# -Lon -52- 1 5 ,00 /1Z F1#-LoT -- Lcrl(a 23100 = Z.52cno Ce, ZS )7i5o TEE -Lor F•1+Lcfraie 5 Lo -r I co Zcv = //, ZS 9ooa Ooa /pI 25_. ( , Z5 • 4 • 1 Project L29 --FSE- / V TQC#/ Job No. C4905 VI By Date Ck'd by Date Subject WATER Page of 923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: (97Q1 945-8676 • Fax: (970)945-2555 Analysis Results Scenario: No Fire Demand Steady State Analysis Title: Cerise Ranch 99054.01 1/21/00 Project Engineer: Eric Tuin Project Date: 01/21/00 Comments: Analysis performed by DJW Scenario Summary Label No Fire Demand Demand Alternative Base -Average Daily Physical Alternative Base -Physical Initial Settings Alternative Base -Initial Settings Operational Alternative Base -Operational Age Alternative Base -Age Alternative Constituent Alternative Base -Constituent Trace Alternative Base -Trace Alternative Fire Flow Alternative Base -Fire Flow Liquid Characteristics Liquid Water at 20C(68F) Specific Gravity 1.00 Kinematic Viscosity 0.108e-4 ft'/s Network Inventory Number of Pipes 14 Number of Tanks 1 Number of Reservoirs 0 - Constant Area: 1 Number of Junctions 13 - Variable Area: 0 Number of Pumps 0 Number of Valves 0 - Constant Power: 0 - FCV's: 0 - One Point (Design Point): 0 - PBVs: 0 - Standard (3 Point): 0 - PRV's: 0 - Standard Extended: 0 - PSV's: 0 - Custom Extended: 0 - TCVs. 0 - Multiple Point: 0 Number of Spot Elevations 0 Pipe Inventory Total Length 8 in 10 in 11.033.00 ft 3,511.00 ft 6,383.00 ft 12 in 827.00 ft 24 in 312.00 ft Junctions @ 0.00 hr Lab& Constituent Calculated Pressure Demand Pressure (mg/I) Hydraulic (psi) (Calculated) Head Grade (gpm) (ft) (ft) 24"-10" Chlor Hous FH -Lot 8 FH -Lot 16 FH -Lot 26 FH -Lot 48 FH -Lot 50 FH -Lot 52 FH -Lot 66 N/A 6,589.95 104.93 N/A 6,589.95 106.36 N/A 6,589.91 94.75 N/A 6,589.89 90.94 N/A 6,589.89 69.23 N/A 6,590.00 28.54 N/A 6,589.96 89.97 N/A 6,589.97 100.35 N/A 6,589.88 95.69 2.50 242.65 0.00 245.95 16.25 219.11 17.50 210.29 6.25 160.09 0.00 66.00 2.50 208.06 1.25 232.07 6.25 221.28 Title: Cerise Ranch 99054.01 1/21/00 Project Engineer. Eric Tuin j:\sdskproj\99\99054\dwg\cybernet.wcd High Country Engineering Cybemet v3.1 [071d] 01/25/00 08:30:20 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Analysis Results Scenario: No Fire Demand Steady State Analysis Junctions @ 0.00 hr Label Constituent Calculated Pressure Demand Pressure (mgill Hydraulic (psi) (Calculated) Head Grade (gpm) (ft) (ft) Tee -Lot 28 Tee -Lot 43 Tee -Lot 46 Tee -Lot 63 N/A 6.589.89 87.65 N/A 6.589.95 101.73 N/A 6,589.98 64.68 N/A 6.589.95 102.21 11.25 202.69 2.50 235.25 5.00 149.56 12.50 236.35 Tanks @ 0.00 hr Label Constituent Calculated Tank Pressure (mg/I) Hydraulic Level (psi) Grade (ft) (ft) Percent Full (%) Current Storage Volume (ft') Tank Tank Inflow Outflow (gpm) (gpm) Status Tank N/A 6,590.00 24.00 10.38 100.0 40.233.25 N/A 83.75 Draining Pipes @ 0.00 hr Label Status Constituent Flow Velocity From (mg/I) (gpm) (ft/s) Grade (ft) To Friction Minor Total Headloss Grade Loss Loss Headloss Gradient (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/1000ft) Pipe 1 Open Pipe 2 Open Pipe 3 Open Pipe 4 Open Pipe 5 Open Pipe 6 Open Pipe 7 Open Pipe 8 Open Pipe 9 Open Pipe 10 Open Pipe 11 Open Pipe 12 Open Pipe 13 Open Pipe 14 Open N/A 0.00 N/A -2.50 N/A 6.84 N/A 53.16 N/A 55.66 N/A -83.75 N/A -83.75 N/A 23.09 N/A 21.84 N/A 57 50 N/A 41.25 N/A 23.75 N/A 6.25 N/A 6.25 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.22 0.23 0-24 0.24 015 0 14 023 0.17 0.10 0.03 0-04 6.589.95 6,589.95 6.589.95 6,589.96 6.589.98 6.589.98 6.590 00 6,589.98 6.589.97 6.589.95 6.589.91 6.589.89 6.589.89 6.589.89 6,589.95 6,589.95 6,589.95 6.589.95 6.589.96 6.590.00 6.590.00 6.589.97 6.589.95 6.589.91 6.589.89 6 589.89 6.589.89 6.589.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.49e-2 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0 49e-2 0.00 0.2e-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.49e-2 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.49e-2 0.00 0.2e-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.49e-2 0.00 0.13e-2 Title: Cerise Ranch 99054.01 1/21/00 Project Engineer: Eric Tuin j:\sdskproj\99\99054\dwg\cybernet.wcd High Country Engineering Cybemet v3.1 (071dj 01/25/00 08:30:20 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Title Project Engineer. Project Date Comments: Analysis Results Scenario: Fire Demand at FH -Lot 26 Steady State Analysis Cerise Ranch 99054.01 1/21/00 Eric Tuin 01/21/00 Analysis performed by DJW Scenario Summary Label Demand Alternative Physical Alternative Initial Settings Alternative Operational Alternative Age Alternative Constituent Alternative Trace Alternative Fire Flow Alternative Fire Demand at FH -Lot 26 Base -Average Daily Base -Physical Base -Initial Settings Base -Operational Base -Age Alternative Base -Constituent Base -Trace Alternative Base -Fire Flow Liquid Characteristics Liquid Kinematic Viscosity Water at 20C(68F) 0.108e-4 ft'/s Specific Gravity 1.00 Network Inventory Number of Pipes Number of Reservoirs Number of Junctions Number of Pumps - Constant Power: - One Point (Design Point): - Standard (3 Point): - Standard Extended. - Custom Extended: - Multiple Point. 14 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number of Tanks - Constant Area: - Variable Area: Number of Valves - FCVs: - PBVs: - PRV's: - PSVs: - TCVs: Number of Spot Elevations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pipe Inventory Total Length 8 in 10 in 11,033.00 ft 3,511.00 ft 6,383.00 ft 12 in 24 in 827.00 ft 312.00 ft Junctions @ 0.00 hr Label Constituent Calculated Pressure (mg/I) Hydraulic (psi) Grade (ft) Demand (Calculated) (gpm) Pressure Head (ft) 24"-10" N/A 6,570.98 Chlor Hous N/A 6,570.98 FH -Lot 8 N/A 6,540.97 FH -Lot 16 N/A 6,512.53 FH -Lot 26 N/A 6,481.53 FH -Lot 48 N/A 6,588.34 FH -Lot 50 N/A 6,576.56 FH -Lot 52 N/A 6,577.44 FH -Lot 66 N/A 6,492.44 96.73 2.50 223.68 98.16 0.00 226.98 73.59 16.25 170.17 57.48 17.50 132.93 22.37 1,506.25 51.73 27.82 0.00 64.34 84.18 2.50 194.66 94.94 1.25 219.54 53.55 6.25 123.84 Title: Cerise Ranch 99054.01 1/21/00 j: \sdskproj\99\99054\dwg\cybernet.wcd 01/25/00 08:31:44 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. Project Engineer. Eric Tuin Cybemet v3.1 [071d] Page 1 of 2 High Country Engineering 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Analysis Results Scenario: Fire Demand at FH -Lot 26 Steady State Analysis Junctions @ 0.00 hr Label Constituent Calculated Pressure (mg/I) Hydraulic (psi) Grade (ft) Demand (Calculated) (gpm) Pressure Head (ft) Tee -Lot 28 Tee -Lot 43 Tee -Lot 46 Tee -Lot 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.492.44 6.570.93 6.583.13 6.570.98 45.51 93.51 61 71 94.00 11.25 105.24 2.50 216.23 5.00 142.71 12.50 217.38 Tanks @ 0.00 hr Label Constituent Calculated Tank Pressure (mg/I) Hydraulic Level (psi) Grade (ft) (ft) Percent Full (%) Current Storage Volume (ft') Tank Inflow (gpm) Tank Status Outflow (gpm) Tank N/A 6.590.00 24.00 10.38 100.0 40.233.25 N/A 1,583.75 Draining Pipes @ 0.00 hr Label Status Constituent Flow (mg/I) (gpm) Velocity From (ft/s) Grade (ft) To Grade (ft) Friction Minor Total Headloss Loss Loss Headloss Gradient (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/1000ft) Pipe 1 Open Pipe 2 Open Pipe 3 Open Pipe 4 Open Pipe 5 Open Pipe 6 Open Pipe 7 Open Pipe 8 Open Pipe 9 Open Pipe 10 Open Pipe 11 Open Pipe 12 Open Pipe 13 Open Pipe 14 Open N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 -2.50 443.40 1,116.60 1.119 10 -1.583.75 -1.583 75 459.65 458.40 1.557.50 1,541 25 1.523.75 1.506 25 6.25 0.00 0.01 1.81 4.56 4.57 4.49 4.49 2.93 2.93 6.36 6.30 6.22 6.15 0.04 6.570.98 6,570.98 6,570.98 6,576.56 6,583.13 6.583.13 6.588.34 6.583.13 6.577.44 6.570.93 6.540.97 6.512.53 6,492.44 6,492.441 6.570.98 6,570.98 6,570.93 6,570.93 6,576.56 6,588.34 6,590.00 6.577 44 6.570.98 6.540.97 6.512.53 6,492.44 6,481.53 6,492.44 0.00 0.49e-3 0.05 5.62 6.57 5.21 1.66 5.69 6.46 29.96 2844 20.09 10.91 0.2e-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49e-3 0.05 5.62 6.57 5.21 1.66 5.69 6.46 29.96 28.44 20.09 10.91 0.2e-2 0.00 0.53e-3 1.73 10.92 10.97 8.31 8.31 6.08 6.05 21.25 20.81 20.34 19.87 0.13e-2 Title: Cerise Ranch 99054.01 1/21/00 j: \sdsk prof\99\99054\dwg\cybernet. wcd 01/25/00 08:31:44 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. Project Engineer: Eric Tuin High Country Engineering Cybemet v3.1 [071d; 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Analysis Results Scenario: Fire Demand at FH -Lot 48 Steady State Analysis Title Cense Ranch 99054.01 1/21/00 Project Engineer: Eric Tuin Project Date: 01/21/00 Comments: Analysis performed by DJW Scenario Summary Label Fire Demand at FH -Lot 48 Demand Alternative Base -Average Daily Physical Alternative Base -Physical Initial Settings Alternative Base -Initial Settings Operational Alternative Base -Operational Age Alternative Base -Age Alternative Constituent Alternative Base -Constituent Trace Alternative Base -Trace Alternative Fire Flow Alternative Base -Fire Flow Liquid Characteristics Liquid Water at 20C(68F) Specific Gravity 1.00 Kinematic Viscosity 0.108e-4 ft'/s Network Inventory Number of Pipes 14 Number of Tanks 1 Number of Reservoirs 0 - Constant Area: 1 Number of Junctions 13 - Variable Area: 0 Number of Pumps 0 Number of Valves 0 - Constant Power: 0 - FCVs: 0 - One Point (Design Point): 0 - PBV's: 0 - Standard (3 Point): 0 - PRV's: 0 - Standard Extended: 0 - PSV's: 0 - Custom Extended: 0 - TCV's: 0 - Multiple Point: 0 Number of Spot Elevations 0 Pipe Inventory Total Length 8 in 10 in 11,033.00 ft 3,511.00 ft 6,383.00 ft 12 in 827.00 ft 24 in 312.00 ft Junctions @ 0.00 hr Label Constituent Calculated Pressure Demand Pressure (mg/I) Hydraulic (psi) (Calculated) Head Grade (gpm) (ft) (ft) 24"-10" Chlor Hous FH -Lot 8 FH -Lot 16 FH -Lot 26 FH -Lot 48 FH -Lot 50 FH -Lot 52 FH -Lot 66 N/A 6,588.29 104.21 2.50 240.99 N/A 6,588.29 105.64 0.00 244.29 N/A 6,588.25 94.03 16.25 217.45 N/A 6,588.23 90.22 17.50 208.63 N/A 6,588.23 68.51 6.25 158.43 N/A 6,588.34 27.82 1,500.00 64.34 N/A 6,588.31 89.26 2.50 206.41 N/A 6,588.31 99.64 1.25 230.41 N/A 6,588.23 94.97 6.25 219.63 Title: Cerise Ranch 99054.01 1/21/00 Project Engineer. Eric Tuin j:\sdskproj\99\99054\dwg\cybernet.wcd High Country Engineering Cybernet v3.1 [071d] 01/25/00 08:33:24 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Analysis Results Scenario: Fire Demand at FH -Lot 48 Steady State Analysis Junctions @ 0.00 hr Label Constituent Calculated Pressure (mg/I) Hydraulic (psi) Grade (ft) Demand (Calculated) (gpm) Pressure Head (ft) Tee -Lot 28 Tee -Lot 43 Tee -Lot 46 Tee -Lot 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.588.23 6.588.29 6.588.32 6.588.29 86.93 101.01 63.96 101.49 11.25 201.03 2.50 233.59 5.00 147.90 12.50 234.69 Tanks @ 0.00 hr Label Constituent (mg/I) Calculated Hydraulic Grade (ft) Tank Pressure Level (psi) (ft) Percent Full (%) Current Storage Volume (ft3) Tank Inflow (gpm) Tank Status Outflow (gpm) Tank N/A 6.590.00 24.00 10.38 100.0 40.233.25 N/A 1.583.75 Draining Pipes @ 0.00 hr Label Status Constituent Flow (mg/I) (gpm) Velocity (ft/s) From Grade (ft) To Grade (ft) Friction Loss (ft) Minor Total Headloss Loss Headloss Gradient (ft) (ft) (ft/1000ft) Pipe 1 Open Pipe 2 Open Pipe 3 Open Pipe 4 Open Pipe 5 Open Pipe 6 Open Pipe 7 Open Pipe 8 Open Pipe 9 Open Pipe 10 Open Pipe 11 Open Pipe 12 Open Pipe 13 Open Pipe 14 Open N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 -2.50 6.84 53.16 55.66 -83.75 -1.583.75 23.09 21.84 5750 41.25 23.75 6.25 6.25 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.22 0.23 0.24 449 0.15 0 14 0 23 0.17 0.10 0.03 0.04 6.588.29 6.588.29 6,588.29 6.588.31 6 588.32 6.588.32 6.588.34 6.588.32 6.588.31 6.588.29 6,588.25 6.588.23 6.588.23 6.588.23 6.588.29 6.588.29 6,588.29 6.588.29 6.588.31 6.588.34 6.590.00 6.588.31 6.588.29 6.588.25 6.588.23 6.588.23 6.588.23 6.588.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 1.66 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0 49e-2 0.00 0.2e-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 1.66 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.49e-2 0.00 0.2e-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.02 8.31 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.49e-2 0.00 0.13e-2 Title: Cerise Ranch 99054.01 1/21/00 j:\sdskproj\99\99054\dwg\cybernet.wcd High Country Engineering 01/25/00 08:33:24 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Project Engineer: Eric Tuin Cybernet v3.1 [071d] Page 2 of 2 Analysis Results Scenario: Fire Demand at FH -Lot 66 Steady State Analysis Title: Cerise Ranch 99054 01 1/21/00 Project Engineer: Eric Tuin Project Date: 01/21/00 Comments: Analysis performed by DJW Scenario Summary Label Fire Demand at FH -Lot 66 Demand Alternative Base -Average Daily Physical Alternative Base -Physical Initial Settings Alternative Base -Initial Settings Operational Alternative Base -Operational Age Alternative Base -Age Alternative Constituent Alternative Base -Constituent Trace Alternative Base -Trace Alternative Fire Flow Alternative Base -Fire Flow Liquid Characteristics Liquid Water at 20C(68F) Specific Gravity 1.00 Kinematic Viscosity 0.108e-4 ft'/s Network Inventory Number of Pipes 14 Number of Tanks 1 Number of Reservoirs 0 - Constant Area: 1 Number of Junctions 13 - Variable Area: 0 Number of Pumps 0 Number of Valves 0 - Constant Power: 0 - FCVs: 0 - One Point (Design Point): 0 - PBV's: 0 - Standard (3 Point): 0 - PRVs: 0 - Standard Extended. 0 - PSV's: 0 - Custom Extended: 0 - TCVs: 0 - Multiple Point: 0 Number of Spot Elevations 0 Pipe Inventory Total Length 8 in 10 in 11,033.00 ft 3,511.00 ft 6,383.00 ft 12 in 827.00 ft 24 in 312.00 ft Junctions @ 0.00 hr Label Constituent Calculated Pressure Demand Pressure (mg/I) Hydraulic (psi) (Calculated) Head Grade (gpm) (ft) (ft) 24"-10" Chlor Hous FH -Lot 8 FH -Lot 16 FH -Lot 26 FH -Lot 48 FH -Lot 50 FH -Lot 52 FH -Lot 66 N/A 6,570.98 96.73 2.50 223.68 N/A 6,570.98 98.16 0.00 226.98 N/A 6,540.97 73.59 16.25 170.17 N/A 6,512.53 57.48 17.50 132.93 N/A 6,492.44 27.09 6.25 62.64 N/A 6,588.34 27.82 0.00 64.34 N/A 6,576.56 84.18 2.50 194.66 N/A 6,577.44 94.94 1.25 219.54 N/A 6,393.86 10.92 1,506.25 25.26 Title: Cerise Ranch 99054.01 1/21/00 j: \sdskp roj\99\99054\dwg\cybernet.wcd 01/25/00 08:36:35 AM m Haestad Methods, Inc. Project Engineer. Eric Tuin High Country Engineering Cybernet v3.1 [071d] 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Analysis Results Scenario: Fire Demand at FH -Lot 66 Steady State Analysis Junctions @ 0.00 hr Label Constituent Calculated Pressure (mg/I) Hydraulic (psi) Grade (ft) Demand (Calculated) (gpm) Pressure Head (ft) Tee -Lot 28 Tee -Lot 43 Tee -Lot 46 Tee -Lot 63 N/A 6,492.44 45.51 N/A 6.570.93 93.51 N/A 6.583.13 61.71 N/A 6.570.98 94.00 11.25 105.24 2.50 216.23 5.00 142.71 12.50 217.38 Tanks @ 0.00 hr Label Constituent Calculated Tank Pressure (mg/I) Hydraulic Level (psi) Grade (ft) (ft) Percent Full (%) Current Storage Volume (ft') Tank Inflow (gpm) Tank Status Outflow (gpm) Tank N/A 6,590.00 24.00 10.38 100.0 40.233.25 N/A 1.583.75 Draining Pipes @ 0.00 hr Label Status Constituent Flow (mg/I) (gpm) Velocity From (ft/s) Grade (ft) To Friction Minor Total Headloss Grade Loss Loss Headloss Gradient (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/1000ft) Pipe 1 Open Pipe 2 Open Pipe 3 Open Pipe 4 Open Pipe 5 Open Pipe 6 Open Pipe 7 Open Pipe 8 Open Pipe 9 Open Pipe 10 Open Pipe 11 Open Pipe 12 Open Pipe 13 Open Pipe 14 Open N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 -2.50 443.40 1,116.60 1.119 10 -1.583.75 -1 583.75 459.65 458 40 1 557.50 1.541 25 1.523.75 6.25 1.506.25 0.00 0.01 1.81 4.56 4.57 4.49 4 49 2.93 2.93 6.36 6.30 6.22 0.03 9.61 6.570.98 6,570.98 6.570.98 6,576.56 6.583.13 6.583.13 6.588.34 6.583.13 6.577 44 6.570.93 6.540.97 6.512.53 6.492.44 6.492.44 6,570.98 6.570.98 6.570.93 6,570.93 6.576.56 6.588.34 6.590.00 6.577 44 6 570 98 6.540.97 6.512.53 6.492.44 6.492.44 6.393.86 0.00 0.49e-3 0.05 5.62 6.57 5.21 1.66 5.69 6.46 29.96 28.44 20.09 0.49e-3 98.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49e-3 0.05 5.62 6.57 5.21 1.66 5.69 6.46 29.96 28.44 20.09 0.49e-3 98.58 0.00 0.53e-3 1.73 10.92 10.97 8.31 8.31 6.08 6.05 21.25 20.81 20.34 0.89e-3 65.33 Title: Cerise Ranch 99054.01 1/21/00 Project Engineer: Eric Tuin j:lsdskproj\99\99054\dwg\cybernet.wcd High Country Engineering Cybemet v3.1 (071d] 01/25/00 08:36:35 AM CO Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 2 of 2 IJ . %..41.i..J1%1 GARFIELD COUNTY. COL OR ADO CERISE RANCH CYBERNET ANALYSS WATER SYSTEM LAYOUT HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERTIG, INC 923 COOPER AVENJE GLF_NWOOD SPRINGS, CO 61601 PR(970) 045-3876 FX(970) 945-2555 US. DJW DR DJW NODATE ja CI( H DATE 1/24/00 • REVISION BY FILE:CYBERNE T • AFFIDAVIT STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The undersigned hereby certifies that upon a search of the records of the Garfield County Assessor on February 17, 2000, she could find no record of any mineral rights severed from the real property situate in Sections 29, 32 and 33, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. and more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof upon which any taxes are currently being paid to the Garfield County Treasurer. cc - Sally GeiI Vagneur • Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of February, 2000. • Witness my hand and official seal. 818 Colorado Avenue My commission expires: Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 My Commission expires April 28, 2001 • • Our Order No. GW2 2175-1-4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1, 3, 14 AND 15 OF SECTION 33, AND IN A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 2. 7, 8, 20 AND 21 OF SECTION 32, AND THE SWI/4SE1/4 OF SECTION 29. ALL IN TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST, 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO AND IN THE SW'1/4NW1/4NEI/4 OF SECTION 33,TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH. RANGE 87 WEST. 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD AND EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33: THENCE S. 89 DEGREES 14'35" E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 A DISTANCE OF 1371.19 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE WEST 1/16 CORNER OF SECTION 28, SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE, AND OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE S. 89 DEGREES 14'54" E., CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 A DISTANCE OF 1371•.88 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33: THENCE S. 01 DEGREES 40'33" W. ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 33 A DISTANCE OF 664.14 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SWI/4NW1/4NE1/4 OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE S. 89 DEGREES 14'55" E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4 A DISTANCE OF 686.80 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4; THENCE S. 01 DEGREES 40'52" W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4 A DISTANCE OF 663.00 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4; THENCE N. 89 DEGREES 20'38" W. ALONG THE SOUTHLINE OF SAID SWI/4NW1/4NE1/4 A DISTANCE OF 686.76 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SW 1/4NW 1/4NE1/4; THENCE N. 89 DEGREES 20' 16" W. A DISTANCE OF 739.11 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S. 02 DEGREES 39'57" W. A DISTANCE OF 1147.79 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 AND ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2964.79 FEET; THENCE 383.72 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7 DEGREES 24'56", HAVING A CORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N. 75 DEGREES 42'50" W., 383.45 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N. 80 DEGREES 48'50" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 213.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N. 81 DEGREES 31'13" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 2415.28 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,359.16 FEET; THENCE 512.48 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2 DEGREES 35'06", HAVING A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N. 80 DEGREES 13'40" W. 512.44 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N. 79 DEGREES 35'30" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 872.27 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S. 79 DEGREES 15'50" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 53.85 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N. 78 DEGREES 56' 10" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 295.38 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N. 02 DEGREES 27'10" E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 637 AT PAGE 200 A DISTANCE OF 273.18 FEET TO A POINT; SAID • Our Order No. GW221751-4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND: THENCE N. 78 DEGREES 56'08" W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL A DISTANCE OF 550.72 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE S. 02 DEGREES 27'10" W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL A DISTANCE OF 273.18 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82: THENCE N. 78 DEGREES 56'10" W. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 82 A DISTANCE OF 65.35 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 7; THENCE N. 03 DEGREES 07'11" E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 7 A DISTANCE OF 1061.81 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE S. 81 DEGREES 17'42" E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 7 A DISTANCE OF 652.09 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING ON THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 32; 1THENCE N. 01 DEGREES 41'13" E. ALONG SAID NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 32 A DISTANCE OF 693.38 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE 1/4 CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 29 AND 32; THENCE N. 03 DEGREES 14'16" E. ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 29 ALSO BEING THE WEST LINE OF SAID SWI/4SE1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29 A DISTANCE OF 1368.86 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTH -CENTER 1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE S. 89 DEGREES 17'20" E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SW1/4SE1/4 A DISTANCE OF 1359.72 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHEAST 1/6 OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE S. 04 DEGREES 42'48" W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SW1/4SE1/4 A DISTANCE OF 1378.02 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE EAST 1/16 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29 AND SECTION 32; THENCE S. 88 DEGREES 58'50" E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 32 A DISTANCE OF 1323.90 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO t 99054.01 CERISE RANCH, GARFIELD COUNTY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DECEMBER 15, 1999 2391-293-00-081 Stirling, Rebecca R. 704 Skipper Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-294-04-027 2391-294-04-011 2391-294-04-012 2391-294-04-029 Stirling, John M. 704 Skipper Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-294-00-079 Levitt, Molly G. P.O. Box 414740 Kansas City, MO 64141-4740 2391-283-00-186 Levitt, Thomas W. P.O. Box 414740 Kansas City, MO 64141-4740 2391-283-00-237 Glen, Stanley Revocable Trust Agreement c/o Jeffrey Glen Trustee 90 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2205 2391-283-00-238 TRM Corporation of Florida D.B.A. TRM Corporation of Colorado Drawer 700 Jensen Beach, FL 34958-0700 2391-283-00-239 Yager, David 2809 Boston Street #410 Baltimore, MD 21224 2391-284-074 McMechen, Kenneth D. P.O. Box B El Jebel, CO 81628 2391-332-00-027 Public Service Company of Colorado Attn: Property & Local Taxes 1225 17th Street, Ste. 400 Denver, CO 80202-5534 2391-332-01-011 Thunder River Construction, Inc. 0795 Kings Row Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-332-01-012 Haines, Robert S. & Helen J. 21 Dakota Court Carbondale, CO 81623-1630 2391-332-01-013 Sapp, Christopher W. & Fisher, Carolyn M. (Jt) 0292 Rabbit Road Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-332-01-014 Kriz, Don 120 Virginia Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-4148 2391-332-01-001 Eppstein, Michael D. & Laurie (Jt) 996 Cottonwood Lane Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 2391-332-00-023 Dakota Meadows Open Space 2391-332-03-006 Klahn, Janice J. & Leslie H., Jr. 0204 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-332-03-005 Steppe, Norman, Jr. & Jackson, Linda J. 202 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 • Cerise Ranch Adjacent Owners Page 2 December 15, 1999 99054.01 2391-332-03-012 Winograd, Felicia & Gerold, Rolando 198 Dakota Meadows Drive, Unit 5-B Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-332-03-011 Cakmis, Peter DDS 6080 Alpenrose Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32256 2391-332-03-020 Matthews, Susan P. 184 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-332-03-019 Milkovich, James B. & Marta K. (Jt) 182 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623-1631 • 2391-332-03-028 Wyman, Christine P. & Kenneth G. (Jt) 166 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623-1631 2391-332-03-027 Formica, Carolyn 164 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623-1631 2391-332-03-026 Biggers, Ronald L. & Pamela G. Britton 0152 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-332-03-025 King, Ida M. 0150 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-332-03-024 Ohlrich, Patricia A. & James A. 140 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-332-03-023 Belle, Rita Veronica, Trust DTD 3/19/90 7649 East Vista Drive Scottsdale, AZ 85250 2391-332-03-048 Elias, Barbara A. Carbondale, CO 81623 0451 Stagecoach Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-332-03-047 Hurt, Dale S. & Julie K. 0132 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-333-00-033 Arnold, Robert & Gloria H. 2542 Emma Road Basalt, CO 81621-9118 2391-333-00-005 Alpine Animal Hospital P.C. 17776 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-333-00-030 Zelnick, Stanley J. & Billie L. 17698 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-333-00-031 Howard, Cheryl J. 17696 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-333-00-002 Longstreth, James E. P.O. Box 28029 El Jebel, CO 81628-8029 2391-333-00-001 Bauldridge, Bruce & Diane E. 17450 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Cerise Ranch Adjacent Owners Page 3 December 15, 1999 99054.01 2391-321-00-044 Vagneur, Wayne & Louis M. 60 Flying Fish Road Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-321-00-043 Ilgen, Jack D. & Eloise H. 17352 Highway 82, Apt. C Carbondale, CO 81623-9560 2391-321-00-016 Balderson, Dylan 1/3 & Spiro, Jacqueline 2/3 P.O. Box 10639 Aspen, CO 81612 2391-321-01-003 Work, Horace H. P.O. Box 6929 Snowmass Village, CO 81615-6929 2391-321-01-002 Rudd, Wayne G. & Susan J. 132 Park Avenue Basalt, CO 81621-9338 2391-321-01-001 McCarthy, Jerry R. & Betty K. P.O. Box 5133 Snowmass Village, CO 81615-5133 2391-321-00-013 Work, Horace P.O. Box 6929 Snowmass Village, CO 81615-6929 2391-321-00-029 Palmer, Michael Henry 138 Flying Fish Road Carbondale, CO 81623-9540 2391-321-00-028 Faber, Bradley A. & Teresa L. 174 Flying Fish Road Carbondale, CO 81623-9540 2391-321-00-041 Davies, Fredric A. & Francis M.A. P.O. Box K Aspen, CO 81612-7412 2391-322-00-032 Obuhanick, Peter H. & Linda H. P.O. Box 229 Aspen, CO 81612-0229 2391-322-00-008 Englund, Kathleen G. 2205 Shalimar Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80915-1024 2391-322-01-001 Hire, C.J. & Phyllis 345 South Mill Lexington, OH 44904 2391-322-00-006 Desjarlais, Gerard E. P.O. Box QQ Basalt, CO 81621-0680 2391-322-00-046 Cerise, Dennis N. & Patricia E. 16724 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-322-00-025 Ulrych, Julian A. 16704 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623-9570 2391-293-00-082 Carlson, Portia A. '/i, Carlson, Eric B. Sterrett, Bailey D. Carson, Leif 26575 Routt County Road 33A Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 • Cerise Ranch Adjacent Owners Page 4 December 15, 1999 99054.01 EAGLE COUNTY 2391-331-00-012 Public Service Company of Colorado 1225 17th Street Denver, CO 80202 2391-331-00-002 Edwards, Joseph E. Jr. & Linda B. 14 Fender Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-331-07-001 Dakota Partners L.L.C. 352A Beaver Dam Circle Vail, CO 81657 2391-331-05-001 Temmen, Pam P.O. Box 1068 • Aspen, CO 81621 2391-331-05-002 Hall, Yvonne & Stan 0515 Holland Hills Basalt, CO 81621 2391-331-05-003 Roos, Benjamin & Elizabeth 5 Dakota Ct. Carbondale, CO 81623 2391-331-05-004 Hiltner, Jeffrey A. 405 Park Avenue Suite Al Basalt, CO 81621-9367 • • NOV-UQ-99 THU 07:58 AM COLOTRUST Roaring 'Fork sonopi "ut,F,Tct Re -1 1104 Grnd AV.nu• Glenwood Springs, Colorado 131601 • Telephone (970) 94S.856S, November 2, 19t99 Mark 13can Garfield County Planning Department 109 ti'I' Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. T3can; FAX NO. Ib(fillue u FR50 A, WALL, Superinlendenf JUDY „APTONSTALL, Asti;lonl3up•nnIendenl . SHANNON PELLANO,' Flow.Ofieclor This letter is in response to your request for comments on the Sketch Plan for Cerise Ranch, 1t k our understanding that the project includes 67 single family residentiol lots, In upplying the District's land dedication formula for residential development, the number or units in the project would not provide adequate tiereJse fora school site. Accordingly, the District is requesting fees -in -lieu of land dedication based on the formula prescribed by the and incorporated in the County regi, Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to provide cornm0111S, Sincerely, �: 1; •(I�wYtA Shannon non Pell= Finance Director • • Response to School District Letter The applicant has reviewed the November 2, 1999 letter from Roaring Fork School District and does agree to pay cash -in -lieu of land dedication based on the formulas prescribed by the District and located in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. The following formula will apply: Unimproved per acre market value of land x Land Dedication Stancnrdx # of units =Cash in lieu. Unimproved per acre market value of land= $15,100.00 (based on sales price of $4,545,000 for 301 acres). Land Dedication Standard is given in section 9:81 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and is .020 acres for Single Family Home development. Number of units =68 15,100 x .020 x 68 = $20,536.00 Cerise Ranch preliminary plan • • • FIRE • EMS • RESCUE October 27, 1999 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cerise Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan Application Dear Mark: I have reviewed the sketch plan application for the Cerise Ranch project and would offer the following comments. Access The general road layout appears to be adequate for fire apparatus. Water Supplies for Fire Protection The proposed water system consists of a 300,000 gallon storage tank with proposed minimum fire flows of 1000 gallons per minute. This is consistent with the Uniform Fire Code for residences up to 3,600 square feet. If larger homes are anticipated to be constructed in the development, minimum fire flows should be increased accordingly. An alternative would be to require automatic fire sprinklers in residences exceeding 3,600 square feet. Required fire flows for the project should be in accordance with the f en °rm 're Code located inUFC) acco accordance a withendix l UFC-A: Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings, with hydrants Appendix III -B: Fire Hydrant Locations and Spacing. Wildfire Hazards Some of the proposed lots have slopes of grass, sage, gambel oak, pinion and juniper which may present a wildfire hazard. Defensible spaces and/or fire resistant building construction features should be implemented in these areas. RECEIVflOCT 91999 Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District a7nrOR1_91Q1 Fax 963-0569 1 • • • Cerise Ranch Sketch Plan, continued... Im pact Fees The development is subject to impact fees adopted by the District. The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance. Bill Gavette Fire Marshal 2 • • • Response to Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Letter The applicant has reviewed the October 27, 1999 letter from Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and does agree to pay the current impact fees of $417.00 per single family lot adopted by the District. Defensible spaces will be created and/or fire resistant building materials utilized for the construction of residences on slopes that may present a wildfire hazard. All residences that are 3,600 s.f. or greater will be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. Cerise Ranch preliminary plan