HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.02 PUD ApplicationGARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470
www.qarfield-county.com
❑ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
❑ PUD Amendment
(Check the Appropriate box above)
GENERAL INFORMATION (Please print legibly)
Name of Property Owner:
➢ Mailing Address: Telephone: (
)
City: State: Zip Code: Cell: (
)
➢ E-mail address: FAX: (
)
Name of Owner's Representative, if any, (Attorney, Planner, Consultant, etc):
> Mailing Address: Telephone: (
)
➢ City: State: Zip Code: Cell: (
)
> E-mail address: FAX: (
)
> Property Parcel ID
> Existing Property Zone District:
> Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation:
➢ Proposed Zone District:
Purpose for the proposed rezoning to Planned Unit Development:
Last Revised 12/12/08
I. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
This Application applies to owners of real property in Garfield County who desire to
rezone their property as shown on the Official Garfield County Zone District Map to
Planned Unit Development. As a minimum, specifically respond to all the following
items below and attach any additional information to be submitted with this application:
1. Submit a cover letter containing a detailed narrative describing the purpose of
the proposed Planned Unit Development.
2. Submit a copy of the deed and legal description of the real property, owned
by the Applicant in Garfield County, which will be affected by such change.
3. Submit a copy of the appropriate portion of a Garfield County Assessor's Map
showing the subject property and all public and private landowners adjacent
to your property (which should be delineated). In addition, submit a list of all
property owners, private and public, and their addresses adjacent to or within
200 ft. of the site. This information can be obtained from the County
Assessor's Office. You will also need the names (if applicable) of all mineral
interest owners of the subject property, identified in the County Clerk and
Recorder's records in accordance with §24-65.5-101, et seq. (That
information may be found in your title policy under Exceptions to Title).
4. If you are acting as an agent for the property owner, you must attach an
acknowledgement from the property owner that you may act in his/her behalf.
If the property is owned by a corporate entity (such as an LLC, LLLP, etc.)
Please submit a copy of a recorded "Statement of Authority" demonstrating
that the person signing the application has the authority to act in that capacity
for the entity."
5. Vicinity map: An 8 1/2 x 11 vicinity map locating the parcel in the County. The
vicinity map shall clearly show the boundaries of the subject property and all
property within a 3 -mile radius of the subject property. The map shall be at a
minimum scale of 1"=2000' showing the general topographic and geographic
relation of the proposed land use change to the surrounding area for which a
copy of U.S.G.S. quadrangle map may be used.
6. A copy of the Pre -Application Conference form from the original Pre -
Application Conference.
7. Submit payment of the $500.00 base fee and a signed "Agreement for
Payment" form with this application.
8. Please provide a response that demonstrates that the request meets the
following PUD Standards as more fully detailed in Article VI, Section 6-203 of
the Unified Land Use Regulations of 2008.
9. Please provide the general PUD submittal requirements as more fully detailed
in Article VI, Section 6-203 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2006.
10. Submit 3 copies of this completed application form and all the required
submittal materials to the Building and Planning Department. Staff will
request additional copies once the application has been deemed technically
complete.
II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
The following outlines the process for a Planned Unit Development in Garfield
County which is also codified in Article VI, Division 2, Section 201 of the Unified
Land Use Resolution of 2008.
A. Pre -application Conference. A Pre -Application Conference shall be held in
accordance with the provisions of Section 4-103 A, Pre -Application Conference of
Article IV.
1. Concept Narrative. The applicant shall present a Concept Narrative of the
proposed PUD in sufficient detail to accurately convey the general concept of
the proposal. Detail shall include:
a) Concept Description. Location of property; existing zoning, use and
density; proposed zoning, use, densities and lot sizes; existing zoning and
use of surrounding property, including densities; existing and proposed
access; existing and proposed source of water; existing and proposed
wastewater treatment system; phasing if entire project is not being done
at one time; unique features on the site which might enhance the site and
proposed use; a discussion of the anticipated impacts and proposed
mitigation.
b) Additional Information Required. At the request of the Director, the
applicant shall provide any reasonable additional conceptual information
as needed to help clarify the proposal being made.
B. Rezoning. The process for Rezoning is set forth in Section 4-201, of Article IV,
Application and Review Procedures.
C. Subdivision Review (if division of land is proposed within PUD). The process for
subdivision review is set forth in Section 5-406 of Article V, Divisions of Land.
Where a Preliminary Plan application is included with a PUD application, the
subdivision regulations requirements will supersede the PUD requirements where
the same information or more detailed information is required as part of a
subdivision application.
D. Preliminary PUD Plan Review. The following procedures shall apply to the
Preliminary PUD Plan Review. The Director may allow combined review of the
Preliminary PUD Plan and the Final PUD Plan.
a) Application. The application materials required for Preliminary PUD Plan
Review are set forth in Section 6-202 D.
b) Determination of Completeness. The Director shall review the application
for determination of completeness in accordance with the provisions of
Section 4-103 C, Determination of Completeness of Article IV, Application
and Review Procedures.
c) Schedule Public Hearing. Upon a determination of completeness, the
Director shall schedule the Preliminary PUD Plan for consideration by the
Planning Commission.
1) Public hearing by the Planning Commission shall be held within
sixty (60) calendar days of the date of determination of
completeness.
2) Public notice of the hearing shall be made pursuant to Section 4-
103 F, Notice of Public Hearing of Article IV, Application and
Review Procedures.
4. Evaluation by Director/Staff Review. Upon determination of completeness, the
Director shall review the application for compliance with the applicable
standards set forth in Section 6-303, PUD Approval Standards, and prepare a
staff report pursuant to Section 4-103 E of Article IV.
a) Review by Referral Agencies. The Director's evaluation of the application
shall include comment by referral agencies received under Section 4-103
D, Review by Referral Agency of Article IV, Application and Review
Procedures.
5. Review and Recommendation by the Planning Commission. An application for
Preliminary PUD Plan shall be considered by the Planning Commission at a
public hearing, after proper notice, conducted pursuant to Section 4-103 G,
Conduct of Public Hearing of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures.
a) Recommendation by Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
shall recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial of the
application based upon compliance with the standards set forth in Section
6-203, PUD Approval Standards.
1) Recommendation of Approval. If the application satisfies all of the
applicable standards, the Planning Commission shall recommend
that the application be approved. The Commission may
recommend approval with conditions determined necessary for
compliance with applicable standards.
2) Recommendation of Denial. If the application fails to satisfy all of
the applicable standards the Planning Commission shall
recommend that the application be denied.
6. Schedule Public Hearing. The Director shall schedule the application for
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
a) Public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners shall be held within
forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission
recommendation.
b) Public notice of the hearing shall be made pursuant to Section 4-103 F,
Notice of Public Hearing of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures.
7. Review and Action by the Board of County Commissioners. The final decision
to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for Preliminary
PUD Plan shall be made by the Board of County Commissioners at a public
hearing.
a) Decision by Board. Following a public hearing conducted pursuant to
Section 4-103 G, Conduct of Public Hearing, the Board of County
Commissioners shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the
application based upon compliance with the standards set forth in Section
6-203, PUD Approval Standards.
1) Approval of Application. If the application satisfies all of the
applicable standards, the application shall be approved. The Board
may approve the application with conditions determined necessary
for compliance with applicable standards.
2) Denial of Application. If the application fails to satisfy any one of
the applicable standards, the application shall be denied.
E. Final PUD Plan Review. The following review procedures shall apply to Final PUD
Plan Review.
1. Application. The application materials required for PUD Final Plan Review
are set forth in Section 6-202 E.
2. Determination of Completeness. The Director shall review the application for
determination of completeness in accordance with the provisions of Section
4-103 C, Determination of Completeness of Article IV, Application and
Review Procedures.
3. Schedule Public Hearing. Upon a determination of completeness, the
Director shall schedule the Final PUD Plan for consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners.
a) Public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners shall be held within
forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of determination of completeness.
b) Public notice of the hearing shall be made pursuant to Section 4-103 F,
Notice of Public Hearing of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures.
4. Evaluation by Director/Staff Review. Upon determination of completeness,
the Director shall review the application for compliance with the applicable
standards set forth in Section 6-203, PUD Approval Standards, and prepare a
staff report pursuant to Section 4-103 E of Article IV.
5. Review and Action by the Board of County Commissioners. The final decision
to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for Final PUD
Plan shall be made by the Board of County Commissioners at a public
hearing.
a) Decision by Board. Following a public hearing conducted pursuant to
Section 4-103 G, Conduct of Public Hearing, the Board of County
Commissioners shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the
application based upon compliance with the standards set forth in Section
6-203, PUD Approval Standards.
1) Approval of Application. If the application satisfies all of the
applicable standards, the application shall be approved. The Board
may approve the application with conditions determined necessary
for compliance with applicable standards
2) Denial of Application. If the application fails to satisfy any one of
the applicable standards, the application shall be denied.
6. Revisions to Zoning District Maps. Approval of a PUD Final Plan shall be
recorded on the Official Zoning Maps filed in the Planning Department as
soon as practicable after the PUD becomes effective.
7. Expiration of Approval. Unless otherwise stated in action by the Board of
County Commissioners, the Board's decision to approve or conditionally
approve the PUD plan shall be effective for a period of one year. The
applicant may request an extension of one year.
8. Extension of Approval. A request for extension of approval shall be
considered by the Board of County Commissioners at a regularly scheduled
public meeting.
a) The request for extension shall include the following information.
1) The reasons for the applicant's inability to comply with the specified
deadlines.
2) Changes in the character of the neighborhood or changes in the
Land Use Code or Comprehensive Plan which have occurred since
approval of the preliminary plan, and the effect of such changes on
the proposed development.
b) The Board may grant an extension based upon the following criteria.
1) The applicant has applied for an extension prior to the date of
expiration of approval.
2) There has been no change or proposed change in the Code, the
Comprehensive Plan, or the surrounding neighborhood which would
substantially affect the proposed development.
F. Recordation.
1. Completion of Conditions of Approval. The applicant must complete all conditions
of Final PUD Plan approval prior to recording the Final PUD Plan and associated
documents.
2. Approval of PUD Development Guide. The Final PUD Plan may not be filed for
recording until the Board has approved a PUD Development Guide.
3. Effective Upon Recording. The Final PUD Plan does not become effective until it
is properly filed for recording with the County Clerk and Recorder.
4. Public Sale of Lots. A PUD becomes complete and eligible for public sale of lots
and development only after the Final PUD Plan and associated documents are
recorded.
Ill. Process for Amendments to Existing Planned Unit Developments
This section only applies to property owners wishing to amend an Existing Planned Unit
Development. All amendments to an approved PUD shall be processed as a Rezoning as
set forth in Section 4-201, of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures.
A. Pre -Application Conference. A Pre -Application Conference shall be held in accordance
with the provisions of Section 4-103 A, Pre -Application Conference.
B. Application. The application materials required for a PUD approval are set forth in Section
6-301. Within thirty (30) working days of the date of the Pre -Application Conference, the
Director shall make a determination as to whether the proposed change(s) constitutes a
substantial modification to the approved PUD or conditions of approval contained in the
Resolution of Approval.
Garfield County defines Substantial Modification as a Substantial Change which is
defined as a change to and existing approved land use resulting in one or more of the
following.
1. A change in land use category;
2. A change in site design which increases
a) The number of dwelling units.
b) The maximum square footage of structures less than 10,000 sq.
ft. over 100% and structures over 10,000 sq. ft. by 10%, if a
maximum has been specified in a permit or approval.
c) Projected traffic such that a highway access permit or an
amendment to a highway access permit is required as a result of
the change.
d) The size of the land which is the subject of the permit or
approval
3. A change in land use which creates or increases the incompatibility
of the use.
1) No Substantial Modification. If the Director determines that the change does not
constitute a substantial modification to the approved PUD, the Director shall
determine the applicable submittal materials.
2) Substantial Modification. If the Director determines that the change constitutes a
substantial modification, the PUD amendment shall be considered a new
application and submit the required materials identified in Section 6-301.
C. Written Notice of Decision. The Director shall inform the applicant of the determination in
writing within five (5) working days of the date of decision. Notice of the Director's
decision shall also be provided to the Board of County Commissioners.
D. Request by Applicant for Reconsideration of Decision. An applicant may request review
of the Director's decision by the Board of County Commissioners by filing a written
request within ten (10) calendar days of the date of receipt of written notice of the
decision by the Director.
1) Schedule Public Hearing. The Director shall schedule the request for review by
the Board of County Commissioners.
a) Public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners shall be held
within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of receipt of the request
for review.
b) Public notice of the hearing shall be made pursuant to Section 4-103 F,
Notice of Public Hearing.
2) Decision by Board. Following a public hearing conducted pursuant to Section 4-
103 G, Conduct of Public Hearing, the Board of County Commissioners may
uphold the Director's decision, modify the decision, or reverse the decision.
I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information
which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
(71
(Signature of Property Owner) Date
Rockwood Shepard, Owner Representative
Attachment A
River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development
and River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan
PUD Written Description
March 29, 2011
The following information is drawn from the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report
dated January 18, 2011 (Binder 1, Tab 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
Carbondale Investments, LLC, a Texas limited liability company registered to do business in
Colorado ("CI"), proposes to develop approximately 160 acres generally located along State
Highway 82 ("SH 82") between the City of Glenwood Springs and the Town of Carbondale near
the junction of County Road 110/113 ("CR 113") and SH 82 (the "Property"). The Property is
located almost entirely to the west of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority ("RFTA") right-of-way
(the "RFTA ROW") and east of the Roaring Fork River and Roaring Fork Conservancy ("RFC")
Conservation Easement. The Property straddles Cattle Creek, which also is located within the
RFC Conservation Easement. A vicinity map showing the Property is provided in Binder 1, Tab
1, Item g. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
1. Names and addresses of owner, applicant and representative.
CI is the owner of the Property and Rockwood Shepard is the appointed owner -representative for
purposes of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application, as indicated on the Statement of Authority
provided in Tab 1, Item f. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application. The address of the owner is
5121 Park Lane. Dallas, TX 75220. The address of the representative is 7999 Highway 82,
Carbondale. CO 81623.
2. General project concept and purpose of the request.
CI contemplates developing the Property into a walkable clustered -form of residential
development with 366 residential units of various sizes and types, including 55 affordable
homes, passive and recreational open space, and a neighborhood center (collectively, the
"Project"). The neighborhood center will serve as a central gathering place for residents, and
will offer opportunities for several neighborhood amenities, such as, meeting rooms, offices, a
fitness room, a community kitchen, restrooms, other indoor and outdoor recreational facilities,
and limited community service uses. Community service uses may include not-for-profit or for-
profit uses that may be operated for the benefit of residents of the community only within
designated spaces of the neighborhood center. Community service uses shall be operated by a
tenant or concessionaire of the property owners' association (the "POA") to be established for the
Project and may include, without limitation, a day care facility, a sandwich/coffee shop, and/or a
health club.
Park areas, which will be provided internal to the Project (and away from the RFC Conservation
Easement), will offer opportunities for informal recreational opportunities, such as, tot lots, dog
parks, playfields, and a trail system. In addition, in keeping with the Property's agricultural
River Edge Colorado
PUD Written Description
Attachment A
heritage and rural character, CI anticipates that areas designated on the River Edge Colorado
Planned Unit Development ("PUD") for "Garden/Orchard" use may be used, at the residents'
election, as communal vegetable gardens and/or orchards. Subject to any rules and regulations of
the POA, it is anticipated that these Garden/Orchard tracts will consist of individual plots,
multiple caretaker areas, sitting areas, small-scale children's play areas, other ancillary
horticultural related uses, and for community festivals and celebrations. The amenities to be
provided within the neighborhood center, garden and orchard tracts, and park areas ultimately
will be decided by the residents of the Project.
It is also anticipated that certain agricultural uses will continue to be allowed within portions of
the Property not under development, as specified in the River Edge Colorado PUD Guide
provided in Tab 3, Item b. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
3. Relationship of the proposed PUD development to the existing land uses and adjacent
property land uses.
A map identifying all the abutting and adjacent property owners within 200 feet of the Project
Site excluding rights-of-way, the land subject to the RFC Conservation Easement, and adjacent
lands previously owned by CI is provided as Exhibit 1 in Appendix C of the Impact Analysis
(Binder 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application). A list of owner's names and mailing
addresses is also provided as Exhibit 2 in Appendix C of the Impact Analysis. The property
boundaries, distances, and ownership information were drawn from the records of the Garfield
County Assessor.
Maps depicting adjacent land uses and adjacent zoning are provided as Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 in
Appendix C of the Impact Analysis. The adjacent land use and zoning information is drawn from
the records of the Garfield County Assessor and Garfield County Geographic Information
System ("GIS") and includes all properties within 1500 feet of the exterior boundary of the
Project Site as required by Section 4-502.E.2 of the ULUR.
The Project Site generally abuts fallow agricultural land to the north (land under contract from
CI to new buyer) which is flanked to the north by moderate to high density single family
residential and commercial uses; right-of-way [i.e., RFTA and Colorado Department of
Transportation ("CDOT")] bounding the Project Site to the east with commercial uses lying
immediately to the east and northeast of the rights-of-way and residential uses immediately east
of the highway fronting commercial uses; conservation areas lie immediate to the south along the
Roaring Fork River which are flanked to the south by agricultural, open space, utility [i.e.,
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District ("RFWSD") Wastewater Treatment Plant ("WWTP")
and industrial (i.e., sand and gravel mining) uses; and conservation areas along the Roaring Fork
River bound the Project Site immediate to the west which are flanked further to the west by open
space and recreational lands and backed further by moderate density residential uses. Several
tracts within the immediate vicinity are vacant and one public land tract (i.e., BLM resource
land) is located immediately to the southeast of the Project Site.
The surrounding area is generally zoned for residential or commercial development in either
conventional zoning districts or as Planned Unit Developments ("PUD" or "PD"). Many of the
3
River Edge Colorado
PUD Written Description
Attachment A
adjacent parcels zoned PUD/PD are zoned for use as some form of open space or recreational use
as part of larger residential developments similar in nature to what is proposed at REC. The
adjacent RFC Conservation Easement was originally zoned PUD as part of the previously
proposed and approved Sanders Ranch PUD and retained as PUD under a form of open
space/conservation use as approved in the original PUD action when the Garfield Board of
County Commissioners ("BoCC") rezoned the remainder of the Sanders Ranch PUD to
Residential Suburban in 2008 pursuant to BoCC Resolution No. 2008-112. As noted above the
immediately adjacent uses include conservation, RFTA recreation trail and rail right-of-way, SH -
82, and agricultural uses. These adjacent uses are discussed in detail below along with the
residential and commercial uses flanking these uses within 1500 feet of the Project.
The Project is generally similar in nature, scale, and density of nearby uses and has in no adverse
impacts on nearby or adjacent properties or uses as detailed in Section III.A of the Impact
Report.
4. The staging and timing for the proposed development.
The Project is proposed in several stages or filings. There are 6 filings and 5 subfilings. The
Project will be constructed over a period of 5-10 years. The development stage of the Project is
preceded by a pre -development reclamation phase described in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix
U of the Impact Analysis, Binder 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application). The development
staging and construction is detailed on Drawing No. CP01.01 of the PUD (Rezoning) and
Subdivision (Preliminary Plan) Drawing Package submitted as part of the PUD/Preliminary Plan
Application.
S. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
River Edge Colorado fully conforms to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 as
detailed in Section I.4 of the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report submitted as part of
the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application (Binder 1, Tab 2). Rather than reproducing the entirety of
the text here, the reader is referred to this citation for a more comprehensive analysis.
6. Source of and legal right to water. Written confirmation of service availability from a
water and sanitation district if the property lies within the district boundaries.
CI has adequate water resources available to supply the maximum water demand required by the
PUD for both potable and irrigation water supplies which meet the requirements of Section 7-
105 of the ULUR. As determined by CI's Water Resource Consultant, Michael Erion of
Resource Engineering, Inc., the maximum potable water demand for the Project would be 163
acre feet per year to satisfy the demand of 375 EQRs and up to 42 acres of irrigation based on
350 gallons per day per EQR. This water will be obtained through surface diversions from the
Roaring Fork River and/or through groundwater withdrawals from the well fields of the Roaring
Fork District. These surface and ground water supplies are dependable physical sources of
supply for the Project, which can and will be treated to meet drinking water quality standards
adopted by CDPHE.
4
River Edge Colorado
PUD Written Description
Attachment A
The water rights decree entered in Case No. 01 CW 187, as amended by the pending application
in Case No. 08CW198, authorizes the diversion of a potable water supply to serve 349.55 EQRs,
together with three acres of irrigation, within the Project. Another water rights application
pending in Case No. 07CW164 authorizes the provision of a water supply to serve up to 1,200
EQRs, and a total of seven acres of irrigation. These water rights cases are close to being
resolved and decrees entered. To offset out -of -priority depletions resulting from the exercise of
these water rights, CI holds rights in Allotment Contract No. 381b with the Basalt Water
Conservancy District for 74.9 acre feet per year, more than enough to offset anticipated out of
priority depletions for up to 1,200 EQRs and seven acres of irrigation.
CI also holds reliable irrigation water rights in the Glenwood Ditch (12.23 c.f.s.), represented by
367 shares of capital stock in the Thompson Glen Irrigation Company, and in the Staton Ditch
(4.69 c.f.s.). As decreed in Case No. W-2206, these rights have historically be used to irrigate
260 acres on the Project (formerly the Sanders Ranch). These rights will be used for the open
space and lawn and garden irrigation within the PUD, less the maximum of seven acres that are
irrigated with the potable water system. Because the Project is located within historically
irrigated areas under these ditches, these irrigation rights are currently available and adequate to
meet the outdoor irrigation needs of the Project.
A "can and will serve" letter from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District is included as
Appendix C in the Water Supply Plan (Binder 3, Tab 1, Item F of the PUD/Preliminary Plan
Application).
7. Method of wastewater treatment and disposal.
Wastewater treatment and disposal for the PUD will be provided through a centralized sewer
system owned either by the POA or the Roaring Fork District. The Roaring Fork District's
current wastewater treatment plant on the Roaring Fork River is located approximately 1000 feet
from the Project, is not presently sized to provide wastewater service to the PUD and an entirely
new phase of the treatment plant would have to be financed and constructed for that purpose.
Nonetheless, CI is currently negotiating with the Roaring Fork District over a pre -inclusion
agreement that would, upon final platting of the first phase of the Project, provide for the
inclusion of the Project into the Roaring Fork District and the connection to the Roaring Fork
District's sewer plant. Given that those negotiations have not been completed, that the parties
have not fully defined the cost of connecting to the Roaring Fork District's wastewater treatment
plant, and that such a connection presents environmental permitting challenges, CI seeks to
reserve the opportunity to develop its own wastewater treatment plant on the west side of the
Roaring Fork River, to be owned and operated by the POA, with the expectation that the facility,
as well as all associated sewer lines and lift stations, will be transferred to a special district
approved for the Project.
A "can and will serve" letter from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District is included as
Appendix D in the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Plan (Binder 3, Tab 1, Item G of the
PUD/Preliminary Plan Application).
5
River Edge Colorado
PUD Written Description
Attachment A
8. Type or method of fire protection.
The Project is served by the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Hydrants and water
supply meeting the requirements of the applicable fire code and ISO standards as detailed in the
Water Treatment and Distribution Design Report (Binder 3, Tab 1, Item D of the
PUD/Preliminary Plan Application).
9. The names and addresses of mineral rights owners on the affected property and mineral
rights lessees; names and addresses of water rights owners.
C.R.S. §§ 24-65.5-101 et seq. and ULUR § 4-103.F.2 require that notice of hearings be given to
the owners of mineral estates within the boundaries of the Property.
The title commitment prepared by Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Order No. 941686-C4 and
Effective Date February 9, 2011, references two interests in oil and gas in the property.
1. A 6.25% royalty interest, conveyed by quitclaim deed dated December 18, 1964, to T.M.
Sanders, recorded in Book 362 at Page 445; and
2. A reservation of an undivided 1/50 interest of all oil and gas lying under the property, by
Ella J. Chase in the deed dated June 12, 1948 and recorded in Book 258 at Page 594.
The title commitment does not indicate that a mineral estate owner has filed a request for
notification as provided in C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103(3).
8140 Partners, LLC searched the telephone directory of general use in Garfield County, and
conducted a search of the tax records at the Garfield County Assessor's Office. Neither the name
nor the address of the above persons could be located in either record. Moreover, a search of the
Garfield County Assessor's records did not reveal any mineral estate owner under the Property.
Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103(2)(b), since the Garfield County records do not identify any
mineral estate owners, including their addresses of record, CI is deemed to have acted in good
faith and shall not be subject to further notice obligations under the statutory or County notice
requirements. Therefore, there are no mineral interests that require notice under the ULUR or
statute with respect to the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
10. Description of natural and manmade hazards.
Based on the independent Geotechnical Engineering Report, enclosed with the Application (the
"Geotech Report"), and the hazard mitigation plan enclosed with the PUD/Preliminary Plan
Application (the "Hazard Mitigation Plan"), no significant risks from natural hazards are posed
to the Project, and the Project will not exacerbate existing natural hazards within and adjacent to
the Property. Notably, the Hazard Mitigation Plan incorporates the recommendations made in
the Geotech Report and proposes additional mitigation measures or options to ensure a safe and
successful Project and to comply with requirements of the ULUR. See Geotechnical Report
provided in Appendix J of the Impact Analysis; and Hazard Mitigation Plan provided in Tab 6,
Item b. of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
6
River Edge Colorado
PUD Written Description
Attachment A
The Geotech Report identifies the following five conditions of a geologic nature that were
considered in Project planning and are addressed by the Hazard Mitigation Plan:
a. a potential sinkhole hazard,
b. potential terrace escarpment instability,
c. active stream bank erosion,
d. potential debris flows and floods, and
e. earthquake considerations.
First, the Geotech Report identifies nine (9) general sinkhole areas and (3) three sinkhole hazard
zones within or in the near vicinity of the Property (Hazard Zone 1, Hazard Zone 2, and Hazard
Zone 3). Hazard Zone 1 is described as having a high risk of new sinkholes or existing sinkhole
reactivation occurring during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed development.
Consistent with the Geotech Report recommendation, no buildings or movement sensitive
facilities, including utilities, are proposed for Hazard Zone 1. A few roads are planned for
Hazard Zone 1 but the sinkhole risk will be mitigated, in accordance with the Geotech Report, as
detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Hazard Zone 2 is described as an area having an uncertain risk of new sinkholes based on
currently available information. The Geotech Report recommends that additional subsurface
exploration occur to assess whether the sinkhole risk is acceptable to locate buildings in this
zone. Consistent with this recommendation will conduct additional testing prior to development
of the Project, including as part of Phase 0, in order to determine if the risk is acceptable. If it is
determined that risks demanding mitigation are present, CI will take necessary action to mitigate
potential building damage, protect utilities and roads, and/or relocate facilities as necessary in
accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Hazard Zone 3 is described as an area having a low risk of new sinkholes developing during a
reasonable exposure time for the proposed development. Because such area is not risk-free,
consistent with the Geotech Report's recommendation, CI will conduct additional testing prior to
development of the Project, including as part of Phase 0, in order to determine if the risk is
acceptable. If risks are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented in
accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. .
Second, the Geotech Report notes that steep terrace escarpments are present along the Roaring
Fork River and the lower reaches of Cattle Creek. These escarpments are not suitable for
building sites and buildings should be setback from the top of such escarpments. Consistent with
the foregoing, the proposed areas for development within the Property do not encroach into these
escarpments.
Third, the Geotech Report notes that active stream bank erosion during high flood flow is
occurring along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek in several areas where these streams
flow along the base of the steep terrace escarpments. These areas fall within the RFC
Conservation Easement, and do not place the Project at risk. As such, no mitigation is required.
However, CI has proposed to RFC that some mitigation be done to these areas to preserve the
conservation values within the RFC Conservation Easement. CI will seek RFC's approval of
7
River Edge Colorado
PUD Written Description
Attachment A
certain mitigation actions within these areas as part of Phase 0, such as, armoring these areas to
prevent further erosion. If approved by RFC, these areas will be further investigated and a
detailed mitigation program will be developed as part of the reclamation plan for Phase 0.
Fourth, the Geotech Report notes that coalescing alluvial fans developed at the mouth of the
numerous, small drainage basins on the east side of the Roaring Fork Valley where the
ephemeral streams discharge on terrace surfaces. With the exception of the Executive Lot at the
southern end of the Project, development is not being proposed on the alluvial fans. Mitigation
measures, such as flow diversion or deepened foundations, on the Executive Lot will be
incorporated into the final design based on further field investigations and the construction
activities planned for this lot.
Lastly, the Geotech Report found that moderately strong ground shaking should be expected
during a reasonable exposure time for the Project, but that the probability of stronger ground
shaking is low. Moderately strong ground shaking generally is felt by most people and may
cause alarm, but it results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction.
Therefore, consistent with the Geotech Report's recommendation, CI intends to design buildings
and facilities within the Project to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no
damage and to not collapse under stronger ground shaking consistent with Garfield County
Building Code.
In addition to the foregoing, per the Geotech Report, prior grading activities on the Property may
pose a risk because it is unclear whether the fill in all areas were adequately placed and
compacted. To eliminate any potential risk, CI will conduct additional geotechnical testing prior
to development of the Project, including as part of Phase 0 described above, in order to
determine if soils should be removed, replaced, and/or compacted. CI will take necessary action
based on the results of such testing in accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
CI's proposed mitigation strategies are detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The actions
proposed ensure the protection of structures and facilities from damage. To the maximum extent
practicable, CI has avoided development of areas that pose more significant risk.
11. Discussion of impacts on County services, schools, town services and any other unique
operation that may be pertinent to a review of the proposed zone change
The Property will have minimal, if any, impact on infrastructure in the area, County services,
schools, or Glenwood Springs or Carbondale services.
The Project will not be accessed by nor impact any County roads. The main entrance of the
Property and the two (2) EVAs will access SH 82, which falls within the jurisdiction of the
CDOT. In addition, as noted above, all internal roads will be privately owned, operated, and
maintained by the POA, and will provide no demand on County services.
The density of the Project, and increase in school age children in the area anticipated from the
Project, does not warrant the construction of a new school. CI will make a cash deposit to the
Roaring Fork School District RE -1 (the "School District") in lieu of dedicating land. This said,
8
River Edge Colorado
PUD Written Description
Attachment A
CI has preserved its ability to work with the adjacent property owner to secure land for the
School District if public access issues associated with the Property are resolved.
The Project's impacts on water and wastewater services are discussion in criterion 6 of Section I
and criterion 1 of Section II in the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report (Binder 1, Tab
2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application).
The existing fire and law enforcement services are available and adequate to serve the needs of
the Project. The Project is within the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. CI has met
with the Fire District about the Project and the Fire District has expressed no concerns with
serving the Project.
Law enforcement services are provided by the Garfield County Sheriff's Department. The
potential fiscal impacts of the Project, including, without limitation, impacts to the Sheriffs
Department, were assessed in the River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared by Economic
Planning Systems ("EPS"), dated November 16, 2010 (the "Fiscal Impact Analysis"). Based on
EPS's analysis of the Project's fiscal impacts to the County in absolute and relative terms, EPS
determined that the Project may result in a marginal fiscal loss to the County when the Project's
affordable housing component is included in the analysis. However, when the Project's
affordable housing component is excluded from the analysis, the Project provides an ongoing
fiscal benefit to the County. Per the Fiscal Impact Analysis, this discrepancy is attributable to
the fact that affordable homes generate significantly less property and sales tax as a result of
lower market values and household incomes. This said, given that the Project's affordable
housing program will alleviate a key issue of concern and several goals of the Comprehensive
Plan, as detailed above, the Project will provide significant public benefits to the County.
12. Discussion of impacts on existing flora and fauna, air quality, wildlife, historical lands or
sites, drainage or mineral extraction
Please refer to criterion 4 in Section I in the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report
(Binder 1, Tab 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application) with regard to the Project's impacts
on flora and fauna/wildlife.
The Project will have no negative impact on air quality. Rather, as noted above, by providing
housing closer to employment centers located within the Roaring Fork Valley, the Project will
promote energy conservation, improve air quality, shorten trips, and reduce traffic congestion.
Based on CI's review of maps and records on file at the State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation Office, there are no historic or prehistoric sites in or in the immediate vicinity of the
Project.
The Project will not disrupt any drainage or have any negative consequences to water quality or
flooding. The Project is designed to provide adequate site drainage and meet all applicable
discharge standards. The Project will utilize the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's
("UDFCD") Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual ("USDCM"), as amended, as the criteria for
analysis and design of channels and hydraulic structures and as the primary guidance document
9
River Edge Colorado
PUD Written Description
Attachment A
for the selection and design of stormwater quality BMPs. The USDCM is the authoritative
criteria manual in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Region for drainage facility design.
The Project will not impact mineral extraction within the Property. No mineral extraction
activities currently take place on the Property. However, CI proposes to conduct materials
processing within the Property over the course of development of the Project. Specifically, CI
intends to process onsite sand and gravel deposits, claimed as a result of site development, for
use in the construction of the Project. This use will include screening, crushing, washing, and
the creation of concrete from processed sand and gravel resources. All activities will be
conducted in a manner that meets or exceeds applicable noise, air quality and water quality
standards and minimizes visual impacts through appropriate or necessary screening.
In addition, in response to the County's request during the Pre -Application Conference for this
Project that CI address the requirements of C.R.S. §§ 34-1-301 et seq. (the "Mineral Resource
Statute"), CI contracted RMG Engineers to prepare a Mineral Resource Study of the Property.
See Mineral Resource Study enclosed with the Application at Appendix P of the River Edge
Colorado Impact Analysis, prepared by 8140 Partners, LLC, dated January 14, 2011 (the "Impact
Analysis"). The purpose of the Mineral Resource Statute is to ensure that the state's "commercial
mineral deposits" are "extracted according to a rational plan, calculated to avoid waste of such
deposits and cause the least practicable disruption of the ecology and quality of life of the
populous counties of the state." C.R.S. § 34-1-301(1). Although CI has caused this study to be
prepared as a courtesy to the County, CI maintains that this Mineral Resource Statute does not
apply to the Project. The statute specifically provides that "[i]t is the intention of the general
assembly that the provisions of this [Mineral Resource Statute] have full force and effect
throughout such populous counties, ... , but shall have no application outside such populous
counties." Id. § 34-1-301(2) (emphasis added). The statute defines "populous county" as "any
county or city and county having a population of sixty-five thousand inhabitants or more
according to the latest federal decennial census." M. § 34-1-302(3). The most recent federal
decennial census (i.e., Census 2000 because Census 2010 is not yet released) provides that the
population of Garfield County is 43,791. Because the population threshold of 65,000 is not met,
the Mineral Resources Statute does not apply to the Project.
Even if Garfield County's population threshold was met and the Mineral Resources Statute did
apply, based on the Mineral Resources Study, the mineral deposits located within the Property
are not "commercial mineral deposits" as such term is defined by the statute. Per the study, the
deposits within the Property have limited economic significance and strategic value in the
context of Garfield County's overall resources and development, and do not constitute a
significant economic or strategic value to the state or nation. Moreover, extraction of any such
deposits on a commercial scale from the Property is infeasible for various reasons, including,
zoning and planning designations, surrounding development, conservation values adjacent to the
Property, groundwater, and the location and preservation of the RFTA ROW for a rail corridor.
10
Attachment B
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development
and River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan
March 29, 2011
The following information is drawn from the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report
dated January 18, 2011 (Binder 1, Tab 2 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan Application.
1. Requests for relief from certain standards of Article VII of the ULUR
Article VII of the ULUR contemplates that the standards discussed in this Subsection 1 from
which CI requests relief might not be applicable or appropriate for all projects and therefore may
be waived. The standards discussed herein are inapplicable or inappropriate for the Project.
Therefore, CI requests that the County waive the application of these standards to the Project.
a. Restrictive Inner Buffer
Section 7-203.A of the ULUR establishes a setback of thirty-five (35) feet measured horizontally
from the typical and ordinary high water line on each side of a waterbody (the "Inner Buffer
Setback"). This said, Section 7-203.A.2 provides that "[i]rrigation and water diversion facilities,
flood control structures, culverts, bridges and other reasonable and necessary structures requiring
some disturbance within this setback may be permitted." M.
CI requests that the County permit CI to construct the bridge, utility crossings, and diversion
facilities proposed as part of the Project within the Inner Buffer Setback located along the
Roaring Fork River. See Bridge Plan and Section 501.01 of the Drawing Package for a
description of the proposed structures. Alternative bridge structures that would avoid the Inner
Buffer Setback have been reviewed, but no substantial advantage to avoiding the Inner Buffer
Setback has been identified. Rather, due to slopes and constraints associated with intersection
alignments, the proposed shorter bridge structure with limited encroachments into the Inner
Buffer Setback, provides a safer condition in the professional judgment of the Project Engineer,
William S. Otero. In addition, the bridge crossing will be subject to Section 404 of the CWA
and a floodplain activity permit or other review by the County.
The utility crossings and water diversion facilities are required in order to access irrigation water,
connect to the Roaring Fork District water and wastewater facilities (if the Roaring Fork District
is selected as the water and/or sanitary sewer provider), and access CI's potable water rights in
the Roaring Fork River to support the Project. These activities will comply with Section 404 of
the CWA and likely will be subject to a Nationwide Section 404 Permit issued by the USCOE.
These activities might also require a floodplain activity permit or other review by the County.
The activities proposed within the Inner Buffer Setback also will be performed in accordance
with applicable erosion and sediment control measures required by the storm water pollution
River Edge Colorado
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
prevention plan. Areas affected by these activities will be reclaimed in accordance with
applicable PUD standards.
Lastly, as discussed in the Impact Report, the proposed activities will result in no adverse impact
to Cattle Creek or the Roaring Fork River. See Section III.B.2.a of the Impact Analysis.
In addition to the foregoing, CI requests relief from the application of Section 7-203.A.3 of the
ULUR. This Section prohibits within the Inner Buffer Setback "unless permitted or approved,"
the "[d]isturbance of existing natural surface drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns,
flow patterns, or flood retention characteristics[,]" and provides further that "[m]easures taken to
restore existing topography to improve drainage, flow patterns and flood control must be
approved." Id. CI requests the County's approval of its plan to repair and restore as part of
Phase 0 riparian areas within the Inner Buffer Setback previously damaged by agricultural
operations and site grading activities. The proposed activities are in keeping with the intent of
Section 7-203 to protect wetlands and waterbodies, and will be performed in compliance with the
RFC Conservation Easement and erosion and water quality control provisions of the ULUR.
Details of the proposed activities are provided in Reclamation Plan included in Appendix U of
the Impact Analysis and on the Reclamation Plan (RPO1 Series) and Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan (ES02) of the Drawing Package.
b. Subdrains for all foundations
Section 7-206.B.2 of the ULUR provides that "[s]ubdrains shall be required for all foundations
where possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight to proper drainage
channels."
Subdrains will be used as appropriate as determined by the engineer designing the foundation
and applicable hazard mitigation measures. It is inappropriate or unnecessary to provide a
subdrain under circumstances where soils are generally well drained like those at the Project. In
addition, due to soil conditions, in most cases, basements will not be utilized. As detailed in the
Hazard Mitigation Plan, the need for a subdrain should be left to the design engineer based on
the specific site circumstances.
c. Public road dedications
Section 7-405.C.1.a of the ULUR provides that "[u]nless specifically approved as private rights-
of-way and so designated on the final plat, all roads, streets, alleys or other public traffic ways
located within the subdivision and benefiting current or future residents of the subdivision shall
be dedicated as public rights-of-way." Id.
As discussed previously in this Report, all roads internal to the Project are proposed to be private
roads. Access to the Property requires a crossing of the RFTA ROW. The RFTA ROW is
maintained as a rail -banked corridor and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of RFTA and the
Public Utilities Commission (the "PUC"). Based on discussions with the PUC, a crossing that is
open to the public for access to a subdivision likely would be treated by the PUC as a "public"
crossing subject to the PUC's review and approval. However, there appear to be no avenues
2
River Edge Colorado
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
under the PUC regulations for a private entity to apply to the PUC for authority to construct a
highway -rail crossing where tracks or other facilities currently exist. See Section 7203, 4 C.C.R.
723-7. Partially in response to this situation, CI requested that the Garfield County Board of
County Commissioners (the "BOCC") approve the creation of a special district for the Project.
The BOCC denied this request in September 2010. This denial leaves CI with no option but to
pursue the approval of private roads for the Project. CI has, however, retained the option to
convert the private roads to public roads if a quasi -governmental or governmental entity,
including any special district or metropolitan district formed in accordance with Colorado law, is
willing to accept and assume ownership of and maintenance responsibilities for such roads.
At the present time, the Project's roads are not designed to connect to any external roadways,
except for SH 82, and will only serve residents of the Project.
Based on the foregoing, dedicating the roads internal to the Project as public rights-of-way is
inappropriate and unnecessary. Accordingly, CI requests that the County approve all roads
internal to the Project as private rights-of-way.
2. Requests for modifications from certain standards of Article VII of the ULUR
In addition, to the relief requested in Subsection 1 above, CI requests modifications from the
following County standards:
a. Section 7-108 standard that "[aJll roads shall be designed to road design standards set
forth in Section 7-307... "
Roads within the Project are being proposed as suburban/urban sections to better support
adjacent lot designs, including, proposed lot sizes, setbacks, and pedestrian/street-focused
orientation. Without approval of the proposed design standard for roads, CI would be unable to
cluster lots in the manner proposed, preserve the proposed amount of open space, or provide for
pedestrian and street -oriented suburban densities. The road design standards provided in Section
7-307 would generally require that lots within the Project be double to triple their currently
proposed size. Under such a program, while densities might remain the same, at least 75% of the
land within the Project would be held in private spaces. The proposed road standards are
relatively conservative suburban sections with on -street parking in both directions, which
configuration provides more than three times the road design capacity than that demanded by this
Project. This configuration could reasonably provide for connections to the north and east of the
Project if desired and if Project's internal roads were to become public.
b. Section 7-207 Storm water Drainage Standards.
In lieu of the standards set forth in Section 7-207, CI proposes to comply with the standards and
criteria provided by the UDFCD USDCM Volumes I and II, as amended, in its design of
channels and hydraulic structures, and to use these standards and criteria as the primary guidance
document for the selection and design of stormwater quality BMPs. This modification is being
requested in an effort to provide comprehensive and appropriate standards and specifications that
will be applied to the Project since the ULUR does not provide appropriate or detailed enough
3
River Edge Colorado
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
criteria to address the infrastructure, conditions, and "suburban" form of development proposed
for the Project. The USDCM is recognized as being one of the most comprehensive drainage
criteria manuals available in the State of Colorado and has been used as the basis for the
development of local drainage criteria manuals and in drainage design and review processes by a
wide variety of municipalities in the State from Grand Junction to Denver to Fort Collins. The
USDCM is approved and accepted by the Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control
Division as a reasonable basis for design. Application of the USDCM assures that storm water
will meet applicable water quality standards and that drainage structures and facilities will be
designed to adequately convey storm drainage. In all cases, as promoted by the ULUR, where
more naturalized channels and swales may be used to reasonably collect, treat and convey
stormwater, these methods will be utilized as opposed to piping or concrete ditches. Details are
provided in the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and the Bridges, Structures, and Drainage
Structures Plans (Series DR01-03 and SO1) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ES01-ES06)
or the Drawing Package.
c. Section 7-207. C.1 requirement that "[dJetention facilities shall ensure the post -
development peak discharge rate does not exceed the pre -development peak discharge
rate for the 2 -year and 25 year return frequency, 24-hour duration storm. In
determining runoff rates, the entire area contributing runoff shall be considered,
including any existing off-site contribution."
CI requests that only the water quality capture volume, and not the total stormwater volume (i.e.,
quantity storage) required by the ULUR, be detained prior to discharge off the Project Site to
either Cattle Creek or the Roaring Fork River. The primary reason for this request is that the
Property is located at the confluences of the two major perennial waterways and detention of
surface runoff at historic rates provides little value or could even be detrimental to these
waterways since it delays the releases from the Project in a manner that could coincide with the
peak flows from larger contributing basins upstream (i.e., adding to the magnitude of the peak
flow). If stormwater quantities are not detained, the peak flows generated from the Property will
be released prior to these other peaks entering the areas. Furthermore, stormwater runoff from
the Property does not discharge to or impact adjacent properties or downstream drainage
structures. Should the County believe that quantity storage in addition to quality storage is
required, the storage volumes for both quantity and quality are provided in the Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan and the area necessary to store this increased volume is available within
the locations identified on the engineering plans to accommodate the volumes without any
impact to lots within the Project. It is the opinion of William S. Otero, Project Engineer that
detaining excess quantity volume is unproductive at best and potentially damaging to
downstream areas at worst.
d. Section 7-305.A.1.f standard that "[aJll required landscaping must be located outside
of any adjacent right-of-way unless a written waiver is received from the Director."
CI requests the Director's approval to provide landscape strips and landscaped areas within the
rights-of-way and adjacent to the roads internal to the Project. As noted above, roads internal to
the Project will at least initially be maintained by the POA. The proposed landscaping is a
critical feature of the Project and provides for detached sidewalks. The landscaping will not
4
River Edge Colorado
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
interfere with the clear vision triangle and therefore presents no hazard to motorists. Further, the
proposed landscaping will have no impact to County operations or facilities.
e. Section 7-305.A.7.a standard that "[dJeciduous trees shall be a minimum of two inches
(2'9 in caliper measured four inches (4'9 above the ground."
CI proposes a standard of 11/2" caliper to enhance survival. CI's landscape architect, Pedro
Campos, has determined that survival rates would be substantially enhanced at the site by
reducing tree sizes. Survival rate is one of the most critical factors in ensuring the success of a
landscape plan. Winter desiccation has the potential to kill a large number of trees in this
environment particularly in consideration of the limited soil matrix and water retaining properties
of the surficial deposits. To this end, winter watering is proposed to help establish trees. The
cost savings involved has been translated into the higher planting ratios proposed on the site than
other comparable developments in the County. The overall intent of the landscape program as
detailed in the Landscape Plan and LA01-05 Series of the Drawing Package meets or exceeds the
intent of the ULUR in all other respects.
f Section 7-307 Roadway Standards.
This section details a series of roadway standards for rural roads. The Project incorporates a
series of road, trail and sidewalk sections more in keeping with the goals of the Project. The
road sections follow commonly accepted design standards for suburban roadways, incorporate
curb and gutter to control drainage, and provide a detached sidewalk for pedestrian safety and
comfort. The proposed road sections and standards are detailed in the Project Engineering
Design Report, PUD Guide and on the PUD Plan (PUD01-04) and Streets, Trails and Walkway
Plan (CO01-04) of the Drawing Package. The roads, as planned, will have significant excess
capacity (i.e., 2-6 times that required for this Project) and will provide for safe and efficient
intersections, vision, and speeds. The rural sections and standards required as part of the ULUR
cannot be utilized for the Project without changing the clustered program, enlarging lots and
eliminating open space.
g.
Section 7-405.A requirement that "[tJhe Board of County Commissioners shall require
reservation or dedication of public sites and open space for schools and parks that are
reasonably necessary to serve the residents of the proposed subdivision and future
residents. In lieu of a dedication of sites and land areas, the Board may require
payment of a sum of money not exceeding the full market value of such sites and land
areas, or a combination of land dedication and payment in lieu of dedication."
Due to the small number of residential units proposed for the Project, the Project would owe less
than the land required for dedication of a school site. In addition, the Property is not accessible
by a public road as a result of the RFTA ROW and lack of a public entity willing to take
responsibility for the crossing under the PUC. Therefore, CI proposes to pay fees -in -lieu of
dedication for schools. CI further proposes no public dedications of land for roads, parks or open
space. CI proposes that all roads, parks and open space within the Project will be held by the
POA for the private enjoyment of the residents and for right of ingress and egress to their
5
River Edge Colorado
Requests for Waivers of Provisions/Standards in the ULUR
properties via the roads within the Property. The Board denied CI's request in September 2010
to form a Metropolitan District which would have provided a mechanism for providing public
access to the Property and parks and open spaces provided therein. At the present time, CI has
no ability to provide for public access over the RFTA ROW to the site. CI has provided
allowances for future dedications if conditions change.
6