Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.00 BOCC Staff Report 11.21.2011BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Zone District Amendment / PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan Carbondale Investments, LLC Rockwood Shepard OWNER/APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: PROPERTY SIZE: WATER/SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Mid -way between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs on the west side of SH 82 at Cattle Creek ±160 -acres Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District State Highway 82 Residential Suburban (RS) CL, CG, PUD, Rural Future Land Use Map - Residential High Density 1 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION A. Property Location The property is generally located in the western 1/2 of Sections 7 and 18 of Township 7 South, Range 88 West and in the eastern half of Sections 1 and 12 of Township 7 South, Range 89 West. More practically, the property is located 2.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs east and adjacent to State Highway 82 (SH 82) with a primary access point located opposite Cattle Creek Road (CR 113) as it intersects with SH 82 in the lower Roaring Fork Valley. Properties to the north include two commercial parks (Eastbank & Evergreen) and a high- density mobile home park (H Lazy F). Properties to the west include a medium -density (Teller Springs) and high-density (Iron Bridge) residential development. Properties to the south include an active gravel extraction operation (LaFarge) and medium -density residential development (Aspen Glen). Properties to the east include a variety of commercial businesses (Van Rand Park), and a high-density mobile home park (Mountain Meadows Court). B. General Property Description The property contains approximately 160 -acres of former 281.62 acres site that was recently subdivided into several >35 -acre parcels. The subject site is located on the floor of the Roaring Fork Valley and is configured in a linear north - south orientation with the Rio Grande Trail forming its east border and the Roaring Fork River forming its western border. Physically the property can be characterized by several benches that step down in an east to 2 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE west direction towards the Roaring Fork River. A perpetual conservation easement held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy is located adjacent to the subject site of this application. C. Property History Beyond what has been protected in the adjacent easement, the entire property has been virtually denuded of any viable vegetation and stripped of much of its topsoil as a result of former development attempts by a previous owner which has left the property in poor condition. The ground cover is primarily characterized by cobles and gravel with three or four large piles of unanchored topsoil. Some rough grading work is also evident where the previous owner had begun to rough in a golf course. The Sanders Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in 2001 with a site specific development plan that included a golf course, 62 single-family dwelling units and 168 multi -family dwelling units for a total average density of 1.22 acres / du or conversely, 0.81 du / acre. Subsequently, the owner of the property at the time (Sopris Development Group) sold the property to Linksvest / Bair Chase, LLC who submitted a Preliminary Plan Application in 2003 based on the PUD which was approved by the BOCC in 2004 and extended in 2005. In February, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners revoked approval for the uncompleted portion of the PUD and rezoned that portion to Residential Suburban (known as RGSD under the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended) leaving the area encompassed by the conservation easement held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy zoned as Open Space / Conservation District in the Sanders Ranch PUD as shown right. The net result was that the Preliminary Plan Application became invalid due to expiration; certain obligations / timeframes contained within the Phasing Plan in the PUD also became invalid thus rendering the entire PUD Plan invalid. Open Space Conservation District in Sanders Ranch PUD 3 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE In October 2008 the site was owned by River Bend, LLC when Related WestPac, LLC submitted an application for a Zone District Amendment for Planned Unit Development (PUD). This PUD proposed 1,006 dwelling units, 30,000 square feet of commercial, a school site, open space and recreation as shown on the development plan below. r "I I, r River North nM+_ Neighborhood •I ,ag,g "ti i* . * River South !. - ,.- Neigh sorhoo d .,.'" 4 x' `� �ilsa«eCori . . - r .i fit, > g. _'' . - .144rte,. d r c $ar This application was subsequently withdrawn by the Applicant prior to any action taken on the request. II. RIVER EDGE COLORADO (REC) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The current owner of the site, Carbondale Investments, LLC, (CI) proposes to rezone a portion of the original site discussed above, from Residential Suburban to PUD to allow for development of 366 dwelling units (including 55 affordable units), 30,000 square feet of public, quasi - public and commercial floor area, open space and recreation. The owner has also included a Preliminary Plan Application to allow for subdivision of the site. Ri erEdge Land use and davaldpmant nlsn— a,erD _La 4 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE The application materials contain the following project description: 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 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. The Applicant proposes that the development proceed in 11 phases with reclamation of the entire 160 -acres being completed in Phase 0. The development is anticipated to be built -out in 2019 based upon an average annual absorption rate of 58 units per year (this information has changed through the review process to 2031). The Applicant is requesting a vesting period for the development for a period of 20 years. PHASING The PUD Plan and charts, along with language in the PUD Guide and engineer construction plan (CP01.01), constitute the phasing plan for the development. In general the staging and timing of the proposed development is described as: The Project is proposed in several stages or filings. There are 6 filings and 5 subfilings. The Project will be constructed over a period 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. 5 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Phase 0 - This first phase is to reclaim the site in preparation for development activities. Included in the 68 page Reclamation Plan, itemized as Appendix U in Binder 2 is the following intent: This Plan proposes and details a pre -development reclamation action ("Phase 0"), including grading, necessary to repair the damage to the Project Site resulting from actions taken by Bair Chase in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD which partially regraded the Project Site (as hereinafter defined) for residential and golf course development and stripped and stockpiled the topsoil. The description of the reclamation is basically a `grading program' but also includes: • Relocation of the Rio Grande Trail at the entry to the site. The Applicant states that this relocation will be done in coordination with RFTA and will result in a grade - separated trail that will reduce or eliminate potential conflicts between trail users and access to the site. • Relocation of the Glenwood Ditch to facilitate property development. • Site grading includes movement of 1.2 million cubic yards of material which will re - grade the site for proper drainage and resolve existing and potential geotechnical hazards. In addition this will also repair and stabilize eroding steep terrace escarpments, and repair active and stabilize stream bank erosion. • Construction of drainage facilities and water quality detention ponds. • Final revegetation and planting of vegetative screens along the Rio Grande Trail and the conservation easement. Phase 1 — 59 lots (39 "Town" lots and 20 "Attached" lots); off-site infrastructure such as access from Highway 82, a private at -grade crossing over the grade separated-RFTA trail, connection to water and wastewater treatment facilities if service is provided by RFWSD. On-site improvements include the round -about and streets to serve the lots, bridge over Cattle Creek, water and sewer lines, parking and mailboxes at the Community Center 6 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Phase 1B — 26 lots (13 Garden Homes and 13 Affordable Homes). These first two phases are anticipated to be constructed between 2012 and 2014. Phase 2 — 31 lots (12 Village Lots, 19 Attached) Phase 2A - 56 lots (28 Garden Homes and 28 Affordable Homes). Phase 3 — 36 Lots (35 Town Lots and 1 Village Lot) Phase 4 — 52 Lots (44 Town Lots and 8 Village Lots) Phase 4A — 19 Garden Home Lots Phase 5 - 27 Town Lots Phase 5A - 28 Lots (14 Garden Home Lots and 14 Affordable Homes) Phase 6 — 61 Lots (9 Estate Lots, 17 Town Lots and 35 Village Lots) III. REFERRAL AGENCIES The PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan applications were referred to the following agencies and County Departments for their review and comment. Comments that were received are briefly noted below and more substantively included in the body of the memorandum. a. Garfield County Road & Bridge: EXHIBIT 1 Questions regarding water tank and traffic generation. b. Garfield County Public Works: EXHIBIT J SGM reviewed the proposal on behalf of Public Works as SGM is involved in an intersection study which includes the Cattle Creek (CR 113) / Old Dump Road (CR 110) intersection with SH 82. Issues identified include the alignment of the proposed access to the development, deviations from CDOT standards for shoulders, and potential alternatives for traffic control related to a development of 300+ units. SGM recommends that the Applicant coordinate with the County and CDOT on these issues. c. Garfield County Housing Authority: EXHIBIT K The Housing Authority reviewed the proposed affordable housing component of the development including a rental component that is not addressed in the County's guidelines, percentage of AMI that exceeds the maximum County guidelines, proposes flexibility given the long build -out schedule, and questions regarding timing on provision of units. Additional comments are expected regarding the proposed deed restriction language when those documents are submitted and finalized. d. Garfield County Sheriff Department: EXHIBIT L The Emergency Operations Sergeant has concerns regarding the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) points and impact on the ingress -egress onto SH 82. e. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: EXHIBIT M Steve Anthony recommends stronger language in the covenants regarding responsibility of noxious weed management of the site. Mr. Anthony would like a provision removed that requires noxious weed treatment once 5% of the site is covered with noxious weeds, this is contrary to requirements that eradication must occur upon detection of List A and List B species. The revegetation plan is acceptable however a quantification of surface area to be disturbed is typically requested — however in this case the $2,500 per acre security may apply to the entire site (Staff calculates that this could result in a requirement for revegetation security in the amount of $400,000 prior to issuance of a grading permit for Phase 0). 7 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE f. Garfield County Environmental Health: EXHIBIT N Jim Rada identified concerns regarding the water supply and wastewater treatment plan in which the application is not definitive in terms of who will provide service to the development. The ability of a Property Owner Association to operate and maintain such a system will likely be expensive and burdensome to the owners. Other concerns relate to social issues such as sustainable, walkable communities, growing fresh food, access to fresh food and other amenities that will require driving to Carbondale or Glenwood Springs. g. Colorado State Division of Water Resources: EXHIBIT 0 "Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan that meets the number of EQRs proposed by this application, the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-28- 136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate." Staff is expecting receipt of additional comments from the DWR based on additional information provided by the Applicant. h. Colorado Geologic Survey: EXHIBIT P CGS states that the Applicant has generally done a good job of avoiding the most severe geologic hazards (sinkholes and subsidence, expansive and collapsible soils, slope instability adjacent to the river, uncontrolled fill, and debris flow and flooding hazards). Critical recommendations should be required to protect public safety, including the necessity of further investigations and site-specific mitigation action. CGS recommends additional mitigation measures as outlined in their response. i. Colorado Department of Transportation: EXHIBIT Q and BB Dan Roussin responded that CDOT had no comment on the zone change application (Exhibit Q) and that the development would need an access permit. Mr. Roussin also states that the traffic study indicates installation of a traffic signal in 2018. Further comment includes consideration of re -alignment of the CR 113 intersection in conjunction with this proposed access. j• Colorado Division of Wildlife: EXHIBIT R Significant impact should not result if the recommendations outlined in CDOW comments form 2008 and 2009 are followed. These include concern with stormwater runoff into Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River, burying utilities, fencing restrictions, protection of riparian areas, 100' setback from the bluff along the river, and issues related to the Heron Rookery. k. RE -1 School District: EXHIBIT AA The development land dedication requirement is 7.3 acres however this amount is not adequate to address site requirements for an elementary school and required accessory facilities. "The District's only option at this point is to accept fees in -lieu of land dedication..." I. Carbondale Fire Protection District: EXHIBIT S Developments with more than 200 units have to have two separate and approved fire access roads, details of which have not been submitted to the District for approval. The proposed system appears capable of providing adequate fire flow and fire hydrants appear adequate as well. The District raises the issue of fire sprinkler requirements. Lastly, the development will be required to pay fire district impact fees of $730.00 per lot/unit ($267,180). m. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA): EXHIBIT T RFTA expressed concern with growth outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries of the Town 8 of Carbondale and City of Glenwood Springs, particularly as it time. The crossing of the Rio Grande Trail (ROW) is permissible by at -grade access to the site. This easement poses issues, conflicts with trail users. BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE affects transit cost and travel current easement that allows particularly related to safety n. Mountain Cross Engineering: EXHIBIT U Water - Two options for water and sanitation service result in evidence of a legal supply pending outcome of court decrees, however the physical supply of water is still pending negotiations. Regardless, the Applicant must demonstrate via well pump test, water quality test and community water system approvals from CDPHE related to private provision of water and sanitation; or if provided by RFWSD there must be evidence of adequate capacity of the District systems. Proposed EQR values are not consistent with ULUR requirements of 350 gallons per day. Proposed private system did not include specifications for on- and off-site improvements that will be necessary including, but not limited to, pump stations, pipelines, sewer plants, water tanks, etc. Engineer -design of the anticipated pumping system was not provided. Geology — Additional geotechnical testing could result in changes to the proposed layout and density. The Applicant's geotechnical engineer recommends foundation sub -drains be provided however the flatness of the site results in a recommendation that the Applicant consider a provide wide method for suitable gravity outlet for these drains (the Applicant is requesting waiver from provision of foundation sub -drain). Detention - A waiver is requested from providing storm -water detention for peak flow attenuation. This should be of no concern provided that water -quality detention is still provided. Access — One public access for the project residents results in concern. An access permit will need to be obtained. Home occupations are permitted but the traffic report did not appear to include these calculations. See Exhibit U for full list of engineering issues. o. City of Glenwood Springs: EXHIBIT V • Creation of an unincorporated community; • Sprawl; • Though the number of units is smaller so is the site, future development could be equal to or exceed previous applications; • A rezoning does not appear to be justified as there is no "demonstrated community need"; • The absorption rate in the fiscal impact analysis seems unlikely (58 units per year for the remainder of the decade); • Increased burden on services such as sheriff, fire, CDOT, school district and results in a "negative impact on county finances"; • The application alludes to a signalized intersection although is somewhat unclear, impact to the RFTA corridor; • Provision of water and wastewater treatment is unclear; • Questions regarding the site size. p. U.S. Fish & Wildlife: EXHIBIT W The wildlife assessment describes the presence of Ute Ladies' -tresses orchid which is a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. If water is to be provided 9 q. BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE by the District versus private, potential impacts could result. A 404 permit application will require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: EXHIBIT X Wetland boundary confirmation and jurisdictional determination is confirmed, however it is not clear if impact to jurisdictional waters will be entirely avoided. Alternatives must be evaluation if there are not practicable alternatives mitigation plans should be developed. r. Town of Carbondale — Planning and Zoning: EXHIBIT EE This property was recommended to not be included within the Unincorporated Communities area which is a justification used by the Applicant for the rezoning. The PC considered this application at their June 16th meeting noting that the proposed pricepoint is consistent with nearby developments both in and outside (within municipal boundaries) of the County. Approval of this development would not equate to economic development and represents unnecessary suburban sprawl. Other issues identified include traffic impacts to SH 82, proposed development on a portion of the original property, additional river buffering should be considered, the site plan does not reflect clustering, water and wastewater issues, additional details necessary on the signalized intersection, coordination with RFTA, and impacts to wildlife. s. Town of Carbondale — Board of Trustees: EXHIBIT FF Stacey Patch Bernot, Mayor, responded to the referral with several concerns including community need, justification questioned on beneficial impact to SH 82, review should occur on the whole site not just a portion divided from the original parcel, and impacts to wildlife. t. Roaring Fork Conservancy — EXHIBIT KK Rick Lofaro, Executive Director, states that RFC has concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed development on the easement and values associated with that easement. Impacts related to the original 280 -acre parcel should be should be considered. No comments were received from the following agencies: u. Water Conservancy Board v. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment w. Colorado State Forest Service x. Soil Conservation District y. Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District z. Glenwood Ditch Company IV. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROJECT SITE One component of the Comprehensive Plan is the Future Land Use Map which designates density ranges and uses that may be considered �_- !►r appropriate for an area. 10 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE This site has been subdivided from the original 288 -acres as indicated on the map left into a property shown above that consists of 160 -acres of the original parcel. The Roaring Fork Conservancy Conservation Easement is not included in this application and will remain a separate parcel zoned Sanders Ranch PUD, Open Space. The Introduction to the Plan discusses the following general issues which should be considered in the analysis of this proposal: Vacant Lots - Garfield County has approved a number of subdivisions that are undeveloped or only partially developed. Approximately 2,400 vacant subdivided lots exist throughout the county. Cost of Growth - Like most counties, Garfield County government (departments, services, tax structure) is set up to serve rural needs. The county is not currently set up to be in the "urban" business — to provide urban services to residential and commercial areas. And yet, there have been, and could be more, significant subdivisions in the unincorporated county. Even while being served by homeowners' associations (HOA's), property owners' associations (POA's), and special districts, rural subdivisions still place significant additional burdens on county services and finances (maintenance of roads designed for rural traffic, public safety at higher levels, social services, etc.). In addition, residents of rural subdivisions often bring increased expectations of service, which eventually translates into increased costs to all. Uncoordinated Growth - All of the municipalities in Garfield County have established and planned for areas of growth (Urban Growth Areas). Together, these Urban Growth Areas could absorb 2.5 times the projected county growth for the next 20 years. Yet, these areas legally remain in the county jurisdiction until they are annexed. The current process and lack of effective intergovernmental cooperation leads to development patterns in the Urban Growth Areas that can eventually thwart community growth plans and lead to inefficient services. Private Property Rights - Garfield County recognizes that owners have an inherent right to develop property as long as the development is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the county and does not adversely affect adjacent property rights. The development of land should be consistent with the general land use goals and policies of Garfield County. Chapter 2. Future Land Use includes the following direction: Future Land Use Map The Future Land Use Map designates the site as Residential High Density which provides a `range' of appropriate densities and a method of determining what range is appropriate for a particular site: Determining the density range, High Density range is 11 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE from 3 du per acre (480 units on the REC parcel) to 1 du per < 2 acres (80 units on the REC parcel), the range for a particular site will be determined by the Planning Commission based on "degree of public benefit" and consideration of such factors as affordable housing, amount of parks/trails/open space, energy conservation, fiscal impacts, preservation of views, providing for schools and other public needs. Growth of New Major Residential Subdivisions There are several major subdivisions (15 units or more) in Garfield County that provide their own internal services (road maintenance, water, sewer) through special districts or HOA. However, these subdivisions are typically far from commercial centers and require travel for even convenience needs which increases traffic and requires higher maintenance of county roads. The Plan recognizes new major subdivisions may occur, but encourages them to be more self-sufficient (having, or being near, convenience services). In order to be more self- sufficient, new major subdivisions will require: i. Safe, reliable access and transit opportunities ii. Construction or upgrade existing offsite connecting county roads and intersections by the developer iii. Review of the fiscal costs vs. fiscal benefits to the public iv. Internal roads to be maintained by a special district or HOA v. Central water and sewer is provided through a special district (quasi -public, not private) vi. Public amenities, such as trails, open areas, parks, etc., that meet the needs of residents are included. Staff Comment: The proposed development has mixed compliance with these requirements. i. REC proposes the ability to have a `coffee shop' type of activity, or other convenience type use, located in the Neighborhood Center tract. Otherwise the nearest located convenience services would be at CMC Road and SH 82. ii. This development will rely on transportation via the state highway in order to access convenience services such as grocery stores and other necessities as well as employment centers. Transit opportunities will be limited based upon referral comments from RFTA which state "the nearest RFTA boarding locations Spring Creek Road and Aspen Glen." Staff assumes that Spring Creek Road is CR 114, aka CMC Road where there is an existing bus stop. iii. The Applicant is working with Public Works and CDOT regarding the alignment/improvements at the north side of the intersection of CR 113/CR110 and SH 82. iv. A Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), was provided in the submittal documentation; see Appendix N in Binder 2. The analysis was premised upon this development capturing 25% of the projected growth in the mid -valley, resulting in an absorption rate of 58 units annually with anticipated build -out of the project in 2019. Peak annual construction employment is anticipated at 141 jobs. Based upon a review of the revenues generated by the development, including property tax, sales tax, building permit fees, and the expenditures necessitated by the development, the resulting net fiscal impact to the county will be -26,000 annually. This negative will be offset by the construction related sales tax and building permit fees. The latter is anticipated to generate $1,200,000 in building permit fees over the life of developing the property, however 12 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE the analysis does not appear to consider the cost to the County for employees such as plans examiners or building inspectors. The Analysis states that the cumulative net fiscal impact, including the one-time revenues discussed above, at $566,000. "Holding all revenues and expenditure constant, the cumulative net fiscal impact will cover the annual shortfalls for another 21 years, or through the year 2042." (Page 1, EPS) The projected foreclosure rate in Garfield County for 2011 is anticipated to be 700 units, up from 650 units in 2010. This will likely have an impact on the projected absorption rate that is anticipated to commence in 2012. Andy Knudtsen, Economic & Planning Systems, provided a supplemental analysis based upon staff comments on the Fiscal Impact Analysis in Attachment E, EXHIBIT ?. Mr. Knudtsen reiterates that the `development will generate annual on-going revenues of $440,000 and one-time revenues of $1.3 million'. Based upon population projections the absorption rate of 58 units per year is supported as it equates to approximately 5 percent capture of County growth based upon the Colorado Water Conservation Board Growth Forecasts. The timing and duration of economic cycles is significant however long-term forecasts anticipate positive and negative cycles within a given projections. "Thus, an extended development process and variability in market timing would have a minimal impact on the River Edge fiscal performance." v. Internal roads are proposed to be private and maintained by the Property Owners Association. Entry to the development may be gated however no detail was provided on how this would function. vi. The Applicant had originally requested the option to provide water and wastewater to the development by private systems or by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. The Comp Plan recommends provision of these services through a Special District, not a private system. It appears that a pre -inclusion agreement with the District is imminent therefore this issue may have been resolved. vii. The Applicant proposes to provide significant open space including both active and passive areas. However the Applicant is not proposing to provide (construct) any recreational amenities and instead has stated an allowance that the POA will have the ability to construct those facilities that are determined necessary by the residents of the development. The proposal is not in general conformance with Sections i., iii, v. (mixed), and potentially vi if agreement is not reached with the District. Growth in Unincorporated Communities New (or expanded existing) unincorporated communities should meet the following guidelines: i. Not located in UGA of existing municipalities; ii. Served with urban services by a special district; iii. Contract for police from county sheriff is established; iv. Connecting county roads are upgraded at developer's expense; v. Fiscal costs to the public will be considered; vi. Internal commercial is primarily for area residents; vii. Transit opportunities are provided; viii. Recreation and other public amenities are provided, ix. School sites may be required. 13 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Staff Comment: Further discussion should occur regarding compliance with Sections v. as fiscal impacts have been considered but long-term costs to the County will result; vii. no on-site transit facilities will be provided, and possibly ix. RE -1 has stated that provision of a school site is preferred, resulting in mixed compliance with this element. Chapter 3 -Plan Elements This chapter analyzes plan elements that include: 1. Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination - The nearest property boundary of REC is located 2.46 miles from the Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Area and 2.61 miles from the Carbondale Urban Growth Area, locating this property halfway between two existing population centers. The FLUM designation of Residential High (less than 2 acres per dwelling unit) is somewhat contradictory to this element but more understandable if the density range of Residential High is considered (range is from 1 unit per 2 acres to 3 units per acre). The designation of Rural Employment Center is related to the land uses on the southeast side of Highway 82. 2. Housing - The Applicant proposes to provide 55 affordable units compliant with ULUR requirements. However there are several components of the affordable housing plan that were not contemplated in the Affordable Housing requirements, including the request to rent those units not sold, timing of construction of the units, etc. Some of these requests may be appropriate however they do not meet the letter of the code requirements. This should be considered during the review, however the Applicant has stated that they will amend their housing plan to comply with the ULUR if necessary. 3. Transportation — The Applicant has stated that this development will provide an opportunity for upper valley employees to live in the Roaring Fork Valley rather than commuting from the Colorado River Valley. In theory this may decrease traffic on 1-70 and Highway 82 through the City of Glenwood Springs. However the location of the development will require that residents continue to commute as the site is located between two community centers, transit access will be limited and few employment opportunities exist within the development. The improvements required to Highway 82 at the entrance to the site are significant and will impact the Cattle Creek intersection at SH 82. The Director of Public Works, CDOT, and the Applicant will continue to meet to address this issue. 4. Economics, Employment and Tourism — Though the development and construction will create employment opportunities they will be temporary and will not be primary jobs. Employment for the on-site recreation/daycare/coffee shop facilities may generate several on-going service industry positions. Overall POA maintenance of the development may also create several positions, though a specific number of positions has not been provided. 5. Recreation, Open Space and Trails — The development does provide internal trails and areas for recreation including the potential for tot lots and other active uses. The Applicant has stated that funding for these improvements will be either included within the County Improvements Agreement or somehow bonded or provided to the POA. Staff recommends a condition of approval that will require the recreation improvements be included in the Improvements Agreement which will require the provision of collateral to assure construction of the facilities. 6. Agriculture — The application states that the development would like to retain agricultural uses on the site however the current Suburban zoning does not permit Agricultural Uses. 14 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Compliance with the underlying zone district is a requirement of a PUD, however the provision of `garden and orchard' sites may function as an accessory use to the residential community. The addition of uses not found in the underlying zone district may occur within a PUD if supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Water and Sewer Services — This issue is somewhat convoluted as the original application suggested that the site may provide their own water and sanitation through a private system or that the development would obtain service from Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). It appears that significant headway has been made between the Applicant and RFWSD as Staff has been notified that a pre -inclusion agreement is forthcoming. This leaves one remaining question as the Applicant has stated that some portions of the development may be provided private water and wastewater systems. The Applicant should provide clarification regarding this issue. 8. Natural Resources — Preservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources is proposed, particularly when the first phase of the development reclaims the site. Protection of the riparian corridor and conservation easement are specifically discussed in the development plan. Other components of this element include air and water quality protections including stormwater management and flooding, wildlife habitat, native vegetation and light pollution. 9. Mineral Extraction — There are likely significant gravel reserves on the property. The Applicant has determined that this resource will be utilized in the construction of the development of the project to the extent that gravel reserves will be stockpiled, crushed on- site and concrete batch plant will operate to produce construction materials. The proposed PUD zoning document lists Mineral Extraction as a use that is not permitted within the development as `mining' will not be necessary. The material will simply be gathered during the reclamation process proposed as Phase 0. A proposed use that is permitted related to development of the project is material processing. Staff is concerned with this allowance as it relates to mitigation of potential impacts and proposed exportation of material. The PUD Guide does include both definition and standards for this use however further clarification of this activity should be provided by the Applicant. 10. Renewable Energy — Energy and/or water conservation and renewable energy were not included as components of this development. V. REVIEW STANDARDS & CRITERIA PUD and Zone District Amendment SECTION 4-201 REZONING. Rezoning may be initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director, or an applicant for land use change. The rezoning request may be processed concurrently with the land use change application and review process. B. Rezoning Criteria. Unless otherwise provided in these Regulations, an application the following criteria. 1. No Spot Zoning. The proposed rezoning would result in development pattern and would not constitute spot zoning. for rezoning must meet a logical and orderly 15 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Staff Comments: There are numerous adjacent zone districts including PUD, therefore the proposed rezoning would not constitute spot zoning. The proposed rezoning may result in a logical and orderly development pattern for Garfield County. 2. Change in Area. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Staff Comments: It has been argued through the review process that the change in the area that has occurred (due to the economy resulting in high vacancy rates and high foreclosures) results in a determination that it is not in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area at this time. The Applicant states that the rezoning is not being requested to establish new uses or significantly greater densities than what are currently permitted on the property but instead REC is requesting the rezoning to PUD "in order to provide for a clustered form of residential development, which form, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, will enable CI to provide a mix of housing types at various prices, provide efficient infrastructure, maximize the preservation of open space and views, conserve wildlife habitat, and retain the character of the surrounding area." (Page 5 of the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report) 2. Demonstrated Community Need. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities, services or housing. Staff Comments: Comments received have stated that there is no demonstrated need for the development, while the Applicant has stated that "The Project will increase the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality." Specifically, if the proposed PUD district is approved, the Project will address this critical housing need and improve the quality of life of County residents by providing, in the Roaring Fork Valley, 366 residential homes made up of a mix of housing types and at a range of prices, including 55 deed -restricted for sale affordable homes." The Applicant does not demonstrate how the quality of life of county residents will be improved, nor is documentation provided regarding this critical housing need. 4. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements. The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use or development or an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan approved prior to filing a rezoning request. Staff Comments: The Applicant has stated that "the Project will alleviate the County's housing needs and traffic congestion", "the Project will preserve the area's rural character", "the Project will provide recreational opportunities for residents substantially in excess of what is required for the density and type of development", "the Property will balance the County's need for economic development and environmental protection", and "the Project provides dependable, cost-effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services". The proposed development is in mixed compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The high-density residential designation on the site is a range — from three dwelling units per acre to less than 2 acres per dwelling unit results in a range of 80 to 480 units. Critical components of determining appropriate density on the site have been reviewed by the 16 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Planning Commission and, based upon elements in the Plan, the Commission has determined that the proposed density is appropriate. 5. Original Zone Designation Incorrect. The proposed rezoning addresses errors in the original zone district map. Staff Comments: The Board of County Commissioners specifically rescinded the previous PUD zoning on the site (except for the conservation easement) and rezoned the parcel as Residential Suburban. This designation was not incorrect and was not in error. 6. Adequate Water Supply. Such an application to rezone a property from one district to another district shall be required to demonstrate the maximum water demand required to serve the most intensive use in the resulting zone district pursuant to Article 7-104 of this Resolution. Staff Comments: The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until such time as an adequate water supply could be demonstrated based upon the maximum demand of the project. The Applicant has provided recent documentation regarding the court decrees necessary to establish an adequate water supply to serve the proposal. SECTION 6-202 PUD APPROVAL STANDARDS. In addition to the standards set forth in Divisions 1, 2 and 3 of Article VII, Standards, the following standards shall apply to PUD applications. A. Compliance with Rezoning Standards. The PUD complies with the approval criteria in Section 4-201(B), Rezoning Criteria. Staff Comments: The applicant has not adequately demonstrated a community need for the development and the project has mixed compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship to Surrounding Area. The PUD will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The PUD is compatible with the scale, intensity and type of uses located on adjacent property. Staff Comments: Surrounding subdivisions include Aspen Glen to the south with 612 units approved, Ironbridge to the west with a density of 1.39 acres per dwelling unit. Other subdivisions are in the lower density range — for example Teller Spring is 8.3 acres per dwelling unit. REC density of .44 acres per dwelling unit is significantly higher in density. C. Visual Impacts. The layout and design of the PUD shall preserve views and vistas, construction on ridgelines that are visible from major roadways or residential development shall be prohibited, and the design shall be compatible with the surrounding natural environment. Staff Comments: The site is located within a "visual corridor" however the applicant questions the quality of that view given the significant disturbance on the site. Staff interprets this visual quality to mean the open view to Mount Sopris, not necessarily the view of the site itself. In fact development of the parcel will impact that visual corridor as you travel south on SH 82. Mitigation proposed includes the clustering of units, not 17 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE removing mature trees, planting new trees, providing vegetative buffers and open space in the area of the conservation easement and vegetation/berming along the RFTA ROW. D. Street Circulation System. The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access for police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes. Staff Comments: The Applicant has stated that the development is a suburban form however the street standards and circulation is based upon an urban format with excess capacity. REC states that the pedestrian and street circulation will facilitate community interaction. Bike and pedestrian traffic will have one access point at the main entry to join the Rio Grande Trail. Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) is proposed in two areas along SH 82. Bill Gavette, Carbondale FPD responded (EXHIBIT CC) that both the proposed location and width of the EVA's is acceptable. E. Pedestrian Circulation. The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways throughout the PUD that allow residents to walk safely and conveniently among areas of the PUD. Staff Comments: The internal bike and pedestrian system was designed to facilitate interaction and create a safe and pleasant environment. Access to the Rio Grande Trail is limited to one access point, adjacent to the main entrance at SH 82. F. Open Space. The PUD shall preserve at least twenty-five (25) percent of the area as open space. Staff Comments: Given the site size of 160 -acres the Applicant is required to preserve 40 - acres as open space. The applicant totals the provided open space as follows: Useable Open Space (<25% slope) = 32.43 -acres Limited Use Open Space (>25% slope) = 6.07 -acres Detention Areas (limited use) = 2.00 -acres TOTAL 40.50 -acres or 25.44% Also included in the development is Community Space which totals 36.27 -acres and includes parks, common areas and the neighborhood center for a total of 22.79%. The ULUR defines Open Space as "Any land or water area, which serves specific uses of: providing park and recreation opportunities, or conserving natural areas and environmental resources, or structuring urban development form, or protecting areas of agricultural, archaeological or historical significance. Open space shall not be considered synonymous with vacant or unused land or yards as part of a platted lot." Based on this definition the Applicant has provided sufficient open space within the development. G. Housing Variety. The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types, price and ownership forms. Staff Comments: A variety of housing types is provided including garden homes, estates homes and executive homes. Particular units may be attached or detached. Pricing will 18 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE range from approximately $160,000 to $200,000 for the affordable homes to $1,000,000 for other housing types. Alternate ownership forms include rental of the affordable units, otherwise for -sale deed restricted units or for -sale fair market units are proposed. H. Affordable Housing. The PUD shall comply with affordable housing requirements applicable pursuant to Section 8-102 of Article VIII, Affordable Housing. Staff Comments: Geneva Powell of Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) responded (EXHIBIT K) to the REC affordable housing proposal with the following comments: • The Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) requires presales before building affordable housing unit (AHU) — currently the downturn in the economy has made it harder to buy and sell homes, both free market and deed restricted. GCHA does not know if that means the developer would released from the obligation if there were no qualified buyers. Some flexibility is necessary from both the Applicant and the guidelines. • AHPA provides 3 categories of pricing all of which differ from the GCHA standards (related to percentage of average medium income). GCHA stipulates maximum 120% AMI which Applicant proposed to allow buyers earning up to 150% of AMI — this allows a larger pool of potential buyers. • Applicant proposes an option of renting the AHU if not sold within 120 days. This is not addressed in the County's guidelines. • Questions and comments regarding the proposed agreement includes number of units provided in each phase, amendment of the agreement by phase, etc. The Applicant has responded that they should not be obligated to build affordable housing units if there is no buyer and therefore the request for pre -sales, further that they would request allowance to build -out the market rate units and provide a fee in -lieu of constructing the affordable units. Though REC is committed to provide AHUs they request flexibility that does not currently exist within the regulations. There is no ability to grant a waiver of these requirements. 1. Fire Hazards. Fire hazards will not be created or increased; Staff Comments: Carbondale FPD provides service to the development and has met numerous times with REC to discuss the District requirements. It appears that fire hazards will not be created or increased. J. Recreation Amenities. The PUD shall provide recreational opportunities and amenities to residents of the PUD. Staff Comments: Significant open space and recreational amenities are planned for the development. REC states that funding for recreation will be collateralized until such time as the residents of the community determine the types of recreation improvements they desire. REC will also provide a user -fee based community center/daycare/recreation center on-site for the benefit of the residents. 19 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE K. Adequacy of Supporting Materials. The Final PUD Plan meets all planning, engineering, and surveying requirements of these Regulations for maps, data, surveys, analyses, studies, reports, plans, designs, documents, and other supporting materials. Staff Comments: Significant amounts of information have been provided in the submittal and in the response documents. REC's desire to allow for flexibility in the development has made the review of the copious amounts of information more difficult and confusing. L. Taxes. All taxes applicable to the land have been paid, as certified by the County Treasurer's Office. Staff Comments: A current and updated certificate of taxes has been paid. M. Adequate Water Supply. An Adequate Water Supply will be demonstrated in compliance with the standards in Section 7-105. Staff Comments: A water supply plan has been provided as well as documentation regarding the legal ability to provide that supply. The Division of Water Resources had provided comment prior to issuance of the Court Decrees, with the comment being that material injury will occur. Staff is anticipating a revised letter prior to the hearing. VI. REVIEW CRITERIA & STANDARDS Subdivision Preliminary Plan Subdivision Preliminary Plan Review and submittal requirements include the following sections of the ULUR. The criteria and standards for review are listed in bold italics below, followed by a Staff Response. A. Section 4-502 (C)5. Landscape Plan Landscape plans shall be scaled at 1 inch to 200 feet for properties exceeding 160 acres in size, or 1 inch to 100 feet for properties less than 160 acres in size. Staff Comments: Adequate landscape plans have been provided for the development B. Section 4-502(D) Land Suitability Analysis 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. Staff Comments: The site is not adjacent to a public road but has an existing access point through RFTA right-of-way which is adjacent to SH 82. This access location is just north of Cattle Creek and a RFTA crossing of the Rio Grande Trail is covered by an Easement Grant providing at -grade access to the REC site. Public access to the site does not exist nor is it proposed through this application. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. Staff Comments: REC has been working with CDOT and County Public Works regarding access to the state highway as well as intersection constraints at SH 82 and CR 113/ CR 110. This issue has not been resolved and discussions are ongoing. A condition of 20 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE approval regarding legal and adequate access, including issuance of a State Highway Access Permit and a Notice to Proceed, is recommended by staff. Further discussion regarding potential improvements to CR 113 intersection needs to occur so that coordination of improvements are assured. Access to the site is proposed to be private as the Applicant states that a public access requires Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) license grant. Past application for special district formation was proposed to create a quasi -governmental entity that would have the ability to apply for PUC crossing approval — those applications failed and therefore the Applicant states that access must remain private. Staff conversations with the PUC included explanation of the proposed project resulting in issuance of a verbal opinion from the PUC that this crossing would be considered "public". This is simply due to the nature of a 366 unit subdivision. The PUC also stated that in this particular case the Property Owner's Association may be considered a quasi -governmental entity so that application and review could occur. The grant of public crossing requires demonstration of necessity therefore REC could not apply to the PUC until zoning approval is granted. Staff recommends a condition of approval that a public crossing license from the PUC be submitted prior to any activity occurring on the site and prior to submittal of the first final plat application. The application for public crossing needs to be coordinated with both CDOT and RFTA. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. Staff Comments: Existing utility easements are clearly identified on the Preliminary Plan, including the existing location and proposed re -location of the Glenwood Ditch, as well as proposed easements that will be required for development of the parcels. Access to the site is shown; however it is critical to understand that the proposed 160 - acres does not abut a public road but instead gains access to the state highway system through an agreement with RFTA. Colorado PUC approval is required to assure adequate public access to the site. The Roaring Fork Conservancy holds a Conservation Easement on property located west of and central to the development. The Glenwood Ditch traverses this site and current agreements are in place to relocate and pipe the length of ditch through the site. 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. Staff Comments: Analysis has been provided regarding the slope and topography of the site. The property is mostly located on nearly level river terraces approximately 50 to 80 feet above the Roaring Fork River. Steep escarpments (60% slope) separate these terraces. The site has been graded through past development proposals so that natural topography has been modified. The site has undergone extensive grading activity related to prior development of a golf course approved on the property. This grading has resulted in several large soil stockpiles. 21 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. Staff Comments: Waterbodies on the site include Cattle Creek, the Roaring Fork River is located off-site of the project. The site includes steep escarpments at the western edge of the project adjacent to the RFC easement and the Roaring Fork River. Wetlands are located adjacent to these waterbodies but primarily within the RFC easement with the exception of areas at the southern end of the site and adjacent to Cattle Creek. Few natural features exist on-site due to prior grading and agricultural activities on the site. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided information regarding existing drainages on the site including: • The Roaring Fork River which flows south to north just west of the site boundary. • Cattle Creek crosses through the site from east to west dividing the property almost in half. This is a moderate sized perennial stream which joins the Roaring Fork River. • Small alluvial fans are present at the eastern end of the site and the fans developed at the mouth of small drainage basins that flow only during heavy rainfall or snowmelt. 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. Staff Comments: Resource Engineering has provided a Water Supply Plan related to the legal water supply for the development. That plan and recent court decrees assure an adequate legal water supply for the development. The physical water supply was originally proposed to be a private system constructed by REC or service from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). REC and RFWSD have been working toward a pre -inclusion agreement to assure provision of a physical supply of potable water by RFWSD. Irrigation water for the development is provided for by decreed right of 50 cfs in the Glenwood Ditch and 5.18 cfs in the Staton Ditch. A water court case determined that historic consumptive use is 439 acre feet on 260 irrigated acres of which 150 acres is located within the REC boundary. The Applicant also has 12.23 cfs of additional irrigation rights in the Glenwood Ditch, represented by 367 shares in the Thompson Glen Irrigation Company and in the Staton Ditch (4.69 cfs). The physical source of the irrigation water is from the Roaring Fork River via a diversion into the Staton Ditch. A raw water distribution system is proposed. 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. Staff Comments: A small portion of Cattle Creek floodplain extends into the project area and is generally avoided by development. Encroachments into the floodplain include utilities and bridge structure. The Army Corps of Engineers responded to the referral request (EXHIBIT X) that alternatives should be considered that avoid impact to wetland or other waters of the United States. 22 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. Staff Comments: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (HP Geotech) performed an assessment of the soils and geologic conditions of the site, including identification of geologic hazards and soils conditions. The topsoil was stripped from the site and stockpiled in 2005. Conditions include fill areas that consist of coarse-grained terrace alluvium. The site consists of two post -glacial terraces which are located between five (5) feet and thirteen (13) feet above the Roaring Fork River. The alluvium is described as a deposit of silty sand with occasional boulder, pebble and cobble gravel interbedded and often overlain by sandy silt and silty sand. Shallow groundwater is expected in these areas. Most of the REC project is located on Pinedale outwash terraces occurring in several levels that formed at different periods. The 2005 grading removed all of the mid level terraces. Soils profiles indicate that these terrace surfaces have been stable with respect to erosion and deposition for over 5,000 years. Stockpiled soil on the site will have to undergo additional analysis/treatment to determine its viability. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services has noted that nutrient levels and mircrobial populations may result in difficulty reestablishing native vegetation. 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. Staff Comments: HP Geotech has noted the following potential hazards in their assessment: • Evaporite Sinkholes — The Eagle Valley Evaporite formation is located between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. This formation resulted in regional ground subsidence as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the region. If still active the likely rate of deformations would occur at a rate of .5 to 1.6 inches per 100 years. • Nine sinkhole areas have been located in and close to REC. Sinkholes in the western Colorado area are typically 10 to 50 -feet in diameter circular depressions. Avoidance of existing sinkholes and appropriate mitigation will address issues associated with these hazards. • Steep Terrace Escarpments — These 60% slope areas vary from 40 to 80 feet high located along the Roaring Fork River and lower Cattle Creek areas. These escarpments are potentially unstable and should be avoided by development. Mitigation methods to stabilize these areas are being considered. • Active Stream Bank Erosion — Erosion along the Roaring Fork and Cattle Creek occurs during high water and contributes to steep terrace escarpment destabilization. Correction of these areas could be beneficial in stabilizing or reducing deformation of the escarpment. • Debris Flow and Floods — HP determined that deposits in these areas do not have a high collapse potential and are moderately compressible indicating that these areas should be avoided or provide adequate mitigation to minimize the hazard. 23 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE HP also reviewed earthquake potential and radiation, neither of which were considered as likely hazards on-site. . M.P. Pmreelor � tpttalIremlc I... T..,... Snl enrol pal Tn.E W Creak Tole.. A I kIIP,.n.Far.' f Una •en.M1ln,.a,tF ot I Par. WWI RAPP T.Ias.F Gah. C 3 in1nInf.W1P1qK 7,71PIr4Mh Jvlrbal.mxn APYCP I w €E1EaaYEe..Eeww ,YE. I fa111LALCalalaa .rrpc_m _PIIS N bl...it, 4.a.pvW. in OIain.a 11.:a.II.IP•.&J LM. Caw, II A/4.1n R yla.,y.ln..r Aat a-aia. aar 4111^gt A90 *aa et. gra la a MP 'RV Stan Ip] rJAI 210Eb1111111Pi.Hl] 1113 Sana SEN.n 11010 kialletatem untilairass 110 JJ1A PoINl Eac11 CJKC6R17 cI. Area Grlla Map- North Pail I cal 2I yrn C•.« i.as.. MIME I, rrm C•ecir ENAYpnitl exc: mig LEI loon Nunn.. Aar u enP[ae.E.•e.9NM .diwPry &ai 1,r. Sad Eirlin slag.' a MO MO di 3Sane nmeati 1111 3nna id rein Pi316 14 ... V el'#m°K 11 Gid tererFIalt .all a eco n 14,F.•.4, 10.Miry 911Ta9 PAIL Petro Fr • Cedar. Pr APP. L gd'arta 2110 10 3374 Gatech River Edge Cotoraclo P.:i)P-.r. 0. ezn. Gently Map - a..a,A1 Pan Flgvre 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. Staff Comments: Vegetative cover is minimal given the agricultural history of the site, as well as the extensive grading activities that took place in 2005. This area is virtually devoid of vegetation except for weeds. Vegetation outside of the graded areas including RIVEtrEdge C111 111ZA DS FIGURE 04 Vegetation Prow Edge CRar.m Property Otter Prmert, I Senn Form......c Patve Grasser no.,au b3M3 1.as,,,— ,.4,150-.o. a VIla.a �d 1,1tan Pore:: -w ,ort I©P..I�...o 24 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE sage, oak and other brush on the escarpment and cottonwood, grass and willows on the lower terraces. Wildlife habitat areas include both Upland and Riparian Habitat areas with the site consisting largely of Upland Habitat. This area was noted as having limited wildlife use due to vegetation type and cover. It appears that the most common species are ground squirrels, which in turn attract great -horned owls, red-tailed hawk, red and gray fox and coyote. Bird use is limited as well due to conditions and generally includes mourning doves, meadowlarks and mountain bluebirds. The Riparian Habitat occurs along the Roaring Fork and lower Cattle Creek, largely outside of the REC development area. A Great Blue Heron Rookery has historically occurred in this vicinity however one of the original three rookery trees no longer exists due to high springtime flows and bank scour. Analysis of special importance species was contained in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report. Mule deer, elk, bald eagle, heron and lewis's woodpecker were considered, as well a Ute ladies -tresses orchid which is on the Federally Threatened list. • Elk — The site is located within Elk Winter Range with Severe Winter Range occurring on the east side of SH 82. Elk do use the project area, mainly for `loafing' as foraging opportunities are marginal. The application states that `reasonably high number of elk persist on the project site' however that winter use of the Rio Grande Trail during winter, and construction of wildlife fencing along SH 82 appears to have `noticeably reduced the number of elk observed wintering on the REC property.' • Mule Deer — The site is located between Mule Deer Winter Range to the west of the Roaring Fork River and Severe Winter Range on the east side of SH 82. Existing use of the site by mule deer is minimal with the conservation easement area seeing more mule deer activity than the project area. • Great Blue Heron — A productive heron rookery is located in the RFC conservation easement and on the west side of river with a total of 25 nests. A pair of Golden Eagles killed a majority of the young in 2010 and could lead to abandonment in the future. This area is considered critical habitat and is adjacent to the REC project. • Bald Eagle — The closest nest is located in Aspen Glen where nesting has been successful. These birds use the REC site for roosting and hunting. • Lewis's Woodpecker — This migratory bird arrives in May and departs in early to mid-September utilizing the habitat adjacent to the project area. This bird is considered a `sensitive species' by the USFS. 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, palentological and historic resource areas. Staff Comments: No recorded sites of archeological or historic importance were found to exist in the project area. C. Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. Staff Comments: Adequate information has been provided. 25 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. Staff Comments: Adjacent land use includes: • North — uses include commercial, semi -industrial and mobile home park • South — Aspen Glen PUD (residential and recreation) and LaFarge Gravel Pit • East — State Highway, RFTA Rail/Trail, commercial and semi -industrial uses • West — Ironbridge PUD and Teller Springs 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Staff Comments: Site features include Cattle Creek and associated wetlands, steep slopes and little vegetative cover. Features adjacent to the project area include the Roaring Fork River and associated wetlands, heron rookery, and the Roaring Fork Conservancy Easement. These features have been used to determine a layout for the development of REC which is clustered to minimize impact. Mitigation measures include avoidance to the extent possible of these sensitive environments and open space placement to provide buffers. 26 c , r RIVEMikte • �r i '4 i 4 —.-T I ifi.. ILA Lands FIGURE 03 DJ, ...mg's m ItibC,- Irfl r -r= Project Site ..---____� 1{'C ifl n:ver Ed [dada Prager.,• I' i �, BUT lends. �� I - [�,�- �� , l� r .. //; �* / - ry} �~` ® - Other rile r,�7 aonm�.�. i•� ,,- I,, i yr _1 -„ J~ l f../Jf .�---. S // /Ji '! T --e .3r.,•.,..T.T n.,T ,. T •i /r .�/ - RIVET Edge DID do ! -sr' ' .n 1 1 'n _.a,] T %ql ).,/,,,-,-.9:-.,i Ji dyf.d bileT / ---___-______.d/~�� A1-1--;NA1-1--;N)� { � !El 1y '�-Y/-� \ \ � 46 4 S. w trfYfr , 3~ - ir•W.rr�. ��rf- _ rW4Vkgi . � i�-� r .. :=-.7.:-.M.--...1..........:-.' ` w •p. 72yr>' 0 1.661 Po 106 +f aaIN tends r� s cra x9ur.nw-......ro...,rrr 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. Staff Comments: Adjacent land use includes: • North — uses include commercial, semi -industrial and mobile home park • South — Aspen Glen PUD (residential and recreation) and LaFarge Gravel Pit • East — State Highway, RFTA Rail/Trail, commercial and semi -industrial uses • West — Ironbridge PUD and Teller Springs 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Staff Comments: Site features include Cattle Creek and associated wetlands, steep slopes and little vegetative cover. Features adjacent to the project area include the Roaring Fork River and associated wetlands, heron rookery, and the Roaring Fork Conservancy Easement. These features have been used to determine a layout for the development of REC which is clustered to minimize impact. Mitigation measures include avoidance to the extent possible of these sensitive environments and open space placement to provide buffers. 26 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comments: The Applicant states that "this analysis has determined that there are no adverse impacts associated with soils and surficial deposits provided common construction and site evaluation techniques are implemented as detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and that reclamation and erosion control... and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan are provided." Page 66 of impact analysis. This section of the application goes on to state that potential impacts and mitigation measures are indentified as a series of standard considerations with respect to construction on soils of this type and further, that these require engineering assessment and design activities including boring, testing, and onsite review during development. HP Geotech noted that shallow foundations place on the upper natural soils should typically be suitable for structure support. Relatively rigid foundations such as heavily reinforces slabs could be used to reduce the risk of differential settlement and building stress, where determined necessary. The application goes on to state that slab -on -grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the natural soils or compacted structural fill, but that there could be some potential for post -construction slab movement at sites with collapsible soils or expansive clays. Removal of the moisture sensitive soils and replacement with compacted structural fill could be provided to reduce the risk of movement. A detailed pavement design is proposed to be provided post -reclamation to determine if fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed. Additional geotechnical analysis will be required to determine if previous fill material placed on the site is suitable for building foundations. This analysis will occur post reclamation therefore a condition of approval that requires the additional analysis be provided at final plat should be sufficient. 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comments: A Hazard Mitigation Plan has been submitted which addresses potential natural and man-made hazards. Existing and proposed conditions include analysis of: • Geologic Hazards — Evaporite Sink Holes, Steep Terrace Escarpments, Active Stream Bank Erosion, and Debris Flow/Floods. • Other Hazards — Floodplain, Wildfire These hazards could cause potential impacts to site grading, infrastructure (including roads and utilities) as well as foundation design. Proposed mitigation includes identification of specific areas of concern that may require further review: 27 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE • Three zones of varying degree of impact from sink holes have been assigned to the project area. o Zone 1 represents an 80 -foot buffer area around existing or observed sinkholes where the risk of new or reactivating sinkholes is high. This area is generally avoided however a few roads and utilities are planned within this zone. Potential mitigation measures including grouting or structural bridging; o Zone 2 is a risk area that indicates the presence of sinkholes but no evidence of sinkholes have been identified. Additional geotechnical analysis should be completed prior to final plat so that design of buildings and facilities provide appropriate mitigation; o Zone 3 is the remainder of the property which has a low potential for new sinkhole development however HP recommends that assessment and investigation be completed during grading and building site development. • Steep Terrace Escarpments, Active Stream Bank Erosion, Debris Flows and Floods and Earthquakes are avoided or mitigated thus resulting in no adverse impacts. Alvea.�e or tuann 9Mdne'.ae mn9elde modal ■wail seam_ 115,10. ZL1•11Z kei..1.11111161116Xidr Y ,I,.� I. -m ®„-e Nxg4M.l.maw r plea wM�I..sf_. gwmrty MuNa.eg. W a..a.9. wlr [e'evrg�aP+'e Aparaedmia Bsraay of iron nann 'VD rrti mum. aara mato. Fil41a11 G.n.[+191$ * 4ed .�.O...as p9.eexLnde@ e:ee- yawn B✓ A01 ie 3.1 14.=SOON £ Irtwv[+IO II 910 Rh= Edge OaI9naaln I.yla!awards Zmnx. March Pan Plgua Onnntmakrn um,d hal dam.. nM MximeaMmewra+ mini al,nnkyapn run ha .Py. ,sen ,e� es. -a ca,a. ISI M� m-1 MXmn �iWd� LJ M.uy.Nd or an eaM.,.9�.�9,dM m,Mffi ..�„ e� _,0mtly .i.�mewra E smwr IO] B.Mi 210 n Avl 6 4 4n ARAY FA 1I eattldCP.UEhda O erra.nn.m `-0537.a. Preen €nor GJania .nMhd9 FiaA ede ZSr66-So .s'1 =are 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. Staff Comments: This development is subject to Section 7-105 due to the water demand in an amount greater than eight (8) single family equivalents (where an SFE is determined to be 350 gallon of water per day). Additional information has been submitted as of August 30, 2011 indicating that two water court rulings have been 28 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE completed thus allowing a determination of adequate legal water supply for the potable water system to meet the demand of 350 gallons per day for the proposed 366 units in the development. The original application discusses the `potential' physical supply as being provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWDS) or by a private water system within the REC development. However, the Applicant has indicated that a pre -inclusion agreement is currently being drafted so that RFWSD would serve this development. Submittal of evidence of an executed pre -inclusion agreement is recommended as a condition of approval. Irrigation water is planned to be provided via a raw water system utilizing water rights from the Glenwood and Staton Ditches. 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. Staff Comments: HP Geotech has provided analysis of the groundwater which is generally deep in the Eagle Valley Evaporite deposits and that 'free water was not encountered in the relatively shallow borings of depths between 39 and 77 feet. Shallow groundwater may be likely in the river terraces outside of the REC development. Surface run-off will be collected and concentrate to surface drainage systems where the flow will be discharged through lined surface ditches and pipes to lined water quality detention facilities. This system is designed to ensure that water is treated prior to delivery to receiving steams. Chris Hale, reviewing engineer, has stated that this is sufficient and that standard on-site detention to limit flow is not necessary (EXHIBIT U) due to the location of the site. 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna. b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, palentological, historic resources. c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat. (1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. 29 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Staff Comments: a. Effect on flora and fauna — Rocky Mountain Ecological Services prepared a Wildlife and Vegetation Report which analyzed the potential impacts of the development proposal on plants and animals. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has responded to the referral (EXHIBIT R) that there should not be significant impact if recommendations are followed. CDOW recommendations include fencing, adequate setbacks from sensitive areas and protection of the heron rookery. b. No significant archaeological or historic resources have been identified that would be adversely effected. c. Effect on environmental resources, including wildlife and domestic animal control — the development plan has included protective measures related to wildlife including timing restrictions for construction activity and inclusion of domestic animal controls in the OCR's. d. Radiation hazard — There is low potential for radiation hazard at this site. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirement that is applicable to facilities that meet criteria such as having above ground storage capacity of greater than 1,320 gallons, and that a project will discharge into or upon navigable waters of the United States. It is assumed that a SPCC plan will be required related to infrastructure construction and gravel crushing/processing. 9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(J). Staff Comments: A Traffic Assessment has been provided by Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants which considers existing conditions on State Highway 82, a limited access Expressway. SH 82 is a four lane, divided highway with speeds generally from 55 to 65 mph. The nearest controlled intersection is located one (1) mile north at CR 114 (CMC Road). The assessment discusses future conditions on the highway and discusses a warrant for a signalized intersection in 2018. It is staff's understanding from the Applicant that a signal, acceleration/deceleration lanes and pedestrian crossing are proposed to occur at the outset of the development so that these improvements are in place for Phase 0, reclamation of the site. Dan Roussin, CDOT, has stated that this development will need a State Highway Access Permit, as well as to coordinate with the County for necessary improvements at the CR 113 / CR 110 and SH 82. A condition of approval is recommended which requires issuance of a Notice to Proceed and State Highway Access Permit prior to activity commencing on the site or with submittal of the first final plat application. 10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comments: Nuisance impacts will likely occur during the reclamation and construction phases of the development. This activity will generate dust, smoke, noise, glare, and potentially vibrations, particularly during reclamation and construction, as well as related to mineral `material processing' activities. The proposed PUD Guide contains Article IV, Development Standards, which includes Section C. Specific Use, Facility and Activity Standards. This includes noise standards based upon statutory requirements and section standards related to utility facilities. This latter section includes 30 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE requirements for noise levels, vibration, smoke, odor and air quality. These standards should be applicable to the whole development, particularly during construction activities. Staff recommends that standards for dust suppression, smoke, odor and vibration be incorporated into the PUD Guide and applicable to all construction -related activities in the development. 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7- 212. Staff Comments: The Applicant has two sets of requirements related to reclamation activities, pre -development reclamation and post -development reclamation. Pre -Development Reclamation — The current site condition exists due to past grading activity on the site related to prior development plans that included construction of a golf course. The pre -development reclamation activity is specific to repairing the damage that past grading created, including restorative and pre -development actions: • Relocation and grade separation of the Rio Grande Trail; • Relocation of the Glenwood Ditch; • Re -grading of the site for proper drainage, resolve existing and potential geotechnical hazards, prepare developable areas, restore grade -breaks, replace topsoil, repair and stabilize eroding steep terrace escarpments and repairing active stream bank erosion; • Construction of drainage facilities and water quality detention ponds; • Revegetation of open space area. Post -Development Reclamation — This requirement is included in the PUD Guide development standards and is consistent with the standards in Section 7-212. D. Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions Staff Comments: PUD zoning allows for variation from standard zone districts however the proposed uses must be consistent with uses in the underlying zone district or compatible/conforming to Comprehensive Plan goals. The underlying Suburban zoning permits uses -by -right which include single family residential, parks and open space. Other proposed uses permitted in the Suburban zone include two-family dwellings by Limited Impact review and eating or drinking establishment by Major Impact review. Uses that are being requested in REC that are not permitted in the Suburban zone include agricultural uses and materials processing (crushing and concrete batch plant). The Planning Commission should consider these uses and determine if they are both appropriate and supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements Staff Comments: The proposed REC development has mixed compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission review shall include determination of appropriate density related to the High Density Residential designation on the Future 31 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Land Use Map. That designation includes a range of less than 2 acres per dwelling unit, to up to 3 units per acre based upon provision of urban level services. The requested density of 366 units falls within the recommended range. 3. Section 7-103 Compatibility Staff Comment: This standard requires that the nature, scale and intensity of the proposed use be compatible with adjacent land uses and that the use will not result in adverse impact to adjacent land. Adjacent land uses includes high-density mobile home parks, commercial and semi -industrial uses, a gravel pit, and residential communities. The combination of uses proposed in REC may be more intense than adjacent uses which appear as more single use type project. 4. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water Staff Comments: This section does not apply to this proposal as water demand exceeds eight (8) single family equivalents (SFE's). See Section 7-105. 5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided a sufficient legal and physical source of water to serve the proposed development of 366 SFE's. See EXHIBIT HH which is an addendum of information which includes recent water court action. Staff has spoken with the Division of Water Resources who will issue a revised referral response regarding the sufficiency of the water supply. That letter should be received prior to the Planning Commission hearing. 6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems Staff Comments: A pre -inclusion agreement with the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District to provide water/wastewater services is imminent. Water and wastewater services from the District should be considered a condition of approval which staff has adequately documented. 7. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities Staff Comments: It appears that adequate public utilities are available to serve the proposed development. 8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways Staff Comments: The subject site does not abut a public right-of-way however existing agreements are in place for the existing driveway to the site. The Applicant also has agreements with RFTA regarding crossing of the Rio Grande Trail. However the development proposal does not currently have legal or physical access to a public right- of-way. Various permits will be required, and a recommended as conditions of approval. These permits include a State Highway Access Permit as well PUC approval for crossing of the rail right-of-way. This license with the PUC may lead to amendment or execution of new or additional agreements with RFTA. Internal roadway standards are requested to be modified, see issue discussion section 32 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE for detailed information, thus requiring waiver from the Board of County Commissioners. The reviewing engineer has stated that the requested waivers may be appropriate (EXHIBIT U). 9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards Staff Comments: Natural hazards exist on the site which includes steep slopes, slope stability issues, soils, sinkholes and other geotechnical issues. The proposed development generally avoids the hazard areas and/or provides adequate mitigation measures. E. Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands Staff Comment: Not applicable as agricultural activities have not occurred on this site for several years if not more than a decade. The past rezoning of the site to PUD and Suburban zone districts has rendered agricultural uses not permitted. The Glenwood Ditch traverses this property and there is an agreement exists regarding location and piping of the ditch. On-site irrigation is proposed to use raw -water with rights from both the Glenwood Ditch and the Staton Ditch. 2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Staff Comment: Wildlife habitat areas include a heron rookery and use of the site by both mule deer and elk. Incorporation of the recommendations from the Division of Wildlife and project wildlife biologist would be adequate to protect habitat areas. 3. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies Staff Comment: Section 7-203 determines that an `Inner Buffer Zone' requires provision of a thirty-five (35) foot setback from the high water mark on each side of a waterbody. Removal of live vegetation or placement of any material within this zone is prohibited except for irrigation and water diversion facilities, culverts, bridges and other reasonable and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within this setback may be permitted. The Applicant has requested waiver from this section due to impacts that will occur within the setback of Cattle Creek, including construction of a bridge and utilities. The Applicant should provide additional information regarding the specific areas in which activity will occur within the 35' buffer zone. 4. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants Staff Comment: Activities that will require storage of material, equipment or fluids should be located to protect waterbodies however specific information has not been provided in the submittal documentation. This standard includes requirement for spill prevention, 33 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE maintenance of equipment and machines, location of fuel storage areas and collection and temporary storage areas. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures plan may be required and the stormwater management plan should address this issue. 5. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation Staff Comments: This section applies to land disturbances of greater than one-half ('/z) acre. The Applicant has submitted an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that addresses stabilization of slope stability and stream bank erosion. Vegetative cover on the site will provide additional erosion and sedimentation protections. The steep slope areas are avoided by the development. 6. Section 7-206 Drainage Staff Comments: Part of this standard states that "subdrains shall be required for all foundations where possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight to proper drainage channels." Reviewing engineer Chris Hales states (EXHIBIT U) in #5 that "The recommendation of the geotechnical engineer is that foundation sub -drains be provided. These drains need to have a suitable outlet for drainage" and further recommends that since the site is flat an onsite drywell for infiltration could be considered or provision of a project -wide method for suitable gravity outlet for foundation drains. Karen Berry, Colorado Geologic Survey responded (EXHIBIT P) that all recommendations outlined in the geotechnical report should be followed, this would include construction of an underdrain system that will impact the performance of building, roads, and utilities in the development. 7. Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off Staff Comments: This section applies to new development within 100 feet of a waterbody and to development creating 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. The REC development meets these criteria and therefore has proposed plans to create water quality detention areas prior to discharge of stormwater to the Roaring Fork River. There is no plan for standard on-site detention of stormwater except for storage areas that would be required for assuring water quality prior to discharge. This code section also includes requirements for on-site detention designed to detain flow to historic peak discharge rater and provide water quality benefits. REC plans to provide for water quality filtering and the Applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to detain flows above historic peak discharge rates. Chris Hale (EXHIBIT U) has responded "there are no drainage structures with possible capacity restrictions downstream, this office has no concerns regarding peak -flow detention provided that water -quality detention is still provided." 8. Section 7-208 Air Quality Staff Comments: Air quality shall not be impacted by the land use such that it is reduced below acceptable levels established by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. No response was received from CDPHE but staff has concerns related to dust issues, 34 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE particularly during construction and reclamation. Other air quality impacts may result from the crushing of aggregate and batch plant operations that are proposed as temporary construction -related activities. 9. Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards Staff Comments: This site is located in a low wildfire zone. 10. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards Staff Comments: Hazards do exist on the site however it appears that the development plan avoids many of the hazard areas and provides mitigation measures where avoidance is not possible. Staff has incorporated these measures as recommended conditions of approval. 11. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance Staff Comments: No areas exist on the site within these categories. 12. Section 7-212 Reclamation Staff Comments: The REC development proposal contains a substantial pre - development reclamation plan to repair and restore slope and stream bank issues as well as grading and topsoil issues related to prior grading of the site. This reclamation will also allow for additional geologic investigation as well as to prepare the site for eventual development. F. SECTION 7- 300 SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Section 7-301 Compatible Design Staff Comments: Compatible design encompasses issues regarding site organization as well as operational characteristics, lighting, buffering, materials, and building scale. Certainly the density, site organization and buffering can be evaluated for compatibility with adjacent subdivisions such as Ironbridge and Aspen Glen. The clustering of the dwellings into several pods leaves tracts of open space to buffer the site both physically and visually. Much of the development occurs on an interim bench west of the Rio Grande Trail with proposed landscaping providing additional buffers from adjacent developments. Operational characteristics include locating activities such that emissions, noise, hours of operations, etc. do not impact adjacent properties. These nuisance impacts will require specific plans related to fugitive dust, noise, limitation of construction (days and time), etc. Though the PUD contains some discussion regarding these standards to mitigate these impacts they seem to be limited to utility tracts. The Applicant has discussed noise issues however Staff is concerned that there are not specific plans to mitigate other nuisance issues such as dust and other air quality issues. A condition of approval should be considered which would address mitigation measures regarding these nuisance issues. 2. Section 7-302 Building Design 35 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Staff Comments: Not applicable. 3. Section 7-303 Design and Scale of Development Staff Comments: Components of this standard include minimizing site disturbance and efficiency in providing services and access to facilities. 4. Section 7-304 Off-street parking and Loading Standards Staff Comments: The PUD Guide provides sufficient off-street parking as well as on - street parking within the development. 5. Section 7-305 Landscaping and Lighting Standards Staff Comments: Adequate landscape and lighting standards are provided, in the PUD Guide as well as in the CCR's. 6. Section 7-306 Snow Storage Standards Staff Comments: Landscape areas may be utilized as snow storage areas pursuant to the PUD Guide. The use of these areas for snow storage requires that drainage and potential pollutants which must be adequately managed. 7. Section 7-307 Roadway Standards Staff Comments: The Applicant is requesting both modification and waiver of roadway standards contained within this section. Chris Hale's comments (EXHIBIT U) identifies several concerns particularly that alleys need to be designed to a specific vehicle such as an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck; that proposed curb and gutter sections should be verify that inlet spacing is congruent with the spread of water on proposed narrow travel lanes. Additional comment includes that a single public use entry for the project is a concern even with the provision of two Emergency Vehicle Access points. 8. Section 7-308 Trail and Walkway Standards Staff Comments: The standards utilized in the development plan appear to be adequate. 9. Section 7-309 Utility Standards Staff Comments: The REC development is proposing to install underground utilities that will be further reviewed at final plat for sufficiency of design and provision of adequate utilities. G. SECTION 7- 400 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 1. Section 7-401 General Subdivision Standards Staff Comments: These standards include preservation of natural features, extensions for future development, maintenance of common facilities, domestic animal control and 36 fireplace restrictions. The proposal appears to potential for future extension/connection to the connection to SH 82. 2. Section 7-402 Subdivision Lots BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE meet these standards including the north and the potential for additional Staff Comments: All lots within the subdivision appear to be configured in a proper manner with adequate lot sizes and access. Further, the lots may be developable however site specific geotechnical analysis may result in some movement of the particular sites or specific building requirements to minimize impact. 3. Section 7-403 Fire Protection Staff Comments: The site is located within the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and a fire station is located on the north end of the H Lazy F Mobile Home site west of the intersection of CR 154 / SH 82 and CR 114. Bill Gavette has responded to the referral request (EXHIBITS S and HH) with HH being specific to Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) to the site. These EVA's would allow for two additional access points to the development which have been found to be acceptable in both location and width. Additional response related to fire lanes, water source, fire hydrants and maintenance is that these components are adequate. The District also discusses the requirement of impact fee payment in the amount of $730/unit resulting in a fee of $267,180.00 which will be due at final plat. 4. Section 7-404 Survey Monuments Staff Comments: This requirement will be met. 5. Section 7-405 Standards for Public Sites and Open Space Staff Comments: The Applicant has proposed payment of fee in -lieu of school land dedication, however historic and recent discussion with the RE -1 School District is that they would prefer a school site on this location but "the District's only option at this point is to accept fees in -lieu of land dedication..." The formula for calculation of school dedication is based upon generation of students per dwelling unit. 366 dwelling units are assumed to generate .49 students per single family unit and .38 students per multi -family unit. REC proposes 232 single-family and 134 multi -family resulting in the generation of 165 students. This would therefore require dedication of 7.3 acres of land. The minimum school site size is 15 acres. The adjacent undeveloped property is anticipated to be developed at some point and may in fact be incorporated into this PUD (see declarations which allows for the addition of the land into the development). The piecemeal approach to the overall development of the 280 -acre site may preclude the provision of a school site at this location. The Applicant has stated that the `private' nature of the RFTA/RR crossing would preclude access for use of a school. This question of public versus private crossing has 37 been determined by the Colorado Public Utilities crossing which will require PUC licensing. This may regarding provision of a school site at this location. BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Commission (PUC) as a `public' affect the school district comments 6. Section 7-406 Standards for Traffic Impact Fees Staff Comments: The site is not located within a Traffic Impact Fee zone. VII. POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Waiver Requests — The following waivers from the provision of minimum standards are requested pursuant to the preamble of Article VII which grants this ability upon demonstration that the standards are either inappropriate or cannot be practically implemented. A. §7-108 Access and Roadways states that all roads shall be designed to the standards in §7-307. Staff Comment: The Applicant is requesting waiver/modification of §7-307, Road Standards, due to use of alleys and reducing some standards due to project specific issues. It appears that the requested waivers are appropriate. B. §7-203 A. Restrictive Inner Buffer — this code section requires provision of a 35' setback `measured horizontally from the typical and ordinary high water on each side of the water body'. Certain structures and activities are permitted while others are specifically prohibited from occurring within this buffer. The Applicant is requesting waiver to allow the following: • Reclamation of the Cattle Creek stream corridor planned in Phase 0; • Construction of a bridge over Cattle Creek — the Bridge Plan indicates that the structure would be located within the setback; • Utility crossings and water diversion facilities — these would affect both the Roaring Fork River and the Cattle Creek corridors. Staff Comment: Staff considers the granting of this waiver as appropriate however requests that the Applicant provide a site plan indicating the encroachments that will occur on the site. Adequate protective measures have been proposed and reclamation of the corridor is necessary. A Nationwide Permit, Section 404, will be likely be required from the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as a County Floodplain Development Permit. C. §7-206 B.2. states that sub -drains shall be required for all foundations where possible and shall divert away from building foundations and daylight to proper drainage channels. The Applicant has stated that given the soils conditions that it likely that basements will not be utilized. They request that the requirement for subdrains be determined by the design engineer rather than placed as a requirement on the whole development, but have agreed to provide sub -drains if basements are constructed. Staff Comments: The Applicant's geotechnical engineer states that sub -drains be provided on this site and the Colorado Geologic Survey concurs with this recommendation. Chris Hale reviewed this waiver request and comments that suitable outlet for drainage is necessary, and that "since the site is very flat, the likely 38 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE option at that time would be to drain these foundation drains to an onsite drywell for infiltration. Infiltrating water on top of the site soils, most notably the Evaporite, would increase the likelihood for potential damage due to settling." The Applicant proposed to provide specific soils and geotechnical analysis at final plat when site constraints will be have been further reviewed. There is substantial concern regarding the protection of foundations given the possibility of sinkholes and other geotechnical and soils issues. Staff does not support the wholesale waiver of this standard but perhaps the additional analysis at final plat may provide additional information for further review at that time. A condition of approval is recommended regarding provision of an underdrain system, therefore waiver of this standard is not appropriate. D. §7-207 Stormwater Drainage Standards — The Applicant proposes to comply with Urban Drain and Flood Control District, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual which are more detailed and appropriate to suburban development. Staff Comments: This request is appropriate. E. §7-207 C.1. Requirement for detention facilities — The Applicant requests that water quality capture volume, not total stormwater volume, be detained prior to discharge from the project. Staff Comments: Chris Hale has responded (EXHIBIT U) that "since there are no drainage structures with possible capacity restrictions downstream, this office has no concerns regarding peak -flow detention provided that water -quality detention is still provided." Based on these comments it appears that this waiver request is appropriate. F. §7-305 A.1. Landscaping must be located outside of adjacent right-of-way Staff Comments: The Director of Building and Planning may approve landscape strips and landscape areas adjacent to internal right-of-way. This granting of this waiver is appropriate. G. §7-305 A.7. Standards for deciduous tree caliper are listed at 2" minimum measured 4" above the ground. The requested standard of 1 1/2" caliper is to enhance survival. Staff Comments: Staff consulted with a landscape architect who agreed that survival of trees at 1 '/2" caliper is greater and therefore this request for waiver is appropriate. H. §7-307 — Road Standards. The Applicant seeks to modify the following standards "to achieve the desired suburban form and clustered development pattern": a. Add three roadway types not addressed by the ULUR including alleys, garden home access and emergency vehicle access. b. Major Collector — The entry road, from SH 82 to the internal round -about, is requested to be modified to lower the design speed, required minimum 6' shoulders and ditch will not be provided as vertical curbing and 0-4' shoulders should be adequate to control water and access. 39 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE c. Minor Collector — Defined as 'Local Road' in REC this road is a neo -traditional design for reads providing direct access to homes. The proposed section is 36' wide with two 10' lanes and two 8' parking lanes/shoulders. The design speed is lower than County standards. Staff Comments: The Applicant states that these road standards are consistent with urban community requirements based upon a `suburban' form. The proposed roadway standards comply with AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) standards. Engineering review resulted in response from Chris Hale that the alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of either an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck and that additional information and verification regarding inlet spacing on narrower street widths. Staff has included this requirement as a recommended condition of approval and therefore waiver of this standard is appropriate. I. §7-405 C.1.a. Standards for Public Sites and Open Space — Amount of Land Dedicated — Road Dedications. This section requires that "unless specifically approved as private rights-of-way and so dedicated on the final plat, all roads, streets, alleys or other public traffic ways located within the subdivision and benefiting current or future residents of the subdivision shall be dedicated as public rights-of-way." The Applicant has stated that they were unable to apply for a "public crossing' from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and therefore the roads were required to be private. Staff Comment: Private roads are not uncommon in Garfield County; however they may come in several different forms. Typically a developer would design and construct necessary roadways within a development and then transfer the ownership and maintenance responsibilities to an Owner's Association or Special District. The roads would be for the use and benefit of the public while remaining in private ownership. Examples of private roads for the use of the public include Ironbridge, Springridge Reserve and most other subdivisions approved in the past decade in the County. Few subdivisions have truly private roads which include private ownership as well as private, restricted use; these roads require gating and further restrictions related to security and access questions related to guests, utility providers or other easement beneficiaries and emergency services. Examples of `private use and ownership' roads include Aspen Glen and Elk Springs. REC is proposing to provide truly private roads, along with gating of the entry at SH 82, however the access design has not been provided to demonstrate adequate stacking distance and coordination with the light on SH 82. The Applicant has stated that the request for "private roads" and gating of the community is due to the fact that the roads must remain private due to the inability of the developer to obtain PUC approval for a "public" crossing. This issue continues to evolve as the PUC has stated to Staff that access to serve a 366 unit subdivision would be considered `public' therefore requiring a license for the crossing from the PUC. Certainly the Applicant can request private roads owned and maintained by the Owner's Association but it would appear that the volume and type of traffic would require a "public crossing" from the PUC. 40 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Staff supports this waiver to the extent that the roads will be for the use of the public but will be owned and maintained by the POA. Staff does not support the gating of this community without the necessary engineering to determine how this security feature will function and coordinate with the traffic signals on SH 82. 2. 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Analysis of the various components of the Comprehensive Plan results in a determination of mixed compliance. 3. PHASING The Applicant has provided phasing information consisting of several tables included on Sheet 2 of the Final PUD Plan and construction phasing in the engineer plans. These PUD Plan tables include the following components: Table 2A — Lot and Tract Zoning Categories and Zoning District by Zoning Category Table 2B — Lot and Tract Zoning District by Filing Table 3 — Dedications by Filing Table 4 — Landscape Areas and Standards Table 5 — Lots by Filing, Affordable Housing, and Construction Schedule TABLE 5 . LOTS BY FILING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE LOTS BYFILING I AFFORDABLE LOT SUMMARY I SCHEDULE OF PLATTING' CUMULATIVE AFFORDABLE FILING ESTATE' TOWN VILLAGE ATTACHED GARDEN HOMES AFFORDABLE (%) 1 0 10 0 3 0 0 Q 2C L L 0 1 13 0.0% 2014 16.1% 21114 2 9 5 12 19 0 4 120% 71,6 2A 0 0 0 0 20 20. X. 2016 IA 0 0 0 0 21 0 26.1% 217% 167% 2011 3 0 1 0 0 0 i 1021 4 0 41 1 0 0 0 7071 4A 9 0 0 0 10 0 15.5% 7023 5 0 27 0 } 0 0 0 141% 7026 0 6 9 0 17 0 35 0 0 14 0 14 0 140% 150% 2020 2031 0 167 56 34 06 ' 150`K 2911.2031 INCLUDES EXECUTNE LOT 'APPRoxIUATE PROPOSED PLATTING SEOUENCE AND SCHEDULE SUB,ECT TO CHANGE EASED ON UARxET 60Np(nONS Table 5 appears to most closely resemble a phasing plan as each filing is listed along with the number and type of lots and schedule of when that the plat is planned. The inclusion of a foot note attached to the schedule of phasing is significant given that it states that "Approximate proposed platting sequence and schedule subject to change based on market conditions". The inclusion of this note may render the phasing plan timing useless although it could still be utilized for sequence of the development. The Phasing Plan should be included in the PUD Guide so that it may be found in one location of the documentation. 41 TABLE 2B LST AND TRACT ZONING DISTRICT BY FILING mow 0 LOC* TOT C! 1 Mill N.G CIORRI CT 1 - 04 iii- 1 B — 'T 1 1 13.8 NTFF CAXENOCHNV Jam` AREA 1 JG i;Rol+IGM IJi4D1 /4TF',.'-', 1 ,+:p-i sKito BRici 1 M PARK= 1 744itit NV PASTPASTENVOR 411'urY 1 AP CON SPACC R., 1 , MUM ARE.4 1 b. 1 1 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Table 2B lists the lots and tracts that will be included in each filing, for example filing 1 appears to include lots 1-20 in the Attached Home zone district and 39 lots in the Town zone district. Tracts in Filing 1 include right-of-way, common area, etc. This is consistent with the information provided in Table 5, just provided in a different format. Other tables track the amount of open space and common area dedication by filing. While Staff finds the information in these tables to be useful, the manner in which the information is provided is cumbersome and confusing. The footnotes contained in these tables may render the phasing useless. It may be more useful to have a single document that describes the sequence of platting, improvements associated with each plat and potential timing of platting and construction. 4. MUNICIPAL COMMENTS A. City of Glenwood Springs — Andrew McGregor, Director of Community Development responded to the request that the GWS City Council considered the project after receiving a presentation from REC representatives. Council had the following comments: i. The City is concerned about the creation of an unincorporated community without commensurate public services and infrastructure. This magnitude of development could be termed "sprawl. ii. Concern regarding the magnitude of the development based upon division of the original site and possibility of development of adjacent parcels. iii. The rezoning does not appear to be justified nor is there a "demonstrated community need". Comments also include the current inventory of vacant lots versus the absorption rate of 58 units per year. iv. The subdivision will not promote rural character but will function as infill between Glenwood and Carbondale. v. Increased burden on County services and school personnel and facilities. vi. Impact to elk herd and migratory patterns. vii. Highway 82 impacts including when signalization will occur. viii. Access to site and impact to RFTA ROW and SH 82 ROW. B. Town of Carbondale Planning Commission comments: 42 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE i. Suggested an IGA be considered as a mechanism to review future development. ii. Comments on Unincorporated Communities. iii. Questioned community need of the development as price point is consistent with existing approved developments. iv. Absorption rate of homes sold between Aspen and Parachute is currently 50 units per month and questions whether REC absorption rate is realistic. v. Inclusion of adjacent property and potential additional development is a concern as cumulative impacts should be considered. vi. Specific project comments include additional buffering should be considered along the river, the site plan does not reflect unit clustering, community gardens does not meet the intent of retaining agricultural heritage, public access and open space, connection to RFWSD facilities should be reviewed, provide details on the signalized intersection at SH 82, coordination with RFTA, wildlife impacts. C. Town of Carbondale Board of Trustees comments: i. Gap in the Three Mile Area of Influence between Town and City, recommendation of an IGA as a tool for cooperation and understanding. ii. Question community need for the development. iii. Creation of jobs would be temporary. iv. Questions the beneficial effects on SH 82 traffic. v. The entire site development should be reviewed not just a portion of the whole. vi. Impacts to wildlife and lack of clustering. 5. WATER / WASTEWATER The original application request was to allow for the provision of private water and wastewater services or to obtain service from the RFWSD. This issue appears to have been resolved as Staff has been notified that a pre -inclusion agreement in the final stages of drafting between the Applicant and the District. The provision of District water and wastewater services is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Preliminary Plan review is typically the process in which substantial engineering review occurs, however the connection of the water and wastewater service to the west side of the Roaring Fork River has not been discussed nor have sufficient preliminary plan level construction drawings been provided on where this connection would occur and how that connection will cross the river. District improvements that may be necessitated by the development include the potential for water treatment plant, wastewater treatment plant, connection of the development via SH 82 and Aspen Glen, water storage tank on the east side of SH 82. The District is a quasi -governmental entity and therefore would have to provide information to the Planning Commission via a Location and Extent application. 6. ACCESS A. CDOT State Highway Access Permit — the Applicant shall be required to obtain this permit and a Notice to Proceed prior to any activity occurring on the site. Phase 0 is the reclamation phase and this phase may commence upon application and issuance of a grading permit. The traffic associated with this activity could result in safety issues with accessing the state highway. The timing of installation of signalization and other improvements is unknown. 43 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE B. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority — comments from this agency include confirmation that an existing Easement Grant provides for a crossing in the general vicinity of the existing access point. The trip generation of the development will result in 3,567 daily vehicle trips which may result in safety conflicts at the crossing. The Applicant proposes to grade separate the Rio Grande Trail at the proposed entry into the site however RFTA is concerned that the rail banking of this corridor could result in future use of rail which would require substantial upgrades, and potential grade separation of the entry. RFTA would like to enter into an agreement with the Applicant that would assure costs of potential future improvements would not be the responsibility of RFTA. C. Private Roads/Gated Access — The Applicant proposes that the development contain private roads, a common proposal for subdivisions within Garfield County. Typically a development dedicates use of the roads within the subdivision for public use even though the ownership and maintenance responsibilities are the responsibility of the Homeowners Association, or in some cases a special district. The current proposal states that the roads will be owned and maintained by the Property Owner's Association (POA) however the roads will not be dedicated for "public" use. Additionally there has been discussion of gating the entry to the site however no details or plans have been provided regarding access to the site and how gating of the entry will impact SH 82. D. Colorado Public Utilities Commission — The Applicant has stated that the PUC would consider this crossing of the rail corridor as a "private" crossing and therefore PUC licensing would not be required. Staff conversations with Pam Fishhaber of the PUC resulted in a PUC opinion that a crossing to serve 366 dwelling units would not be considered `private'. The PUC licensing process is recommended as a condition of approval as the PUC requires a demonstration of need for the crossing - the Applicant must obtain zoning entitlements prior to requesting the PUC license. E. Garfield County Public Works — numerous comments have been received regarding the potential impact of intersection improvements to the east side of SH82 and CR 113/CR 110. The County had undertaken an intersection study which identified this site as a priority for improvement. The design and construction of the intersection, including entry into REC and CR 113/CR 110 SH 82 intersection, should be a coordinated effort. An ongoing discussion regarding these improvements is planned. F. Internal road system — As stated earlier the Applicant has requested waiver from Garfield County minimum road standards. The reviewing engineer concurred that the proposed road standards for the development were sufficient. Other questions that have arisen include the significant excess capacity associated with the roundabout and what additional traffic or uses this road may serve. A single entry subdivision, regardless of the Emergency Vehicle Access points, is a concern that should be carefully considered. The Applicant has stated that potential future connections exist through adjacent properties but provides no details or assurances that these connections will occur in the future. 7. GEOLOGY / HAZARDS A. Sinkholes / Soils / Steep Slopes— The development proposes to avoid these areas to the extent possible, or provide mitigation measures as detailed in the plan. Adequate mitigation measures appear to be in place with the exception of the 44 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE Applicant proposal to locate roads and utilities over a known sinkhole area at the south end of the development. B. The proposed reclamation activities included as Phase 0 may provide additional information regarding geotechnical and soils issues than is currently known. Additional studies should be submitted and reviewed as part of final plat application, a condition of approval is recommended regarding this issue. 8. ZONING A. PUD Administration — Exhibit HH contains a revised PUD Guide based upon staff comments on the original document. Though the amendment attempted to simplify the regulatory language it remains a complex and confusing regulatory document that will be difficult to administer. Staff is concerned with the use of footnotes (let alone the number of footnotes) on uses, dimensions, etc. which creates a confusing and cumbersome document. B. The Applicant proposes a suburban development plan utilizing urban road and drainage standards yet seeks to retain the rural and agricultural character of Garfield County. This property is currently zoned Suburban, a zone district that does not permit agricultural uses but allows for lower density 'in order to maintain a rural character'. Compliance with underlying uses in the Suburban zone district is a requirement of PUD zoning, except for the caveat that uses supported by the comprehensive plan may be considered as well. Accessory gardens, fruit trees and similar types of activities are appropriate in conjunction with residential uses or as an accessory use to residences. However agricultural use is not permitted within the Suburban zone which is primarily residential in character. The Planning Commission consideration discussed this issue and thought that gardens and orchards, as well as the development related agricultural uses were appropriate. Staff is concerned about the Applicant's ability to export excess agricultural products and the potential impact to SH 82. C. Temporary construction -related uses are proposed which include `material processing'. This would allow REC to gather the on-site resources (sand and gravel) unearthed during reclamation for use in the construction of the infrastructure of the development. The use of on-site minerals is supported by the Planning Commission, however all potential impacts related to this activity must be adequately mitigated. Fugitive dust and other air quality issues are a concern that must be adequately addressed. Questions remain regarding the Applicant's ability to export materials off-site. 9. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) related to affordable housing requirements within the REC plan. Geneva Powell, Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) Executive Director, commented on requirements: A. The Applicant requires pre -sales of the units prior to construction and there is no precedent for this in the County's guidelines. This raises questions regarding obligation to provide the unit if there were no qualified buyer. GCHA recommends flexibility that would benefit potential purchasers of these units. 45 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE B. Three categories of pricing is included in the AHPA which proposes to allow buyers earning up to 150% AMI instead of the maximum of 120% AMI in the County's guidelines. This will open up the buyer pool to a larger population `while maintaining the integrity of the program by allowing families earning 80% to 150% AMI to purchase homes priced at 70% to 110% AMI.' C. The Applicant proposes the option of renting the affordable units if they are not sold within 120 days. This is not addressed in the County's guidelines. D. Additional questions include potential amendment of the AHPA with each phase given the timeframe for the development, timing of construction of units, ability to gain equity through potential improvements. This issue has become more complicated as the proposed text amendment, to reduce the provision of affordable units from 15% to 10%, proceeds through the review process. The effect of this text amendment on REC would allow for a reduction of eighteen (18) affordable units from the fifty -(55) five currently proposed. This would result in the provision of thirty-seven (37) affordable housing units - the caveat is that the text amendment would not apply to this development since they had submitted under the current code which required 15% affordable units. The Applicant has stated that they want to proceed to Board decision and they would then submit for a PUD Amendment to reduce the number of affordable units in the development. 10. FISCAL IMPACT The Applicant has provided a Fiscal Impact Analysis and Supplemental Update (Attachment E in EXHBIT HH) prepared by Andy Knudtsen of Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. This analysis was prepared to estimate public costs and revenues that would result from the development. Population estimates and forecasts were utilized to determine an absorption rate of 58 units per year, a rate of approximately 5% of County growth. The conclusion of the analysis was that the development of River Edge Colorado would result in a fiscal benefit to the County in the amount of -$26,000 annually. This figure was determined based upon annual ongoing expenditures, including long-term capital improvements, in an annual amount to be incurred by the County at $464,000 in 2021. The report goes on to analyze cumulative net fiscal impact of $566,000 if the total of one-time revenues is considered and a cumulative net fiscal impact of $715,000 if affordable housing units were not provided. VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTED FINDINGS The Planning Commission recommended the following findings which staff has updated to include Board of County Commissioner hearing information: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing(s) before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 46 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision Preliminary Plan may be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County upon compliance with conditions of approval adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. That, upon compliance with conditions of approval, the applications are generally compliant with the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 5. That, upon granting of waivers and compliance with conditions of approval, the applications have adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. IX. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission considered these applications at public hearings held on July 13, 2011 and September 14, 2011. The Commission, by a vote of 6 to 1, recommends that the Board of County Commission approve the Zone District Amendment and Final PUD Plan, and the Subdivision Preliminary Plan for the River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period of three years. 3. The maximum density permitted in the River Edge Colorado project shall be 366 dwelling units. 4. The PUD Plan, PUD Guide and Preliminary Plan documents shall be updated based upon the approval granted by the Board of County Commissioners and copies provided to Building & Planning. These documents shall be attached to the resolutions associated with these applications. 5. The Development Agreement shall be finalized based upon Garfield County Attorney Office and Board of County Commissioner comments and shall be recorded in conjunction with the resolution (s) associated with these applications. 6. Grading Activity / Reclamation a. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to initiation of any on-site activity related to Phase 0; b. Sufficient revegetation security shall be provided at grading permit; c. No activity related to reclamation or development of the project shall occur until such time as a State Highway Access Permit (SHAP) and Notice to Proceed has been issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT); 47 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE 7. Vegetation a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final plat, whichever shall come first, the Applicant shall provide a management plan for noxious weeds on REC property well as on the Conservation Easement parcel if agreed to by the Roaring Fork Conservancy; b. The Open Space Management Plans shall be amended to remove the 5% requirement prior to treatment of noxious weeds as State statute requires that state listed A and B species must be eradicated when detected with which the County concurs regarding all noxious weeds. c. County Vegetation Management Director shall be consulted regarding the calculation of revegetation security. 8. Geology The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Engineering Report submitted for the project, as such recommendations may be amended through further geotechnical investigations, including the items listed below. The geotechnical engineer evaluating the site shall consider the recommendations provided by the Colorado Geological Survey. a. Detailed geotechnical investigations shall be provided as part of the final design submitted for each final plat and prior to the commencement of construction on the site; provided, however, that detailed geotechnical investigations for pre - development reclamation (Phase 0) activities, which activities shall be conducted as part of obtaining the required grading permit. Detailed cost estimates shall be included for mitigation done as part of the public improvements. b. Specific foundation designs for buildings shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at building permit. c. Subsidence and sinkholes are considered a potential risk across the site. The Applicant shall provide necessary mitigation where further geotechnical investigations reveal that the soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections may lead to failure. Mitigation may include providing plans for alternate temporary access. "Critical road sections" are those road sections which if damaged by subsidence would eliminate access to lots within the REC project. d. If an agreement is reached with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to stabilize the base of steep escarpments, a maintenance easement and plan shall be provided to the County. e. An underdrain system shall be provided to protect below -grade construction such as retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas. The drain shall be placed at each level of excavation and at least one foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade. f. Post reclamation (Phase 0) or post overlot/mass grading, as applicable, cut depths for buildings, structures or roadways shall not exceed 15 feet and fills should be limited to 10" in depth and not placed on steep downhill slope areas. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes shall be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or rock riprap. 48 g. BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE The grading plan shall consider runoff from uphill basins that drain through the project and at individual sites and water shall not be permitted to pond which could impact slope stability and foundations. h. Infiltration shall be limited into the bearing soils next to buildings by required exterior backfill to be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of at least 10 feet. i. Roof downspouts and drains will be discharged a minimum of ten feet beyond the limits of all backfill. Landscape irrigation shall be limited in accordance with the provision of the irrigation system standards submitted with the PUD Application to ensure water application rated to not generally exceed evapotransporation rates. j• A detailed pavement design shall be provided in conjunction with submittal of each final plat - to determine if fine-grained soils exist that need to be removed. Where fill placement will occur as part of road construction activities in association with nay final plat as part of the subdivision improvements rather than in advance of the final plat application as part of reclamation (Phase 0) or overlot or mass grading activities, a geotechnical report shall be submitted to the County for review prior to paving; such report shall demonstrate that the fill will achieve the pavement design objectives in the pavement design report submitted with the subject final plat. k. The soils type results in a requirement for concrete exposed to on-site soils contain Type I/ll portland cement (less than 5% tri -calcium aluminate). 9. Wildlife The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the reports of its consulting wildlife biologist and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including the following: a. Lighting of open space areas, including indirect lighting and transient lighting from roads and homes, is not recommended. Street lighting shall generally conform to the lighting plan submitted as part of the PUD Application. Lighting of open spaces except that required around building in accordance with safety requirements is not permitted. Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10' off of the roadsides in areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate open space areas. b. Fences along roads should not be permitted exclusive of the elk fence along SH 82, cut and/or fill slopes along roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement except where retaining walls are utilized; this includes using native plant materials that mimic local native vegetation species and distribution in general conformance with the landscape plan submitted with the PUD Application.. c. Trails within REC and continuous open space areas shall be closed by the Property Owners Association during sensitive deer and elk winter seasons. Dogs, outside of yards or dog parks, should be on a leash year-round. d. Wildlife friendly fences should be required in the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River corridors. 49 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE e. Open Space Tracts are used as winter range; therefore, reclamation will need to occur using appropriate native plant species and vegetation profiles in general conformance with the specifications in the Reclamation Plan and landscape plans submitted with the PUD Application. Revegetation should occur as soon as possible. Noxious weeds should be treated bi-annually to minimize spread and impact on winter range. f. Dog and cat restrictions should include limitation of one dog and/or cat per unit (plus young up to 3 months); dogs must be leashed when outside of fenced yards during the winter months; loose or uncontrollable dogs and contractor dogs should be prohibited. g. Development of the REC project shall generally comply with the Erosion Control and Sediment Control Plan submitted for the project, and as more specifically detailed with each final plat, in order to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment form developed areas from reaching Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Runoff should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes. h. All utilities shall be buried. 10. Access and Roadways a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall submit a Crossing License from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC), if required by state law. If PUC review and approval of the crossing is not required the Applicant shall provide a letter from the PUC to that effect. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide documentation from Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) regarding the acceptance of construction to grade separate the Rio Grande Trail in the vicinity of the project entrance. If construction collateral is not required by RFTA then collateral for this improvement shall be included in a County Improvements Agreement. c. The REC alley design must include a design vehicle minimum of either an emergency response vehicle or a garbage truck 11. Water a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the signed District Court, Water Division 5 Decrees in Case No. 07CW164 and Case No. 08CW198. b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or submittal of the first Final Plat, whichever shall be submitted first, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed pre - inclusion agreement related to the provision of water and wastewater service to the River Edge Colorado development. 12. Final Plat Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the following final plat requirements in addition to those 50 BOCC November 21, 2011 River Edge Colorado KE requirements contained within the Garfield County Unified Land use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR). a. The Applicant shall provide the following information as submittal requirements with the first final plat application: i. An Improvements Agreement; ii. Demonstration of formation of the Property Owner's Association; iii. Draft deeds for conveyance of improvements, facilities or real property from the Applicant to the POA; iv. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's) applicable to the development. b. Plat notes, in addition to the standard notes, shall include the following: i. Engineered foundations shall be required for all buildings within the development. These foundation plans shall be stamped by an engineer licensed in the State of Colorado or a letter stamped by a qualified geotechnical engineer stating that no special foundation design is necessary. 13. The Applicant shall submit an appraisal with the first application for Final Plat in the subdivision so that calculation of the amount of the fee -in -lieu payment of school land dedication for the subdivision can be calculated. Payment of the fee -in lieu will be required prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision. 14. Prior to approval and recordation of the first final plat The Applicant shall be required to comply with Resolution 2008-05, the required residential impact fee of $730.00 per unit for the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Payment of this fee shall occur prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision. 15. The `Guesthouse' provision in the PUD Guide shall be removed. 51 Board of County Commissioners — Public Hearing Exhibits River Edge Colorado (REC) Zone District Amendment / Preliminary Plan November 21, 2011 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit m A Mail receipts and proof of posting B Proof of publication C Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 E Three Binder set of application materials F Staff report G Intentionally left blank H Staff Presentation I Road & Bridge dated May 18, 2011 J Public Works (SGM on behalf of County) dated May 24, 2011 K Garfield County Housing Authority dated May 31, 2011 L Sheriff Department dated June 15, 2011 M County Vegetation dated June 10, 2011 N Environmental Health dated June 17, 2011 O Division of Water Resources dated June 22, 2011 P Colorado Geologic Survey dated June 3, 2011 Q Colorado Department of Transportation dated April 27, 2011 R Colorado Division of Wildlife dated June 14, 2011 S Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District dated June 12, 2011 T Roaring Fork Transportation Authority dated June 15, 2011 U Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of GarCo) dated June 10, 2011 V City of Glenwood Springs dated June 9, 2011 W US Fish and Wildlife Service dated May 25, 2011 X United Stated Army Corps of Engineers dated May 5, 2011 Y Email dated 6/23/11 from planner to applicant re: DWR Z Letter dated 6/19/11 from Wayne Foreman, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck AA RE -1 School District dated June 30, 2011 BB Colorado Department of Transportation dated June 28, 2011 CC City of Glenwood Springs Fire Department dated July 7, 2011 DD Division of Water Resources dated July 1, 2011 EE Town of Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission dated June 30, 2011 FF Town of Carbondale Mayor dated July 5, 2011 GG City of Glenwood Springs Fire Department dated July 7, 2011 HH Applicant submittal of supplemental information dated September, 2011 11 Aspen Glen Board of Directors dated September 6, 2011 JJ Division of Water Resources dated September 8, 2011 KK Roaring Fork Conservancy dated September 8, 2011 LL Mark VonderHaar comments dated September 12, 2011 MM Water Decree Case 07CW164 NN Water Decree Case 08CW198 1 Board of County Commissioners — Public Hearing Exhibits River Edge Colorado (REC) Zone District Amendment / Preliminary Plan November 21, 2011 00 Supplemental information dated November 7, 2011 including revised Development Agreement, Affordable Housing Agreement, PUD Guide, PUD Plan and Preliminary Plan PP Supplemental Staff Report QQ RR SS TT UU W WW XX YY ZZ 2 From: To: cc: Subject: Date: Michael Prehm Betsy Suerth; Kathy A. Eastlev; River Edge (Rezone PUD / Preliminary Plan) Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:42:15 PM Betsy, After reviewing the material given, I noticed the water system had changed. from a year ago. Instead of storage tanks being installed up County Road 110 and a line down the road and across Hwy 82. It shows the water system being tied into the Iron Bridge, Teller Springs, and Aspen Glen loop. If I understand after talking with Kathy Eastley this loop is an alternate. My question! are the plans for the water tanks up County Road 110 still in the works? In the Summary of Request, the application states a maximum of 30,000 square feet of commercial / public -quasi -public. Is this going to generate any additional traffic that is not mentioned? The application also requests Subdivision Preliminary Plan to create 346 lots, and tracts for commercial/public-quasi-public use. Where would these tracts be and what access would be needed? Mike MEMORANDUM SCHMUESER GORDON # MEYER TO: Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Senior Planner CC: Betsy Suerth, Garfield County Public Works Director FROM: Lee Barger, SGM DATE: May 24, 2011. SUBJ: Project # 2010-413.007 Preliminary Plan Review of Proposed SH 82 Access at River Edge I have reviewed the drawings for highway access to the proposed River Edge development at the intersection of SH 82 and Cattle Creek Road. This review included plan sheets C01.02 (Overview of Access), CO2.01 (Plan & Profile), C04.01 (Typical Sections), and C06.01 (Site Access Plan). My concerns are detailed below. The first concern is the point of intersection of River Edge Drive with State Highway 82. Since a detailed plan for improvements to the Cattle Creek intersection has not been fully developed by the County, the first priority should be to line River Edge Drive up with the existing intersection where CR 113 (Cattle Creek) intersects SH 82. The current plan shows this intersection offset south slightly (about 12' or one lane width) from the existing centerline of the Cattle Creek access. If the County were to fmalize a plan for access improvements to this intersection, coordination between the applicant and the County should occur to be sure the final configuration is a conventional 4 -way intersection with minor street legs aligned directly across from each other. Based on the alignment shown, it appears the applicant has some flexibility in where this approach intersects with SH 82, although the RFTA easement may need to be modified if the design changes drastically (which it shouldn't). CDOT requires 6' shoulders adjacent to turn lanes; where the plans show 4' shoulders. Additionally, the median nose shown on the plans on the westbound SH 82 approach should be pulled back to allow large vehicles turning from Cattle Creek to eastbound SH 82 more room to maneuver. The proposed lengths of acceleration and deceleration lanes shown on the plans are consistent with the standards for design given in CDOT's State Highway Access Code and based on the expected demand generated by River Edge. However, the plan only shows improvements to the intersection for traffic oriented to and from River Edge; no improvements are shown for the Cattle Creek or east side of the intersection (north by 118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-5948 FAX 1 CDOT's orientation). These improvements should be coordinated with the. County's plan for Cattle Creek improvements. Finally, I did not review the River Edge interior streets plan, profiles, and sections, but I did see the proposed roundabout at the intersection of River Edge Drive and Trailside/Riverside Loop Drives. I am curious if other alternatives for traffic control were contemplated at this intersection for a development of 300+ units? I am not sure a roundabout (or signal) would be warranted. The traffic study addresses highway access only and does not analyze this intersection or assess the operations of the internal roadway network. Could a four-way stop or mini -roundabout be incorporated here? The money used for a full-size modern roundabout at this location might be better spent on more vital arid warranted improvements at the Cattle Creek intersection. 118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Sehmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-5948 FAX 2 GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 1430 RAILROAD AVENUE Unit F RIFLE, CO 81650 (970) 625-3589 Fax 970-625-0859 May 31, 2011 TO: Kathy Eastley Garfield County Planning Dept. FROM: Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) REF: River Edge Rezone PUD/Preliminary Plan, Affordable Housing Garfield County Housing. Authority (GCHA) has reviewed River Edge PUD and understands that the applicant proposes 55 affordable housing (AH) units to be built over 11 phases or 5 AH units per phase. Homes are clustered into 3 tracks in the PUD. GCHA offers the following comments: On page 4, paragraph 3 of the Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) the applicant requires presales before building AN units. There is no precedent for this in the County's guidelines. Would the applicant be released from his obligation to build the AH units if there were no qualified buyer within the applicants timeframe? GCHA believes that flexibility from both the applicant and the guidelines would be of benefit to potential buyers of these AH units. Currently, the downturn in the economy and the tightening of the lending industry has made it harder to buy and sell homes, both free market and deed restricted. We cannot foresee this trend during the build out of this development over the next 10 to 20 years. On Page 5, paragraph 5 of the AHPA the applicant provides 3 categories of pricing for the AH units. The applicant proposes to allow buyers earning up to. 150% of AMI instead of the maximum 120% AMT allowed in the County's guidelines. GCHA views this as opening the buyer pool to a larger population while maintaining the integrity of the program by allowing families earning 80% to 150% AMI to purchase homes priced at 70% AMI to 110% AML If the exception to the guidelines is made to accommodate these pricing categories, GCHA request that it apply to all resales within River Edge. On Page 6, paragraph 9 of the AHPA applicant proposes option of renting AH homes if not sold within the 120 days. This is not addressed in County's guidelines. However, this is an interesting proposal as it is the intent of the program that each AH unit be occupied by a qualified family. If allowed, the rents would need to be below market rent to maintain the unit as affordable to families within lower Allis. Rental guidelines could easily be written and agreed upon, however more questions would need to discussed such as; If the units are rented would the developer offer them for sale again at some point? Would the sale price of a previously rented unit be reduced from that of a new unit? Is the developer the property manager for the rental? Additional comments on the AHPA are: Could the AHPA be amended with each phase, especially with such a long build out schedule? Will the applicant provide at least one single-family home within each phase? Are all 5 AH units required to be built in a phase before the next phase is started? Would applicant consider designing an aspect to the AH homes that would permit owners to improve their equity by finishing or improving the home (basements, carports, decks etc)? GCHA continues to look over the Declaration of Deed Restriction that was provided by the applicant and may offer some comments before final recordation. Sincerely, Geneva Powell Executive Director Garfield County Housing Authority 1430 Railroad Avenue, Unit F Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-3589 Rifle (970) 625-0859 Rifle Fax (970) 945-8082 Glenwood www.garfieldhousinq.com SHE 107 87"( Street - gfen-wood Syrings, CO 8260i Phone: 970-945-0453 Fax: 970-945-6430 June 15, 2011 IIFF OF eARFIELD COUP LOU VALLA io 10 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 JUN 1 5 2011 BUILDiNG PL;3,I\1Nj'ii),G 206 County Road333-.<i Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-665-02 00 Fax: 97o-665-0253 RE: River Edge Colorado — Rezone PUD/Preliminary Plan Dear Kathy: I have reviewed the application for the proposed River Edge Colorado subdivision,and have the following comments on this application. Access The concerns of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, in regards to the Emergency Vehicle Access points, are also concerns of the Sheriff's Office. Additionally, without reviewing comments from CDOT, the Sheriffs Office has concerns on the impact of the ingress/egress onto HWY 82 at the Cattle Creek intersection. Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance. S. c-' ly, reizi James H. Sears Emergency Operations Sgt. MEMORANDUM To: Kathy Eastley From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the River Edge Rezone PUD 6720 Date: June 10, 2011 Noxious Weeds • Staff requests that the applicant arrange an on-site meeting between the Roaring Fork Conservancy, River Edge, and Garfield County Vegetation Management to discuss and develop a management plan for noxious weeds located on River Edge's property that bas a conservation easement. • Staff concurs with the statement from the applicant's consultant, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services that weed control treatments continue to occur before development begins. • Covenants -We recommend that the applicant put in stronger language regarding noxious weed control that will emphasize that each property owner has the responsibility to manage state and county listed noxious weeds • Open Space Management Plan (OSMP)-There is a statement on page 4 of the OSMP, item 5, that states that "weeds that occupy 5% of the foliar cover shall be treated in accordance with the State Colorado Noxious Act." This implies that a cover of weeds of up to 5% is acceptable. Legally, all State List A species and many List B species must be eradicated when detected. The 5% statement should be deleted or rewritten. That standard of allowing up to a 5% cover is not acceptable. Revegetation • The Revegetation Plan is acceptable. Under normal circumstances, we would request that the applicant provide a quantification of the surface area to be disturbed, and then we would recommend a $2500 per acre revegetation security. In this situation where almost the entire property was scrapped bare about 7 years ago, that approach may not be the most sensible. I recommend a meeting between Building & Planning, Vegetation Management, and the applicant to discuss the revegetation security amount. Jim Rada Kathy A. EastleY; PUD5720/SPP6721 River Edge Colorado Friday, June 17, 2011 4:25:04 PM •ollowing comments at this time: ither the Water Supply or Wastewater Treatment plan is initive in terms of who will provide these services. The option of ri a ely owned and operated water and wastewater treatment ants operated by the Homeowners Association, is not, in my inion, a sound option for this type of development due to the inherent weaknesses of HOA's to properly manage these systems. 1 strongly recommend that the applicant be required to nail down rovision of water and wastewater services that result in high-quality, stainable operations. e applicant is on the right track in terms of developing a ivalkable, sustainable community that creates space for growing fresh foods during the summer growing season. This is an extremely iportant element of urban development that we need to continually include in community planning in order to begin addressing xeinic public health issues like obesity, diabetes and heart disease. the applicant puts responsibility for upkeep of open spaces, ens, orchards, sidewalks, trails and streets in the hands of the eiiorneowners association. I am skeptical that without a more solid an for financing and managing these community amenities, that ey will eventually lose priority and fall into a degraded state and sidents will fall back to getting in their cars to go to the store or rely arby convenience stores to fulfill their dietary needs. cess to fresh foods and other amenities will still involve getting one's car for a run to the market in Carbondale or Glenwood. This :0 nothing to reduce air pollution from vehicles. Nor does it c‘)' Courage people to walk or ride bicycles to take care of daily needs. e ieve that land should be made available for commercial purposes ci 'tally to encourage development of a local food store to serve !sldents of this community and the central valley area. Assuming that the applicant can finance the construction of the restructure and all other elements of the project, I see no projected ng term budget for operation and maintenance of the POA owned d operated elements of this development. I suspect that these mbers will be substantial, particularly if a POA WTP and WWTP are nstructed. Based on the CCRS and the amount of commonly owned ments, managing a development this size could require a rather urge budget. Spread amongst 366 owners, this could result in stantial annual assessments. Along with the annual assessments any special assessments that may be needed as to property ages, liscould put a large financial burden on the middle-class families at willlikely occupy these homes. s or the opportunity to review this proposal. a •ntal 1ealth Manager aunty -Public Health knit • 05n 525-5231:1 x8113 -B25'-3304 $19-1579 arfield-caunty.cum r afield-cnunty,com DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES June 22, 2011 Kathy Eastly Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Rei River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan Sections 7 & 12, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Ms. Eastly: John W. Hickenlooper Governor Mike King Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Director/Staie Engineer We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to create a PUD on 160 acres for a residential development. to include 366 residential units of various sizes and types and 9 non- residential units, all to be built on 346 lots, along with recreational open space and a neighborhood center. In addition, the applicant is proposing to complete the subdivision process for the proposed PUD by subdividing the land into 346 lots. The applicant proposes to provide water to the PUD through the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (the District) pursuant to water rights and an augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 01 CW187 and pending court cases 07CW164 and 08CW198. Potable water will be provided either through existing alluvial wells and/or surface water diversions operated by the District, or through a surface water intake located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the project site, to be operated by the River Edge Colorado Property Owners Association (POA). Irrigation water will be provided by the POA through the Glenwood and Staton Ditches. Sewage disposal will be through a central system. A conditional letter of confirmation from the District was provided. The applicant anticipates a requirement of 375 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) of potable water for 366 residential units and 9 non-residential units. Per the Water Treatment and Distribution Design Report provided in the submitted materials, it appears this requirement is based on the assumption that each EQR is equivalent to a household demand of 189 gallons per day (gpd) per single family unit. The augmentation plan decreed in the Division 5 Water Court, in case no. 01 CW187, limits the final development to 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation using an assumption of 300 gpd per EQR. This decreed augmentation plan does not allow for the flexibility to assume a reduced household use water demand per single family unit in order to increase the number of EQRs. To date, no other decrees providing water to the development have been adjudicated, and pursuant to the decree in case no. 01 CW187, the applicant is limited to less EQRs than is proposed under this application. The applicant indicated that additional water supply will be available in two pending water court cases; however,pending water court cases do not serve as an adequate claim to a legal water supply. In addition, the proposed alternative supply for potable water diverted through a surface water intake along the Roaring Fork River and operated by the POA has not yet been decreed but is included in the pending water court cases. Until these proposed alternate points of diversion are decreed, the applicant is limited to diverting the water through infrastructure owned and operated by the RFWCD as specified in case no. 01 CW 187. The applicant will not be able to utilize an alternate Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 http://water.state.co.us Kathy Eastly June 22, 2011 River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan water infrastructure system until such a time as alternate points of diversion, which allow for the applicant to have direct control of said water, are decreed. The applicant anticipates a raw water demand for approximately 150 acres of_irrigation at any one time. Diversions will be made from the Roaring Fork River at the. Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the Water Supply Plan provided with the application, the applicant can divert approximately 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch. The 12.23 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch are subject to the change of water right and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case nos. 01CW188 and 01CW189. Use of these water rights at the proposed subdivision must be operated in accordance with the decrees entered in case nos. 01CW188 and 01CW189 and cannot result in an expansion of use. Note that these two cases also provide for operation of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1 — 5. The operation of the lakes must also be in accordance with the terms of these decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use of the Applicant's share of these ditches. Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan that meets the number of EQRs proposed by this application, the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. Since a final water supply has yet to be confirmed, we will refrain from commenting on the physical adequacy of the water supply at this time. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Karlyn Adams in this office. Sincerely, Megan Sullivan, R.E. Water Resource Engineer MSIkaa/River Edge PUD and Subdiv.docx cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 June 3, 2011 Ms. Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 keastley@garfieldcouny.com Re: River's Edge PUD and Preliminary Plat Application CGS GA -11-0008_1 Dear Ms. Eastley: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Ritter Govemor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist Thank for the submittal of the above referenced proposal. The proposal is to allow a mixed-use development with 366 residential units, open space and commercial. I visited the site on May 29th and 31d. As noted in the application, the site is generally located on terraces above the Roaring Fork River and adjacent to SH 82. Cattle Creek is a large drai i age, which enters and bisects the site. An existing house is located near the center of the site. The site has been graded in the past; fill areas and soil stockpiles can be found throughout the site. Other structures, such as irrigation ditches and rail, cross the site. Generally, the site has moderate slopes. Slopes steeper than 30 percent are present along terrace edges adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. A small alluvial fan sits in the northeast comer of the site. Also, as you know, the site contains numerous sinkholes caused by the dissolution of evaporate bedrock. Soil piping, erosion, and slope instability was evident along the steep terrace slopes. Erosion of the base of the terrace was evident where the outer bends of the river cut into the base of the terrace_ Generally, the applicant has done a good job avoiding the most severe geologic hazards. The main geologic hazards are outlined in geotechnical reports, by HP Geotech, dated August. 12, 2008 and November 15, 2010, include the following:. • Subsidence and sinkholes caused by dissolution of evaporite deposits • Expansive and collapsible soil • Slope instability along steep slopes adjacent to the river. • Uncontrolled fill • Debris flow and flooding hazards The recommendations in the most recent geotechnical report are similar to those contained in an earlier version. Recommendations critical to protecting public safety include: • Buildings, roads, and underground utilities should not be placed on or near high -hazard sinkholes; identified as Zone 1. To the extent feasible, Zone 2 or moderate hazard areas should be avoided. If development occurs in such areas, all sinkholes, and areas with potential sinkhole hazards should be fully investigated prior to approval of development plans. • Ms_ Kathy Eastley Page 2 June 3, 2011 • • If avoidance is not possible, roads can be constructedover stabilized sinkholes but buildings and critical utilities should not. • Buildings should be setback from the steep escarpment. A minimum setback of 2H: 1V should be measured from the edge of the river channel. • Riverbanks at outside channel bends are eroding the base of steep terrace slopes during peak flows. If allowed to continue, slope failure may occur and impact roads and buildings near terrace escarpments. Other recommendations that will impact the performance of buildings, roads, and utilities include: • Mitigation of expansive and/collapsible soil • Construction of an underdrain system • Restrictions regarding cuts and fills and other grading activities; including identification of the extent of uncontrolled fill and removal and recompaction • Mitigation of debris flow hazards • Mitigation of corrosive soil The application also contain,q a mitigation plan of how hazards will be mitigated. Some of the key mitigation measures are outlined below: Sinkhole Hazards Roads, homes and utilities generally avoid High Hazard Zone 1 areas. However, road and utility segments cross Hazard Zone 1 areas and homes are proposed in Moderate Hazard Zone 2 areas. In these areas, the applicant proposes: • Further investigations will be performed and a site-specific mitigation action will be developed as part of final design and field construction activities. • At a minimum, road areas will be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below design grades, and select fill placed and compacted to 95 percent Standard Proctor or better. • Utility areas will be over -excavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the design invert, select fill placed (compaction at 95 percent Standard Proctor) and a sleeved utility installed (Le. allowing bridging of the identified void). • Compaction grouting or structure bridging may be considered. • The placement of geosynthetics beneath the pavement may also be considered • Whichever mitigation is selected, the primary objective is to lessen the impacts of differential settlement. • If adequate mitigation cannot beachieved, utility areas will be realigned to areas without hazards. • Additional investigation will be done for lots located in Zone 2 before development. Lots may be relocated or special foundation designs required. Slope Instability Alone Steep Terrace Slopes • Planned development within the Project Site does not directly encroach into any existing steep escarpments. However, further erosion of terrace escarpments may cause safety hazards. • The applicant proposes stabilization of eroding areas. Discussions regarding stabilization of areas within the RFC Conservation Easement are.occurring. If approved by the RFC, these areas will be further investigated and a detailed mitigation program developed as part of the Reclamation Plan (Phase 0). • Additional investigation of "piping failures" will be done and stabilization plans will be developed_ Irrigation within these areas will be managed to reduce further degradation. Debris Flows • Grading for Highway 82 and the development to the east of the highway should reduce the extent of future deposition on the fan limiting the risk to proposed structures on the site.. • Ms. Kathy Eastley Page 3 June 3, 2011 • Flow diversion or deepened foundations, on the Executive Lot should be incorporated into the final designs based on further field investigations. CGS Recommendations • The mitigation measures outlined by the applicant appear to be feasible. However, additional investigation and design will be needed. Other than specific foundation designs for buildings, this should be done prior to approval of the final plan and, in most cases, before construction begins. Detailed cost estimates should be included and mitigation should be done as part of public improvements. • As a result of additional work, final lot, utility, and road layout may change; this includes relocation. • CGS also considers subsidence and sinkholes, related to dissolution of the underlying evaporite bedrock, to be a potential risk across the site. Near -surface underground voids may exist that have not yet breached the surface to become visible sinkholes. One specific concern is that it appears there will only be one access into and out of the site. If a sinkhole occurs along sections of the primary access road, emergency access to the site may be greatly impaired. The county may wish to discuss this issue with the county emergency manager. It may be prudent to verify soil and bedrock conditions below critical road sections and/or develop plans for providing an alternative emergency access if needed. • If an agreement is reached to stabilize the base of steep escarpments, a maintenance easement and plan should be provided. Making sure that the base of the slope remains protected over the course of time against erosion will be important to the safety of sections of road and several lots. • Where roads and utilities cross high and moderate sinkhole hazards, the applicant proposes a wide range of mitigation options. Each option has associated risks and costs. The county may wish to take an active role in determining what options are chosen and what risks are taken by the county and future owners; especially if any maintenance responsibility is assumed. • The site does contain industrial minerals. The mineral resource report states that because the site is zoned residential mineral deposits are not of economic value. However, this may be true but the report does not contain any data to support this conclusion. The applicant is correct in concluding state statutes regarding preservation of commercial mineral deposits do not yet apply to Garfield County. However, I am not sure if the county has adopted plans or policies that would apply. • All other recommendations outlined in geotechnical reports are valid and should be followed. In summary, it is important to note that even with the avoidance and mitigation measures outlined above and in the geotechnical report, subsidence may occur and building, roads, and utilities may be severely damaged. The following quote from the geotechnical report should be strongly considered during the entitlement process. Even with mitigation it may not be possible to prevent some structural damage to buildings, but it should be feasible to prevent sudden collapse and provide a reasonable level of safety for the building occupants." Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 303.866.2018 or by email at karen.berry@state.co.us. Sincerely, Karen A. Berry Geological Engineer, PG, AICP, CPESC-SWQ From: Roussin, Daniel To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: River Edge Colorado Rezone Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:33:04 AM Kathy --1 have no comments on the rezone. As you are aware, this project will have a big impact to the highway system. The applicant will need an access permit for SH 82. The challenge will be to tie it other side due to 4 intersection (2 frontage roads, 2 county roads). As you are aware, CDOT, Garfield County and the applicant will need to work together to make the long-term access work. If you have any questions, please let me know. thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6290 Fax From: Will, Perry To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: FW: River Edge Colorado Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:47:50 PM Attachments: cattlecreek2.doc Cattle Creek.doc From: Groves, John Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 9:34 AM To: Will, Perry; Yamashita, Matt Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado It should not have significant impacts if they follow the recommendations outlined in letters dated 4/15/2008 and 2/19/2009 regarding Cattle Creek Crossing. The main impacts will be to the heronry if our previous recommendations are not followed. There will be displacement of the elk that winter on the property while construction is ongoing, however they are likely to move in thicker once that has ended and it is not critical winter range. I have attached the letters if you want to send to Kathy or can put together a short letter for your signature. John From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:54 PM To: Will, Perry Subject: River Edge Colorado Perry, A referral was sent to the CDOW in late April seeking comments on a development proposal for River Edge Colorado (formerly known as Cattle Creek). I've not received comments from CDOW and was hoping that you could provide me a timeframe on when we might receive something — or if there is no comment, and email to that effect. Thanks. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garfield-county.com SUCCESS IS NEVER. FOUND. FAILURE IS NEVER FATAL. COURAGE IS THE ONLY THING. - WINSTON CHURCHILL STATE OF COLORADO BIH Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife.state.co.us April 15, 2008 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Dept 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cattle Creek Crossing sketch plan submission Dear Fred: For Wildlife - For The proposed Cattle Creek Crossing property is not located within any big game critical habitat areas, but adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of Highway 82. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and spring months but with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south of the property and a wide mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the property. In addition the property is home to a large great blue heron rookery, many small mammals, neo -tropical song birds, raptors and amphibians. The existing conservation easements held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy will go far to help protect the riparian and wetland habitats along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. The proposed enhancement of these riparian areas and enhancement of Cattle Creek for trout habitat are welcomed by the Division. The overall size and density of this proposed development will have a direct and indirect impact on wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed, but the Division would like to make the following recommendations to help minimize potential impacts: 1. As noted the property in not located within any mapped big game critical habitat areas, however elk usage of the property is considerable. Surrounding golf courses and residential areas provide fertilized grasses drawing the elk to the area which then seek refuge on the undeveloped .Cattle Creek property. The displacement of elk out of this refuge area is likely to create additional, road kill with elk moving back and forth across Hwy 82. The development has proposed using the existing Cattle Creek culvert under Hwy82 as an elk underpass, but it is unlikely much use will occur due to the proximity of buildings and activity on the east side of the highway and the natural unwillingness of elk to use underpass structures. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tom Burke, Chair • Claire O'Neal, Vice Chair • Robert Bray, Secretary. Elk conflicts are to be expected in the development and plantings of native vegetation are encouraged to help reduce some of those conflicts. Eliminating plantings of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs will help discourage elk, deer, bears and other wildlife from feeding on landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or bear. 2. The heronries located on the south west portion of the property are likely to be greatly impacted with the current development plan. Nests are located as close as 50 yards to the crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building sites proposed for this area are well within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640 ft. and will likely cause abandonment of the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to minimize the impacts this development will have on the heronry including: creating a buffer zone around the heronry, extensive berming and vegetative screening, restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks on homes facing the heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least 1 year prior to any construction occurring near the heronry. More detailed recommendations can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted. 3. The. riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek are extremely important to wildlife. These areas'on the property currently contain a large great blue heron colony and had previously seen bald eagles nest there. Due to the critical nature of these areas for wildlife it is recommended that any proposed trails/paths be eliminated and public access be limited into these areas. 4. Stormwater runoff into Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River is of concern. Adequate measures need to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of pollutants and sediment from the developed area reaching these waterways. Runoff water should be filtered before running into the river or caught and used for irrigation purposes. 5. All utilities buried. 6. Fencing should be held to a minimum. Any necessary fencing should be wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. 7. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their property. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933. Sincerely, Perry Will Area Wildlife Manager Cc: DOW — R.Velarde, J.Groves, file STATE OF COLORADO . n Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 14P0r0 Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway For Widdl ft- Denver, Colorado 80216 For People Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife.state.co.us February 19, 2009 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Budding and Planning Dept 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cattle Creek Colorado PUD review Dear Kathy: The DOW has reviewed the Cattle Creek Colorado PUD amendment and has previously commented on the development proposal in a letter dated April 15, 2008. Comments and recommendations from that letter are still relevant. The Cattle Creek development property is not located within any mapped big game critical habitat areas, but is adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the east side of Highway 82. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and spring months with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. While it is not mapped criticalwinter range the property has become a preferred wintering area for elk. The upper benches provide loafing/solitude areas, while the riparian corridors provide cover and food. A mapped elk highway crossing exists to the south of the property and a wide mule deer crossing runs along most of the eastern boundary of the property. Car/elk accidents have increased significantly along the stretch of SH 82 from mile marker 6.5-12 in the past several years. In addition the property is home to a large great blue heron colony , many small mammals, neo tropical song birds, raptors and amphibians. The overall size and density of this project is going to have direct and indirect impacts to wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed. The Division is concerned about several issues related to the current development proposal and makes the following recommendations: 1 The proposed trails into the riparian areas along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River should be eliminated. Any recreational trails proposed should remain on the bench above the river and out of the conservation easement areas held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy. The proposed trails are listed for fisherman access but in reality these will become recreational hiking trails and dog walking areas which will rapidly diminish the values for wildlife that the easements are designed to protect. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Haas D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Robert Bray, Chair • Brad Coors, Vice Chair .Tim Glenn, Secretary 2. The Division is discouraged with the fact that the current great blue heron nesting locations have not been identified in the current building plan nor have any steps been taken to minimize impacts in the building plan. The mitigation proposals outlined in the CCR's are inadequate and rely on future abandonment of the colony. The current locations are several hundred yards upstream of the old nest sites identified in the building plan and have been active for over 5 years. The heronries located on the south west portion of the property are likely to be greatly impacted with the current development plan. Nests are located as close as 27 yards to the crest of the hill directly east of the heronry. The building sites proposed for this area are well within the standard DOW recommended buffer of 1640 ft. and will Likely cause abandonment of the heronry. Substantial measures are needed to minimize the impacts this development will have on the heronry including: creating a 200 meter buffer zone around the heronry with extensive berming and vegetative screening, restrictions on construction timing, and limiting of upper level decks on homes facing the heronry. All berming and vegetative screening should be in place at least 1 year prior to any construction occurring within 400 meters of the heronry. More detailed recommendations can be given when a detailed construction plan is submitted. 3. 100' building envelope set backs need to established from the crest of the bluff overlooking the riparian corridors on the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. 4. Maximum building height should be 25' especially for building locations overlooking the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. 5. The DOW would like to sit down with the developer to further discuss their proposal for funding off-site mitigation and habitat enhancement. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933. Sincerely, Perry Will Area Wildlife Manager Cc: DOW — R.Velarde, J.Groves, file FIRE • EMS • RESCUE June 12, 2011 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: River Edge Colorado — Rezone PUD / Preliminary Plan Dear Kathy: I have reviewed the application for the proposed River Edge Colorado Subdivision. The application was reviewed for compliance with the International Fire Code (IFC), 2009 edition, adopted by the County. I would offer the following comments. . Access The proposed street layout and access throughout the subdivision is adequate for emergency apparatus. Two Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) points are discussed on page 9 of the Project Engineering Design Report but the EVAs are not indicated on the drawings. IFC Section D1062 "Multiple Family Residential Developments" requires developments with more than 200 residential dwelling units to have two separate and approved fire access roads. Details of the two EVAs must be submitted for approval. Water Supplies for Fire Protection The Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District has agreed to service the development. The proposed system is designed to provide for 1,500 gpm residential fire flows and 2,000 gpm non- residential fire flows. The proposed water system appears to be capable of providing the design fire flows throughout the development. The proposed location and spacing of the fire hydrants is adequate as well. The International Residential Code (IRC) adopted by the County will require automatic fire sprinklers in all residences, effective January 1, 2013. installation requirements will be in accordance with NFPA 13D or Section P2904 of the IRC. Residential sprinkler systems typically require 26-60 gallons per minute (GPM) flows however IRC Section P2904 would allow flows as low as 13 GPM in certain cases. Required flows are primarily dependent upon roof and ceiling design. Connections of service lines to the water mains should be designed to allow for the required flows. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623.970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569 River Edge Colorado, Page 2 of 2 Impact Fees The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the District. The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. The current fee for residential development is $730.00 per lot/unit. Please contact me if you have any questions or if 1 can be of any assistance. Sincerely 1 dA2t4--- Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569 From: David Johnson To: Kathy A. Eastlev: cc: Tamra Allen: Fred Jarman- Jason white: Subject: RE: River Edge Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:24:06 PM RFTA has the following concerns about this proposed development: Location Outside the UGB In preparation for RFTA's Strategic Planning Board Retreat on June 9th, I created a table highlighting the common themes of the surrounding Comprehensive Plans. One of the most prevalent themes is concentrating development within the town center or within the UGB. Carbondale is currently updating its 2000 Comp' Plan, and this will undoubtedly be a priority as well. The proposed development is located outside the urban growth boundaries of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, which appears to conflict with this priority. Theme/Element Advocated Basalt Carbondale Glenwood Springs RFTA is also concerned about growth outside the town boundaries. Currently, RFTA's local route serves over 50 stops in each direction. One way travel time from Glenwood Springs to Aspen is about 100 minutes, which makes it unattractive for current and potential passengers and increases operational cost. RFTA is addressing this issue by implementing BRT, which will serve nine key locations along the SH82 corridor, and by conducting a feasibility study, now underway, of local transit systems in Carbondale and in the Basalt/El Jebel area. One of the goals of the feasibility study is to create transit systems in each area to provide local mobility within the town centers and to "feed" passengers to the BRT stops, where they can enjoy fast, frequent regional transit service. RFTA's Board is comprised of elected officials in cities and counties throughout the region, including Glenwood and Carbondale. Based on the overriding philosophy of maintaining growth and services within town boundaries, and the issue of the cost and travel time impacts of adding additional service, it is unlikely that the Board will endorse adding service to River Edge development, even if the applicant is willing to pay for the capital and operating costs of adding boarding locations at SH82 and CR113. The transit assessment conducted by Fehr and Peers does not estimate potential transit ridership. Consequently, the need for additional rolling stock and the size of shelters and other amenities are unknown. The nearest RFTA boarding locations are at Spring Creek Road and Aspen Glen. Neither location appears to be within walking distance. Rio Grande Trail ROW Crossing As stated in the Land Suitability Analysis, the RFTA right-of-way crossing required by the entry road at CR 113 and SH 82 is covered by an Easement Grant providing at -grade access to the Project Site. The easement for access to the Project Site at this location was granted by RFRHA. Although the at -grade crossing is covered by an easement, it poses a number of issues. First, according to the traffic study, trip generation from the residential, commercial and other uses is estimated at 276 a.m. peak hour, 347 p.m. peak hour, and 3,567 daily vehicle trips. This may pose safety conflicts between vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians at the crossing. In addition, the principal intention for purchasing the ROW and rail banking was to preserve it for future passenger rail. Should a rail system be established, the at -grade crossing would need to be improved, possibly to a grade separated crossing, to address operational and safety issues. RFTA does not wish to bear these costs and wishes to seek an agreement from the applicant that the crossingbe upgraded per ,PUC guidelines Part 723-7 (Rules Regulating Railroad, Rail Fixed Guideways, Transportation by Rail, and rail Crossings) should rail service be established. David Johnson, AICP Director of Planning Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 1340 Main Street Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970.384.4979 office 970.384.4870 fax 970.376.4492 mobile djohnson[arfta.com From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 12:11 PM To: David Johnson Cc: Tamra Allen; Fred Jarman; Jason White Subject: RE: River Edge David, When could we expect these. comments? Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@aarfield-county.com SUCCESS IS NEVER FOUND. FAILURE 1S NEVER FATAL. COURAGE IS THE ONLY THING. - WINSTON CHURCHILL From: David Johnson [mailto:djohnson©rfta.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:04 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Cc: Tamra Allen; Fred Jarman; Jason White Subject: River Edge I apologize: I have not yet sent comments on River Edge. Can I send today? David Johnson, AICP Director of Planning Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 1340 Main Street Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970.384.4979 office 970.384.4870 fax 970.376.4492 mobile djohnson©rfta.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and June. 10, 2011 Ms. Kathy Eastley JUN 1 3 2011 _ • Garfield :County Planning . L : ? : ,.: 108' 8t Street, Suite 401 13 -DIM fD ;!IAN ;> Glenwood Springs, C..O 81601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COME/ONO AND .DESIGN RE: Preliminary Plan '& PUD Rezone Application for River Edge: SPPA6721i Dear Kathy:: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the River Edge Subdivision Preliminary Plan and PUD Rezone Application. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. .The review generated the following questions, concerns, and. comments: Project Binders: ,1. The Applicant proposes two options for providing water to the subdivision: either connection to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD) or providing their own community system. The application materials seems to provide enough evidence that there is a legal supply 'of water (pending outcome of Water Court) regardless of the option pursued. However the physical: supply is still pending negotiations.. There are requirements that the Applicant would need to meet with either option: well pump test; water quality' test, community water system approvals with CDPHE, among others if the applicant were to provide their own system, and :evidence of adequatecapacity of the systems of RFWSD if connecting .to. them. 2 Depending on if the Applicant provides their own sewer and water connections, the' Applicant will need to adjust -their potable water analysis to use EQR values congruent with the ULUR of Garfield County :namely 350,gpd. for interior household use. Typically outside irrigation is above and additional to the 350 gpd butsince a separateirrigation water system is proposed, only minimal increases would be expected, if any. 3• The Applicant proposes to do some additional geotechnical testing todetermine any -modification necessary to the Hazard Plan.. The Applicant should address theimpacts that the testing could have on the proposed lot layout and the overallsite density based on the results. 4 The proposed bridge crossing of Cattle Creek may require a floodplain permit and/or LOMR from FEMA depending on its impact to the floodplain. The Applicant will need 'to. address this issue. 5 The recommendation of the geotechnical engineer is that foundation sub -drains be provided. These drains need to have a suitable outletfor drainage. The: Applicant .proposes that these should be determined at the 'time of individual lot construction. Since the site is'.very flat, the likely option at that tithe would be to drain these foundation drains to an onsite drywell for infiltration. Infiltrating water on top of,the site soils, most notably the Evaporite, would increase the '.likelihood. for potential damae due to settling. The Applicant should consider a project wide method for suitable gravity outlet for foundation drains. 6. The Applicant isrequesting a waiver, from providing storm -water detention for peak flow attenuation. - Ultimately this waiver will need to be given by the BoCC but since there are no drainage structures with possible capacity restrictions downstream, this office has no concerns regarding peak -flow detention provided that water -quality detention is still'provided. 826 1./2 Grand Avenue • . Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX 970:945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com River Edge Page 2of4. 7. Similarly, the Applicant is requesting a,waiver for some of the road standards as described m the application materials Ultimately this waiver willneed to be given by the BoCC but this office has no concerns regarding this provided the following are addressed: o The Applicant proposes that the alleys not be required to design to a specific design vehicle. ` The design vehicle should at a minimum include the larger of either an emergency response vehicle or garbage truck; o The proposed curband gutter section uses a small pan width of 12"rather than a more typical pan width of 24" on requested narrower street widths. The Applicant should verify that inlet spacing is : congruent with the spread of water on the proposed narrow travel lanes: • . 8. The project proposes essentially one access: for the project residents although there are two other locations for emergency vehicles to the site. There are some concerns with only one public access for a project of this size. 9._ The Applicant has begun discussions with. CDOT but has not obtained an access permit at this time. This access permit will need to be obtained. 10. This access to Highway 82 isproposed to be a signalized intersection, Design discussions are underway but the design has not yet been determined and will require- coordination with Garfield County for reconstruction and redesign of the frontage roads and Cattle Creek on the east side. 11. It is understood that : offsite improvements for water and sewer services do not need to be included m the application and will be reviewed for Location and Extent if the Applicant connects to RFWSD.: The: Applicant ` should coordinate with Garfield , County staff if the Applicant determines to provide their' own sewer and water services; a separateor amended application may be necessary. • The Application materials do not provide any information on the design ,of. the .offsite improvements such as pump stations, pipelines, sewer: plants, water tanks, etc. 12: The Applicant proposes a raw water irrigation system for residences that would be pressurized by a pumping system provided by the Applicant. The materials provide preliminary performance specifications of the . pumping system but not an :engineering . design of the anticipated system. 13 The CC&Rs :should include any regulations necessary for the irrigation systems of the individual Lots, such as sprinkling systems, controllers, and connection to the. irrigation system. 14 The CC&Rs and the Landscape Plan should include the 10' irrigation restriction in landscaping around building s per the recommendations of HP Geotech: 15. The'sewer design proposes a wastewater treatment plant and force main ,ejecting g ' into a manhole near lots on Rookery. Street and Riverside. Loop Drive. The Applicant should discuss how any associated odors are to be mitigated. 16, The Applicant proposes to discharge treated effluent from the proposed wastewater treatment into constructed wetlands: It appears 'that the wetlands ands intendedare within the Common Area tracts. The Applicant should evaluate wetland discharge and determine if the wetlands created in common areas between Lots is the most advantageous or appropriate location when compared to the adjacent Roaring Fork. 17. The project disturbance may require that an individual permit with: the. Corps -of Engineers be obtained instead of a nationwide permit. The Applicant will need to ,determine the appropriate course of action. 18. It appears that home .occupations would be allowed but the traffic report does riot appear to include these in the calculation .of trip generation. The Applicant should address any impacts. MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 `/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 8I601 F: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com River Edge Page 3 of 4 Project Plan Sheets: 1. Additional parking should be provided for the ball fields and playgrounds in the active recreation areas. ' 2: The' playgrounds should be located closer to the adjacent street and proposed parking areas than the ball fields. 3: The traffic calming island of the round -about eliminates the turning movement into Moraine. Court from Riverside Loop Drive. The Applicant should evaluate, this. 4. At present the sidewalks and internal project trails show no connection to the Rio Grande Trail: Sidewalks on River Edge Drive terminate on top of the underpass but do not continue to' either the proposedproject signalized intersection or connect to the Rio Grande Trail, Given the potential complications of tyirig into the underpass and the pedestrian crossing necessary at Highway 82, the Applicant should determine how to connect these to provide pedestrian access in the most safe 'and efficient manner: 5. The proposed plans show some road grades of 0.5%, This is Very flat and often proves to be very difficultto •maintain constant curb and gutter flow -line grades. The Applicant should consider varying or steeper grades. 6: The round -abouts on thenorth' and south ends of the projects should have radii on the curb and gutter returns with the intersections of the project streets: 7, An engineered pavement design.should be provided based on project specific soils.. 8 The project sitegrading along the north property line shows incomplete contours, trespass on the adjacent property to the north, and creates drainage problem areas, . The Applicant :should revise the grading plan and obtain any necessary agreements and/or temporary easements. 9. The proposed' drainage channel has slopes at grades as flat as :0,5%.. The channel also proposes materials of rip -rap, grass, or concrete. All of these materials are not suitable for the flat slopes that, are proposed:. The Applicant should determine channel materials based on' slopes,' flow velocities, and maintenance.. 10 The drainagpIan-shows inlets daylightnbetween lots and flowing along the side. Yards rils before ..getting to the common problematic the buildings are areas, ..,.These tend to be : roblematic as constructed, graded and the landscaping is placed. They are also difficult to maintain positive flows in natural or grass swales .especially at the very flat slopes that are proposed. The Applicant should investigate alternatives. 11.. The Applicant, should design the release; structures and routing for discharges from the water quality ponds. • 12. The .Applicant should verify the location, of inlets at intersectionsfor drainage of low spots or provide valley pans for crossings. 13. Chert Court does not show a connection to the culvertbeneath it for. drainage. 14. The Applicant should, investigate. ;alternative .layouts or routings within the narrow corridor between Cattle Creek. and Mica Court. At present the Glenwood Ditch, Cattle Creek, a retaining wall, storm drain culvert, pedestrian trail, sewer line, and water line all compete for, space. 15. Storm inlets should be: designed to connect to storm manholes :instead of connecting with a tee directly into the storin main line piping. 16: The contours for Mica, Moraine, Ore, and Heron Courts show a jog at the front of the lots that creates a low spot and should be corrected. MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 82614 Grand Avenue, Glenwood springs, CO 81601 P: 970,945.5544 F: 970:945.5558 www, mountaineross-eng,com River Edge Page 4 of 4 17. The relocation=of the glenwood ditch is shown within a constant graded slope that will make access and maintenance difficult. The slope grading should be adjusted to provide a bench and/or access road along the top of the ditch. 18: The plans show that. the curb and gutter convey runoff water across the bridge. This is not typically done. The Applicant should verify this with the structural engineer. 19: Grading and .drainage from the Rio Grande Trail to the intersection with Highway 82 has not been designed. 20. An access easement is provided into the proposed Estate Lot but no design is provided to. verify that the access can be constructed within' the easement provided. The Applicant should verify the access grading, 21. The Applicant should perform an energy grade line analysis on Storm Manhole N=7 to . . verify that the water would not bubble up during high flows: 22. The 48" storm drain line is at a 0.3%o slope. ` This is, very difficult to construct and maintain: The Applicant should investigate alternatives. 23. There are multiple adjacent sewer lines that drain the same direction. The Applicant should Combine runs of sewer. line as practical and/or verify the layout with RFWSD. 24. Rookery Street force main discharges into:a manhole on Riverside Loop Drive: Discharges into these manholes are subject to corrosive gasesand odors. The Applicant should determine any special considerations that may be necessary for this manhole. 25 The multiple adjacent manholes in Heron Court should be verified with RFWSD and/or alternative arrangements investigated 26.. The plans andspecifications will need to be approved for construction by RFWSD if that option is. pursued, '27, Utility connection should be designed and stubbed out for the future connection of the Estate lotto irrigation, sewer, and water utilities: 28. The utilities are shown asbeing constructed beneath the'bridge abutments, This should be changed to either hang the main lines beneath the deck or cross cattle creek out to the side for ease of maintenance and eventual replacement.. 29:' The offsite water line connection is shown as being constructed m the existing box culvert. The Applicant should design this to mitigate freezing or determine' an alternative. 30. The sewer and water lines proposed within Ore Court are at nearly the sameelevation and will makeservice connectionsvery difficult. The Applicant should offset these elevations: Feel free to call if you have any questions or• cornincnts. Sincerely, Moon Cross Enginee Chris Hale, PE MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING. INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826'/ Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P; 970.9453544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com From: Chris Hale To: Kathy A. Eastlev: Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:44:46 AM Kathy: Good Questions! On the detention, I am not aware of any law that requires detention but I can do some research and see what I find. I did make a comment about the subdrains on item #5 on the first page, but l left out the part concerning the waiver. So based on comment #5, I would not support this waiver. Thanks. Let me know. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 From: Kathy A. Eastley[mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:03 PM To: Chris Hale Cc: Carey Gagnon Subject: River Edge Colorado Chris, I have somespecific questions for you on this project; 1. I thought that state statute required stormwater detention — that post- development peak flow could not exceed pre -development peak discharge. The project does not proposed to detain stormwater so how can they meet this statute? The BOCC cannot waive state law. 2. They are requesting waiver of the subdrains for all foundations required by 7-206 B.2. Your letter states that the geotechnical engineer recommends that these sub -drains be provided —would you support this waiver? If you could respond to these questions I would appreciate it! Kathy Eastley, AICP From: Andrew McGregor To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: River Edge PUD/Subdivision Date: Thursday, June 09, 2011 3:41:46 PM Attachments: MEMORANDU1.docx Kathy, Attached are comments on the application. Thanks for your patience. Andrew MEMORANDUM June 9, 2011 TO: Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Planning and Building FROM: Andrew McGregor, Community Development Department, City of GWS RE: Rivers Edge PUD At their meeting on June 2, 2011, the Glenwood Springs City Council heard a brief presentation on the River's Edge PUD from Sam Otero, PE representing the owner, described the project. At the conclusion of the presentation, the Council discussed the application. The following are comments from the City Council in regards to the application. • Consistent with our comments voiced during the County's Comprehensive Plan update process last year, the City is very concerned about the creation of an unincorporated community without commensurate public services and infrastructure. This magnitude of development in this location could be termed "sprawl". • While we recognize that this application contemplates a smaller number of dwelling units, it is also a smaller parcel. If and when adjacent parcels are proposed for development, with the County's current land use designation, the magnitude of the development could equal or exceed previous applications. • Based on the criteria for rezoning contained in the County's land use resolution, a rezoning does not appear justified. There is no requisite "change in circumstances". It could be argued that the only zoning warranted would be to a lesser intensity use. Likewise, there is no "demonstrated community need". There is already a vast inventory of vacant lots and homes available in the Roaring Fork Valley. The absorption rate in the fiscal impact analysis suggests an absorption rate of 58 units per year for the remainder of this decade. This rate seems unlikely considering market conditions. Adding additional platted properties to the valley's inventory will only dilute the values of those already in existence. And finally, the proposed PUD/subdivision will not promote rural character; rather it will be the final defining act of infill between Glenwood and Carbondale. • The proposed development will place an increased burden on sheriff's dept., fire district, CDOT and RE -1 personnel and facilities. As the fiscal impact report states, the project will have a "negative impact on county finances". • Concerns over the impact to the resident elk herd and their migratory patterns. • According to the traffic report, the project will generate approximately 3500 ADT onto Highway 82. The application alludes to a signalized intersection although it is somewhat unclear. The impact of a signal in this location will increase travel times along the Hwy. 82 corridor. And while delivering potential sales tax dollars, a portion of these vehicles will travel to and through Glenwood further exacerbating our congestion and travel times at peak hours. • It is unclear how the applicants will provide water and wastewater treatment. Two options for each utility are outlined in the application. • It is unclear from the application materials how the main roadway will connect from the west side of the RFTA ROW to the SH 82 ROW. What type of crossing is contemplated at this entrance location? This should be addressed in advance of any decision on the application. As a co-owner of RFTA, we are concerned about any adverse impacts to the corridor. • According to County Assessor's records the subject property consists of 283 +/- acres. However, the application consists of only 160+/- acres. Is it acceptable to rezone only a portion of a parcel? The City has concerns about the future rezoning of the 123 acres unaccounted for in this PUD application. In closing, the City would encourage the County to follow the direction outlined in its recently adopted Comp Plan update and develop a cooperative IGA for review of areas within the spheres of influence around all municipalities in the county. The existing IGA is inadequate for generating the much needed dialogue between jurisdictions for potentially significant land use changes. From: Ellen Mayo@fws.gov To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: River Edge Colorado Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:23:04 PM Kathy, We appreciate your request for comments on the River Edge Colorado project I want to direct your attention to the wildlife assessment in B2 Appendix K section 2.2 Riparian Habitats on page 9. The final paragraph describes the presence along the river's edge of the Ute ladies' -tresses orchid, a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. As it says in the report: "If water and wastewater services are provided RFWSD then County review of potential impacts to. orchids would occur as part of location and extent review (M. Sawyer 8140 Partners 12/6/2010). Further, a section 404 permit application (under the Clean Water Act) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will require section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I am available if you have questions. Ellen Mayo Botanist/Plant Ecologist USFWS Ecological Services 764 Horizon Dr., Bldg. B Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (970) 243-2778 ext. 14 There is far more to life than getting things done. Jon Kabat-Zinn From: Morse, W. Travis SPK To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: River Edge Colorado SPK -2010-01312 (UNCLASSIFIED) Date: Thursday, May 05, 2011 8:59:24 AM Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Dear Ms. Eastley: I am responding to your April 25, 2011 request for comments on the River Edge Colorado project, located west of Highway 82 along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study area is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work. On October 13, 2010, I performed a wetland boundary confirmation and jurisdictional determination to ascertain the extent of waters on the project site. I confirmed that the wetland .delineation prepared by PENDO solutions, Inc. on behalf of the applicant is accurate and that approximately 6.52 acres of jurisdictional waters occur within the property. It is not clear from the information provided in your request for comment if impacts to jurisdictional waters will be entirely avoided. The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation. Please refer to identification number SPK -2010-01312 in any correspondence concerning this project. Sincerely, Travis Morse, Biologist Regulatory Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colorado West Regulatory Branch 400 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 0: (970) 243-1199, ext. 17 C: (970) 216-1184 F: (970) 241-2358 w.travis.morse@usace.army.mil web: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/requlatory.html Let us know how we're doing. http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html Information on the Regulatory Program. http://www.spk. usace.army. mii/organizations/cespk-co/requlatory/index. html Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE From: To: cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Kathy A. Eastley Rockwood Shepard; Carey Gagnon; Fred Jarman; Division of Water Resources comments Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:03:00 AM Water Resources - river edge pdf Rocky — Attached are comments from the Division of Water Resources —the lack of approved court decrees results in a comment that "...the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate". The ULUR. Section 7-105, states that "An adequate water supply plan shall be required for any preliminary or final approval of an application for rezoning, planned unit development, limited impact or major impact review, development or site plan, or similar application for new construction. This section shall apply to all development permits which require a water demand in an amount of more than 8 (eight) single-family equivalents where 1 (one) single-family equivalent equals 350 gallons of water per day." Two issues arise as a result of this section: 1. The pending court decrees are not sufficient demonstration of adequate water to serve the proposed development; 2. The submittal documents are inconsistent with regard to gallon that comprise an EQR — the ULUR requires 350 gallons—the water supply plan submitted uses 350 gallons, other areas of the application utilize 300 gallons or 189 gallons. As you are aware this is an issue that must be resolved to the extent possible prior to Planning Commission and staff would recommend that the PC not move forward with a recommendation until sufficient water is demonstrated. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 kecistley@garfield-county.com SUCCESS IS NEVER FOUND. FAILURE IS NEVER FATAL. COURAGE IS THE ONLY THING. - WINSTON CHURCHILL Brownstein 1 Hyatt Farber 1 Schreck June 29, 2011 Wayne F. Forman Attorney at Law 303.223.1120 tel. 303223.0920 fax wformanabhfs.corn VIA EMAIL (KEASTLEY@GARFIELD-COUNTY.COM) Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan: Response to your June 23, 2011 email referencing June 22, 2011 Referral Letter from Megan Sullivan on behalf of the Division of Water Resources {the "DWR Letter") Dear Kathy: On behalf of Carbondale investments, LLC, I am writing to request that you reconsider your June 23, 2011 email to Rocky Shepard in which you take the position that the Planning Commission should withhold action on the River Edge Project, in fight of the DWR Letter finding that, due solely to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan, the proposed water supply for the River Edge Project is inadequate. Let me first address the DWR Letter and then your response. Contrary to the requirements of C.R.S. § 30-28-136(1 )(h)(1), the DWR Letter does not address the adequacy of the components of the water supply assembled by Carbondale for the River Edge Project, including whether there is a physical supply available for the Project and whether the water rights held by Carbondale to offset out -of -priority depletions associated with withdrawals of that physical supply are adequate to protect other water rights. For reasons that are not obvious, the DWR Letter completely overlooks these essential issues. In stark contrast, Michael Erion, P.E. of Resource Engineering, Inc., explains in the January 17, 2011 Water Supply Report that there is an adequate physical water supply from the sources identified by Carbondale to supply the Project; and Carbondale owns significant senior water rights in the Glenwood Ditch and Staton Ditch, together with a contract for 62.8 acre feet of augmentation water through the Basalt Water Conservancy District ("BWCD") Contract, that provide more than adequate augmentation rights to offset all out -of -priority depletions associated with providing a potable water supply to the River Edge Project. In fact, nothing in the DWR Letter addresses, criticizes or undermines Mr. Erion's conclusion that Carbondale presently holds adequate water rights and resources to supply the Project. It is clear from the DWR Letter that the sole basis for the negative finding regarding Carbondale's proposed water supply is that Carbondale does not yet have decrees in hand for its pending water court cases, Case Nos. 07CW164 and 08CW198. As such, the DWR review does not represent an assessment of the water supply plan but simply the status of the adjudication of the water rights. But there is nothing in the County's Land Use Code that requires an applicant to have all of its water court decrees in advance of Planning Commission action. Indeed, such a requirement would be illogical. It could require a landowner to expend tens of millions of dollars securing water rights and years in water court to fully adjudicate water rights, for a development that may not ever be approved. That 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 11aem424 CO 80202.4432 303.223.1100 !et Brownstein Hyatt Fauber Schreck. 111+1 hhis.com s 303.223.1111 fax Kathy Eastley, AICP June 29, 2011 Page 2 interpretation of the ULUR is unsupportable and, in fact, contradicts the plain language of the code. Because the DWR failed to assess the water supply plan and Instead focused solely on the fact that the adjudication is incomplete, its comments do nothing to inform` the County's review of the pending zoning andsubdivision applications. You quote ULUR § 7-105, which provides that an "adequate water supply fa shall be required before any preliminary or final approval of an application for rezoning, [PUD],... ? (emphasis added). Carbondale has submitted such a plan, in the form of Mr. Erion's letter, and therefore, Carbondale has met this requirement. Accordingly, there Is no basis to delay the Planning Commission's action on the Carbondale application based on the DWR Letter. Furthermore, ULUR § 7-105.A contradicts the need for Carbondale to have its decrees finalized as a condition of proceeding before the Planning Commission: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that the applicant own or have acquired the proposed water supply or constructed the related infrastructure at the time of the application (Resolution 2010-29)." We are fully aware that before approval of any final plats for the Project, Carbondale will have to have its water rights fully decreed. Bear in mind that Carbondale does hold a decreed water court. augmentation plan, Case No. 01CW187, for 849.55 EORs batted on a water supply of 300 gpdf ECIR. Pending is an application by Carbondale, Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District and BWCD for a minor amendment to that decree to increase the supply to 350 gpd/ECQR. We anticipate that we will have that case and its companion case pending in Case No. 07CW184 decreed within the next two to four weeks, •moottng•th€s issue entirely. But Carbondale strongly objects to your suggestion that the Planning Commission cannot take action on the River Edge Project without Carbondale having fully decreed water rights in hand. Thank you for considering this information and we took forward to discussing this with you further. Sin ayne . Forman C,Y/ WFF:jc co: Rockwood Shepard Mark Sawyer Sam Otero Lori Baker, Esq. Carey Gagnon, Esq. 137381211555924.2 From: Shannon L. Pe!land To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: River Edge Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011 1:00:20 PM Attachments: River Edge.pdf Hi Kathy - I have attached a letter regarding the River Edge development. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. It seems that the dedication of a school site would be problematic due to the uncertainty about whether access approvals for a public crossing could ever be obtained. That's unfortunate for the District and .the developer. Thanks for your patience. Shannon Roaring Fork Scool District 1405 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO.81601 Phone: 970.384.6000 Fax: 970.384.6005 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Ms Eastley: Judy Haptonstail, Superintendent Brad Ray - Asst. Superintendent of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Shannon Pelland - Asst Superintendent of Business Services - Thank you for the providing the School District the opportunity to comment on the River Edge Land Use Plan. Representatives of River Edge have been in contact with the District during their planning process. Under the District's land dedication formula, the calculation indicates that River Edge would be required to dedicate about 7.3 acres for a school site. This amount is not adequate to address the site requirements of an elementary school including building envelope, ball fields and parking, and would have required either an additional contribution of acreage by the developer, or the purchase of additional acreage by the District. The developer's initial intent was to provide all or part of a school site. That would have required the formation of a metro district since a private developer cannot apply for a public crossing of the RFTA right-of-way. Because River Edge was unable to obtain approval to form a metro district, they could not submit an application for a public crossing, nor could the School District since it is not the owner of the property. While it is possible that a site could be dedicated for a school, there are no guarantees that the District would be successful in gaining public access across the right -of way_ Therefore, we believe the District's only option at this point is to accept fees in -lieu -of land dedication to be calculated in accordance with the County Regulations. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Shannon Pelland Asst. Superintendent, Business Services From: Roussin, Daniel To: Kathy A. Eastley; cc: Babler, Alisa; Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 4:54:22 PM Kathy — Thank you for the opportunity to review River Edge Colorado development on SH 82 near Cattle Creek (CR113). This development will need an access permit.. At this time, CDOT hasn't done a complete reviewed the traffic study dated December 2010. The study indicates a signal in 2018 and conceptually, this would meet the Code if the access is a public road. CDOT recognizes the access to this development is closely related to the operation of the east side of CR 113. Both accesses will need to be coordinated to function as one intersection. Due to the close proximity of the frontage roads and county roads (113 &110), it will take some effort to re -align the intersections. Garfield County has made CR 113 the highest priority in the Garfield County Transportation Intersection Needs Assessment (TINA). These access issues need to be figured out prior to final development approval. If you have any questions, please let me know. thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Traffic From: Kathy A. Eastley (mallto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:45 AM To: Roussin, Daniel Subject: River Edge Colorado Dan, Attached are the comments received from SGM — they reviewed the proposal because of the potential impact to the intersection study which they had undertaken on behalf of the County. I'll look forward to getting comments from you next Tuesday! Thanks. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner FIRE • EMS • RESCUE August 4, 2011 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: River Edge Colorado — Emergency Vehicle Access Dear Kathy: I have reviewed the drawings for the two proposed emergency vehicle access (EVA) roads for the proposed River Edge Subdivision. The south EVA would connect at the intersection of Alpine Bluff Street and High Creek Road. The north EVA would connect between Lot 1 and Lot 9 on Trailside Drive. Both EVAs would connect the subdivision to Highway 82. Table 1: "Street Design Criteria" of the Project Engineering Design Report indicates that the EVAs would have a width of 20 feet. Both the proposed location and width are acceptable. Any gates installed to control access should be in accordance with Section D103.5 "Fire apparatus road access gates" of the International Fire Code, 2009 edition. Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance. Sincerely 13i11 Gavotte Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623.970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES July 1,2011 Kathy Eastly Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan Sections 7 & 12, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Ms. Eastly: John W. J-litkenkioper Governor Mike King Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. , Director/State Engineer We have reviewed additional information regarding the above referenced proposal to create a PUD on 160 acres for a residential development to include 366 residential units of various sizes and types and 9 non-residential units, all to be built on 346 lots, along with recreational open space and a neighborhood center. in addition, the applicant Is proposing to compete the subdivision process for the proposed PUD by subdividing the land into 346 lots. The applicant proposes to provide water to the PUD through the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (the District) pursuant to water rights and an augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 01CW187 and pending court cases 07CW164 and 08CW198. Potable water will be provided either through existing alluvial wells and/or surface water diversions operated by the District, or through a surface water intake located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the project site, to be operated by the River Edge Colorado Property Owners Association (POA). irrigation water will be provided by the POA through the Glenwood and Stator Ditches. Sewage disposal will be through a central system. A conditional letter of confirmation from the District was provided. The applicant anticipates a requirement of 375 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) of potable water for 366 residential units and 9 non-residential units. Per the Water Treatment and Distribution Design Report provided in the submitted materials, it appears this requirement is based on the assumption that each EQR is equivalent to.a household demand of 189 gallons per day (gpd) per single family unit. The augmentation pian decreed in the Division 5 Water Court, in case no. 01CW187, limits the ficial development to 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation using an assumption of 300 gpd per EQR. This decreed augmentation plan does not allow for the flexibility to assume a reduced household use water demand per single family unit in order to increase the number of EQRs. To date, no other decrees providing water to the development have been adjudicated and pursuant to the decree in case no. 01 CW187, the applicant is limited to less EQRs than is proposed under this application. The applicant indicated that an additional water supply will be available as soon as two pending water court cases are decreed in case nos. 07CW164 artd 08CW198. The applicant indicated that they expect decrees will be entered soon in these two cases; unfortunately, at this time, these pending water court cases do not serve as an adequate claim to a legal water supply. In addition, the proposed alternative physical supply for potable water diverted through a surface water intake along the Roaring Fork River and Operated by the POA has not yet been decreed, but is includedin the pending water court cases. Until these proposed alternate points of •diversion are decreed, the applicant is limited to diverting the water through infrastructure owned and operated by Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 •Phone: 383-866=3581 •.Fax: 3(i3-866.3589 http://ovator.stote.co.us Kathy Eastly July 1, 2011 River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan the RFWCD.as specified in case no, 01CW187. The applicant will not be able to utilize an alternate water infrastructure system until such a time as alternate points of diversion, which allow for the applicant to have direct control of said water, are decreed. The applicant anticipates a raw water demand for approximately 150 acres of irrigation at any one time. Diversions will be made from the Roaring Fork River at the Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle Creek at the Staton Ditch. According to the Water Supply Plan provided with the 'application, the applicant can divert approximately 1223 cfs from the Glenwood Ditch and 4.69 cfs from the Staton Ditch. The 12.23 cfs from the Glenviiood Ditch and the 4.69 cfs frorn the Staton Ditch are subject to the change of water right and plan for augmentation decrees entered in case nos. 91 CW188 and 01 CW 189, The use of these water rights at the proposedsubdivision must be operated in accordance with said decrees and cannot result in an expansion of use. Note that these two cases also provide for operation of the Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1-- 5. The operation of the lakes must also be in accordance with the terms of these decrees and Cannot result in an expansion of use of the Applicant's share of these ditches. in summary, there are several aspects of this water supply plan that are not yet in place. First, the source of the physical supply has yet to be confirmed, The applicant indicated that domestic water requirements for the project will either be supplied by the District or through infrastructure operated by the POA. As of the date of this letter, the applicants have neither obtained a final contract with the District acknowledging the District as the confirmed water supply source, nor have in place a water supply infrastructure plan that meets all county water use design requirements and can be supplied through a decreed alternate point of diversion. Second, while the water supply plan currently proposed in the draft decrees submitted to the water court to date indicates that there is the potential for a sufficient water supply for the subdivision asproposed in this referral, this water supply is the subject of pending decrees. The applicant indicated that they are actively pursuing resolution in the cases, however, as of the date cif this letter, a final decree has not been entered for either case no. 07CW164 or 08CW198. Without a final decree for cases no. 07CW164 or 08CW198, the proposed water supply plan for the number of EQRs in this project cannot be provided under a water court approved augmentation. plan. Therefore, the State Engineer cannot find, pursuant to CRS 36-28-136(1)(h)(1), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights and is adequate. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter. please contact Karlyn Adams in this office_ Sincerely, Megan Sullivan, P.E. Water Resource Engineer MSlkaa/River Edge PUD and Subdiv ii.docx cc: Alan Marteliaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 June 30, 2011 TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: River Edge Dear Commissioners: JUL 0.5 2011 GARF LI COUNTY iUlL..D G & PLANNING Thank you for referring the River Edge project to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review and comments. The Planning Commission discussed the application at its June 16, 2011 meeting. First, the Planning Commission discussed the fact that the Commission had submitted a letter to the County during the County Comprehensive Plan review expressing concern about the future development of the Cattle Creek area. The Planning Commission had pointed out that there is a gap between the Three Mile Areas of Influence between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, and that future development m this area would likely affect both communities. The Carbondale Planning Commission suggested some type of mechanism, perhaps an Intergovernmental Agreement between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County, in order to jointly plan for this area of the Roaring Fork Valley. Unfortunately, the County did not adopt this suggestion. - In the letter, the Planning Commission had also noted that the definition of an "Unincorporated Community" was an existing, large, self-contained subdivision. The Land Use Map showed the "Unincorporated Communities" boundary as an area larger than the existing developed area and it encompassed the Cattle Creek property. The Planning Commission suggested that the boundary of the "Unincorporated Community" be revised to reflect the definition as the existing developed area and that the vacant area in Cattle Creek not be included within the boundary. This recommendation was' developed from concerns that the designation would result in a new town in unincorporated Garfield County. Again, this suggestion was not adopted. If fact, the River Edge application justifies the rezoning based on the fact that the property falls within an "Unincorporated Community" on the County's land use map. At its June 16, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission questioned the community need for the development and noted that the proposed price point of the development is consistent with Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 9634140 several existing nearby developments such as Midland Point and Ironbridge. This is in addition to developments already approved within the area municipalities. The Planning Commission noted that the absorption rate of homes sold between Aspen and Parachute is currently about 50 units per month. If this development is approved and based on the developers expectation to build and sell 50 units per year, this single development would account for 8% of the demand for housing between Aspen and Parachute. The Planning Commission questioned if this figure was reasonable and noted that any lot sales in the proposed development would likely come at the expense of lot sales in existing subdivisions. In fact, there is concern that it would negatively affect existing jobs generated by existing developments. The Planning Commission is emphatic in its belief that an approval of the proposed development would not equate to economic development as it does not guarantee new homes starts and only represents unnecessary suburban sprawl. The Planning Commission questioned the justification in the application that the development would have beneficial effects on traffic on Highway 82. Again, there is still plenty of inventory of approved residential developments which could be built within the municipalities which would, in reality, reduce traffic on Highway 82 due to the available services within the municipalities. We understand the original Cattle Creek property has been subdivided into 3 parcels. If the other lots were developed, it could result in approximately 500 to 600 units. The impact of the potential development needs to be considered in a cumulative manner rather than taking a piecemeal approach. It would be difficult to endorse anything for this parcel unless there is a master plan for this area. As far as specifics of the development, the Planning Commission would like to offer the following comments: 1. The houses have been pushed as close to the boundary along the river as possible. Some additional buffering should be considered. 2. The application represents that there is clustering of residential units; however, the site plan does not reflect clustering. 3. The provision of community gardens does not meet the intent of retaining our agricultural heritage 4. The request for the waiver of the provision of public open space should be discouraged. It should also be noted there is no public access to any planned open space areas along the Roaring Fork River. 5. The application does not indicate how the connection to a water/wastewater facility would be accomplished. This should be clear prior to review of the application. Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 6. The application references a signalized intersection along Highway 82 but details on that intersection are unclear. This should be determined prior to review of the application. 7. The request to defer the provision of affordable housing units should be discouraged. 8. It appears there needs to be some higher level of coordination with RFTA. 9. There is concern about the impacts on the wildlife, especially the resident elk herd. The lack of clustering exacerbates that concern. We encourage you to implement the suggestions outlined in the letters from the Division of Wildlife dated February 19, 2009 and April 15, 2008. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeff )ic- ;son Co -Chair Planning an Zoning Commission Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 July 5, 2011 TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8t' Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: River Edge Dear Commissioners: Thank you for referring the River Edge project to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review and comments. The Board of Trustee's discussed the application at its June 21, 2011 meeting. The Planning Commission discussed the application and has submitted a letter for your consideration. The Board of Trustee's would like to comment on the application and reinforce some of the points the Planning Commission submitted in its comments. As there is a gap between the Three Mile Areas of Influence between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, and development in this area would likely affect both communities, the Carbondale Planning Commission suggested an Intergovernmental Agreement between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County, in order to jointly plan for this area of the Roaring Fork Valley. An IGA can be a very useful tool to provide a level of cooperation and understanding in applications that will affect Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County. Unfortunately this has not taken place. The Board strongly encourages and recommends that an IGA be developed to allow for more collaboration among and between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Garfield County as to how the Cattle Creek area may be developed in the future. Since it is unlikely that the IGA can be agreed upon quickly, the Board asks that the County make time during the River Edge land use process to allow an opportunity for cooperation between Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and the County. The Board and Commission question the community need for the development. The proposed price point of the development is consistent with several existing nearby county developments such as Midland Point and Ironbridge. This is in addition to developments already approved within the area municipalities. With the absorption rate at 50 units per month valley -wide, and the proposed development to take up 8% of the demand, the loss of sales in existing Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 developments should be considered. Construction of more homes may provide for an influx of jobs for a very limited amount of time. Once the homes are built, there is no guarantee that they will be sold in a timeframe that is beneficial, thereby negating the benefit of the temporary jobs created during construction. The Board and Commission also question the justification in the application that the development would have beneficial effects on traffic on Highway 82. Again, there is adequate inventory of approved residential developments which could be built within the municipalities which would, in reality, reduce traffic on Highway 82 due to the available services within the municipalities. A development plan for the entire site will need to be reviewed, not just this one parcel as each of the three parcels will affect the surrounding areas. There is also concern about the impacts on the wildlife, especially the resident elk herd. The lack of clustering exacerbates that concern. We encourage you to implement the suggestions outlined in the letters from the Division of Wildlife dated February 19, 2009 and April 15, 2008. This would include a winter closure of proposed trails and prohibiting the use of easements and buffers in the community for recreation and trails. In the not too distant past, this area was identified as "one of the most environmentally sensitive pieces of property in Garfield County." This points out the compelling need we have for an open space fund in Garfield County. Preservation through either open space dedication and/or acquisition would greatly enhance the preservation of wildlife habitat and maintain the rural and uniquely scenic character of this property, preserving it in perpetuity for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Sincerely, TOWN OF CARBONDALE Stacey Patch Bernot Mayor Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 July 7, 2011 To: Kathy Easterly, Garfield County Planner From: Ron Biggers Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department Re: Comments on River Edge Colorado, applicant Carbondale Investment LLC, location 113 CR, Cattle Creek and Colorado State Highway 82 The applicants did discuss this planned unit development with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District staff (CRFPD). It appears their comments address the main emergency responds needs required for this review. In reviewing the information given to me by the applicant I have a few additional comments to add to those made to the applicant by the CRFPD staff. They are the following: • I believe the codes referenced for the proposed buildings on this site will be the 2009 International Codes and amendments to them. Garfield County adopted the 2009 Building codes in 2010. and International Fire Code in the spring of 2011. The application mentions the 2003 International Fire Code as a reference. • Garfield County in 2010 adopted the 2009 International Residential Code. The adoption included section P2409 Dwelling Units Fire Sprinkler systems. This requirement is currently scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2013. This section requires all one and two family homes to have fire sprinkler systems installed in them after January 1, 2013. This will require the water services to each unit to be sized properly to meet the water flow requirements for the fire sprinkler systems. • The road sizes vary and some will need to be posted with no parking signage so emergency vehicles access is not hindered by parked vehicles on them. Who will enforce the no -parking regulations, private security or the Garfield County Sherriff? • Other: What type or types of development may -be considered for the remainder of the property? Are fire flow water demands for future development being considered in the water demands for this PUD? Is emergency access to future development sites on the property being included in the plans for this PUD? If this PUD gets approval to move forward more comments will be forth coming as it goes through future planning and construction reviews. 0. UPLulws COLORADO RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS RIVER EDGE COLORADO, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO OWNER/APPLICANT: CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC 7999 HWY 82 CARBONDALE CO 8 1 6 2 3 970-456-5325 CONSULTANT: 8140 PARTNERS, LLC PO BOX 0426 EAGLE, CO 81631 AUGUST 29, 2011 RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS RIVER EDGE COLORADO, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 2 II. RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS 2 1. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF POTABLE WATER 2 2. ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY PLAN 3 3. WAIVERS 4 4. WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT 8 5. RECREATION AMENITIES 8 6. PUD GUIDE 9 7. PHASING AND VESTING PERIOD 9 8. POA DUES 10 9. ACCESS 10 10. RFTA CROSSING 11 11. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 11 12. AFFORDABLE HOUSING 12 13. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 12 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A: LETTER FROM WAYNE FORMAN ATTACHMENT B: REVISED PUD GUIDE AND PLAN ATTACHMENT C: PROJECTED POA BUDGET AND DUES ATTACHMENT D: SUPPLEMENT TO JUSTIFICATION REPORT ATTACHMENT E: MEMORANDUM FROM ANDY KNUDTSEN Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado I. INTRODUCTION This constitutes the official Carbondale Investments, LLC ("CI") response to staff comments ("Response") outlined in a Letter to Rockwood Shepard dated July 5, 2011 and has been prepared in support of an application for PUD Plan Review ("Rezoning") and Subdivision Review ("Preliminary Plan") for the proposed River Edge Colorado ("Project", "REC", or "REC PUD") in accordance with the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 ("ULUR"), as amended. This Response provides support to the documents submitted as part of the REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications. This Response documents the discussions completed with staff during the months of July and August regarding said comments. II. RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS 1. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF POTABLE WATER Comment 1: Section 7-105 specifically states that an EQR is 350 gallons per day. REC proposes a legal supply that will comply with the 350 gallon as an EQR, however the physical treatment and distribution of water will 'define' EQR as 189 gallons. This issue needs to be further discussed/explained and justified as this reduction does not meet the Code requirement. You'll need to add this one to the list of waiver requests. Response: CI believes that staff's interpretation of this section of the ULUR is incorrect. CI does not believe that the planning standards for ensuring adequate water are or were intend to supersede sound engineering design principles for water treatment and delivery systems. It is important to note that even the standards and guidelines adopted by the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment ("CDPHE") place the discretion for the design flows associated with water treatment and delivery systems on the design engineer. The design of a water delivery system is different from a determination of "adequate water." CI agrees that the project must have 350 gallons of water in the form of water rights and source of supply per EQR and has provided evidence of a plan to obtain said legal water supply and a source with adequate water to provide said supply as detailed in the Water Supply Plan. The current status of the water rights is detailed in the Letter to Kathy Eastley from Wayne Forman dated August 30, 2011 (Attachment A). None of the documentation presented by CI to date states that CI is requesting a waiver from the requirement to provide legal water and a source of water adequate to meet the requirements of Section 7-105 of the ULUR. With respect to CI's design analysis of the independent water delivery system, CI's engineers have used 189 gallons per day to design the major components of the delivery system. This is consistent with accepted engineering practices and 2 Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado standards as documented in CI's design reports and would result in a more efficient and functional system than one designed based on staff's interpretation of the ULUR. Please see Section 2.A.2 of CI's Response to Review Agency Comments dated June 30, 2011 for further details concerning this issue. However, relative to the Project's current status the interpretation of this Section of the ULUR is irrelevant. CI anticipates executing a Pre -Inclusion Agreement with the RFWSD on September 13, 2011 as discussed in the Letter to Kathy Eastley from Wayne Forman dated August 30, 2011 (Attachment A). As such, the system will be designed in accordance with RFWSD standards. 2. ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY PLAN Comment 2: Section 7-105 states that 'an adequate water supply plan shall be required for any preliminary or final approval of a application or rezoning, PUD, limited or major impact review, development or site plan, or similar application for new construction'. The submitted water supply plan lists two court decrees as pending, therefore a response of "material injury" has been received from the Division of Water Resources. Response: CI disagrees with the interpretation by staff and the Division of Water Resources ("Division") that a water rights decree is required to support a subdivision application. The submitted Water Supply Plan, as required by and detailed in State Statute, would result in no material injury if implemented. CI's water engineers and attorneys can find no reason or justification for the finding of material injury. However, in an effort to remove this apparent obstacle CI delayed the hearing date in order to move forward with both the RFWSD in obtaining the desired water and sewer service agreements (See Response to Comment 1 above) and the water court in entering decrees for the water rights. The Letter to Kathy Eastley from Wayne Forman dated August 30, 2011 (Attachment A) details the status of the water rights decrees. It is anticipated that the final decrees will be entered within 20 days of the August 20 and 21 rulings. Unfortunately due to timing, it is unlikely the Division of Water Resources will have time to update their letter claiming material injury although final decrees may be available for the Planning Commission hearing. The letter from the Division solely bases the finding of material injury on the fact that decrees have not been entered as final decrees which by the action on August 20 and 21 effectively resolves this issue. 3 Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 3. WAIVERS a) Sub -drains Comment 3a: Waiver of sub -drains for all foundations is not acceptable to staff, the reviewing engineer, the applicant's geotechnical analysis and the Colorado Geologic Survey. Response (See also response to CGS Comments): Basements are generally not proposed within the REC PUD except walk out basements along the western edge of the site due the nature of the soils and costs of construction. Based on the site conditions and depth to ground water after site grading and proposed development locations, CI engineers do not believe that sub -drains drains generally provide no advantage. However, CI will agree to provide sub -drains where basements are installed but continues to request a waiver from the blanket requirement which also currently results in requiring a sub -drain for slab -on -grade construction. CI further believes that the determination of whether a sub -drain is necessary should be determined by the foundation engineer. CI will supplement the requested waiver with more detailed information at time of final plat when final grading is prepared and a full understanding of residential unit types and foundations is developed. Additional documentation concerning this request can be found in CI's Response to Agency Comments, dated June 30, 2011 under Section II.A.5. b) Private Roads Comment 3b: Private Roads are proposed within the development. The private road issue may take several forms so please provide clarification regarding the restrictions you are proposing - other than varying from the County road standard. By way of explanation, some County subdivision roads are considered 'public' as they may be used by the public, however ownership and maintenance resides with an owners association. Your request for "private" roads may differ in that they are more restrictive - meaning that public access is not permitted. If the latter is true it raises questions such as will the road/entry be gated? Will 24-hour security be present? Who will be able to use the roads - residents and guests, utility providers, etc.? How will you assure that the general public will not utilize the roads and how will you prevent their use? Emergency providers and any easement holders must be able to access the site, how will you provide for this? 4 Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Response: At this point and as a result of the most recent response from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to the County, CI cannot be sure what form the private roads will take in the development. The PUC's position has varied on this Project. It was based on the PUC's original position that CI delayed their application and sought the formation of a metropolitan district in 2010. Roads will only be gated if required by the PUC as a result of the design review process that will be undertaken upon approval of the PUD to gain access permits to the site. It should be noted that CI maintains that the access road to and from the Project is not a public highway and, therefore, not subject to PUC approval; however, if it is determined that the access road is a public highway, then CI will obtain PUC approval if required by Colorado law. The access permit is complex and will involve coordination between CDOT, PUC, RFTA, and the County. The exact result of that process cannot be fully determined at this point and is expected to take 2-3 years. Suffice it to say that CI is prepared to participate in this coordinated effort between all parties to assess and determine what intersection improvements ultimately need to be done within the framework of the entire CR 113 intersection and REC access. The process must be completed and access permit obtained prior to any final plat such that the specifics regarding the questions raised by staff will be resolved prior to plating. Clearly, even if the community must be gated, there are several mechanisms that can be used to provide access to utility and emergency service providers. It is not CI's desire to gate the community, but CI must comply with the access requirements that the PUC imposes, if any. If no, access restrictions are imposed CI would consider dedicating the Right -of -Way Tracts to the public at time of final plat provide right-of-way uses and landscaping by the POA would not be constrained by such action. c) Road Standards Comment 3c: Modifications to road standards contained in 7-307 - please provide specificity regarding which standards are requested to be modified and justification for each modification. Response: Section 2a in Attachment B to the PUD Application submitted as part of the PUD Application documents the general justification for the modifications in road design standards needed to achieve the desired suburban form and clustered development pattern. The PUD application identifies five road way types for which modifications are sought. 5 Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Three of the roadway types are not addressed by the ULUR. These include alleys, garden home access (a special form of alley), and emergency vehicle access. The standards for these road forms were developed based on CI's engineer's and planner's experience in developing road standards for communities such as Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, Adams County and others. They are consistent with AASHTO's guidelines for low- volume roads and alley standards and nationally accepted standards of practice. The emergency vehicle access standards were further based on information obtained from the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District ("CRFPD"). These roadway types provide safe and efficient access to the facilities and homes they serve and are considered appropriate by the CRFPD. A design vehicle was added to the alley and emergency access road consistent with the CRFPD vehicle template at the request of the County's review engineer as documented in the Response to Review Agency Comments dated June 30, 2011. All alleys and emergency access roads were previously designed to this template. The two major roadway types utilized in the Project specifically relate to the Major and Minor Collector (and Secondary Access) standards in the ULUR. With respect to the Entry Road, CI has proposed a divided roadway with lower design speeds than the County's Major Collector. This road is in a residential setting and is a short segment of road between Highway 82 and the first intersection in the development. Based on the distance involved, setting, and purpose of the road, a higher design speed is unnecessary. The shoulders are set at 0-4 feet and vertical curbs are incorporated to control water and access. The County requires 6 foot minimum shoulders where there is no curb in the cross-section and a ditch adjacent to the roadway. With a curb, the shoulder width can be reduced. Curbs are not included in the County Major Collector road section. This section promotes slower residential speeds while providing for safe access. Finally, right of way width is set based on necessary facilities and utilities and not driven by surface drainage features as in the County section (i.e., the ditch is removed in favor of storm sewer and other drainage facilities). The right-of-way width varies depending upon needs within the section and is widened where turn lanes are necessary. In all other respects the Entry Road standards proposed meet or exceed the Major Collector standards in the ULUR. It also should be noted that detached and some attached sidewalks are used in the overall section which is not addressed by the County's standards to facilitate walking. The Local Road defined by the REC PUD is designed based on the County's Minor Collector (consideration of the Secondary Access) roadway standards and conforms to AASHTO's guidelines and national practices for suburban road sections in neo -traditional neighborhoods for roads providing direct access to homes. The proposed section is 36 feet in width including two 10 foot lanes and two 8 foot parking lanes/shoulders as opposed to the 32 foot and 30 foot standards in the ULUR. The design speed is lower than the County's standards since the road is used in a tight suburban community 6 Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado with on -street parking and pedestrian facilities. The lane width has been minimized to create a sense of community and more intimate residential streets and reduce speeds while providing for on -street parking. Due to the more restricted design speed, the minimum radius is set to 80 feet consistent with the County's Secondary Access Road and AASHTO. Again, no ditch is included in the section so right -of way widths have been reduced to 56 feet from the required 60 feet. However, additional utility and drainage easements are provided outside and adjacent to the right-of-way and bring the total available width to 66 feet. In all other respects the Local Road standards proposed meet or exceed the Minor Collector standards in the ULUR and provide for safe ingress and egress within a suburban development of this density consistent with standards from Front Range communities. It also should be noted that detached and some attached sidewalks are used in the overall section which is not addressed by the County's standards to facilitate walking. d) Detention Comment 3d: 7-207 C.I. - detention facilities - it is staff's understanding that this code section is directly related to state requirements that post -development run- off cannot exceed pre -development levels. Please provide additional clarification/explanation on this issue. Response: CI understands and supports staff's concern. CI and its engineers are unaware of any requirements at the State level that post -development runoff must be detained and released at pre -development rates. CI's engineers have done a comprehensive search and contacted Urban Drainage District to verify the County's concern and can find no such requirement, and have never run into such an absolute requirement in all their previous work or in drafting the Drainage Criteria Manual for EI Paso County and developing drainage standards for several communities in Colorado. However, it is important to note that State law does address the issue. C.R.S. 30-28-133 (3)(c)(VIII) states in pertinent part that storm waters in excess of historic runoff, caused by a proposed subdivision, must be prevented from entering, damaging, or being carried by conduits, water supply ditches and appurtenant structures, and other storm drainage facilities. The intent of the law is clearly to eliminate any potential damage to existing facilities and adjacent properties. As described in the justification submitted with the PUD Application and supported by the County's Review Engineer, the development is low in the basin and there are no drainage facilities through other properties that must be utilized to carry the flow to the Roaring Fork River. Further, downstream structures along the Roaring Fork River are actually benefited 7 Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado by the early release of flows before upstream volumes impact the Roaring Fork River. CI is prepared to capture any volume but utilizing the Urban Drainage Storm Drainage Criteria Manual has determined that the best alternative is to capture the Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for purposes of ensuring water quality and releasing excess storm flow to the Roaring Fork River prior to flood volumes reaching the site from upstream, thereby minimizing the potential impacts to downstream facilities and structures as described in Cl's justification and design reports. 4. WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT Comment 4: Water and wastewater service and treatment - this is a critical issue for the development and therefore some decision regarding private versus district should occur. If this is not possible then additional engineering information is going to be necessary to determine if the private system(s) meet preliminary plan requirements (we know that the private system is not supported by the Comp Plan). Response: CI anticipates executing a Pre -Inclusion Agreement with the RFWSD on September 13, 2011 as discussed in the Letter to Kathy Eastley from Wayne Forman dated August 30, 2011 (Attachment A). The system will be designed in accordance with RFWSD standards as documented in the design reports. 5. RECREATION AMENITIES Comment 5: Section 6-202 J. Recreation Amenities, states that "The PUD shall provide ... " The application discuses the provision of land for possible future amenities but will not construct facilities other than trails. Is this correct and, if so, how does your proposal comply with this requirement? Response: Recreational amenities are important to CI and critical to the development's success. CI has planned a program of recreational amenities including ballfields, tot lots, picnic areas, trails, etc. The number and nature of the facilities is consistent with Section 6-202 J of the ULUR and achieves the general recreational guidelines published by the Department of Local Affairs. At the time of each final plat, CI will (1) secure with cash escrow to the POA based on the engineer's estimate money adequate to allow the POA to construct the recreational facilities identified or others desired by the then homeowners; (2) construct certain recreational facilities as part of the subdivision improvements; 8 Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado or (3) a combination of both (1) and (2). CI seeks the option of undertaking the effort in either or both ways to allow early construction of some facilities and to provide the homeowners latitude in making the community their own through investing developer supplied dollars. The exact nature of the program will be detailed at final plat in the related development documents. 6. PUD GUIDE Comment 6: PUD and zoning administration issues - Though the zoning of the site is requested to be Planned Unit Development the PUD Guide is required to itemize, describe and delineate the use and dimensional standards within the development. As submitted the Guide is cumbersome, difficult and somewhat unclear and ambiguous - all of which will lead to difficulties in County administration of land use in the project. Clarity and simplicity are necessary for administration - the preferred document format consists of the following (not necessarily in this order): a. Definitions (all in one place); b. Sub -zone descriptions / uses / dimensional restrictions; c. Standards; d. Use table; e. Administration - this would be processes to amend, etc. Additional information/discussion is necessary regarding the "temporary uses", uses on unplatted portions of project, administration of the 'protection zones', uses in the land use table that don't occur anywhere in the project, uses that will result in traffic not identified in the traffic study, etc. The gravel processing also needs further definition and restriction. Of course the map delineating subzones within the project is critical as well. Response: Response: A revised PUD Guide (and PUD Plan) addressing these issues and the issues identified in discussions with staff was submitted for staff consideration on August 5, 2011. As of the date of this Response no additional comments have been received. The revised PUD Guide and Plan are included as Attachment B. 7. PHASING AND VESTING PERIOD Comment 7: The submittal documentation contains information that discusses completion of the project in 2019 and the phasing plan appears to be consistent with that timeframe — yet the development agreement requests a 20 -year vesting period. This causes some confusion and should be further clarified/explained. Response: The phasing program on the PUD Plan Map has been updated to match the requested vesting period as requested by staff (Attachment B). 9 Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 8. POA DUES Comment 8: How will the POA dues affect the property owners? Any estimate on what those dues would be - quarterly or annually?. Response: The dues or costs are consistent with the services offered by the POA. The POA has limited sources of revenue with dues making up the largest share of revenues. Attachment C provides a preliminary budget estimate/projection at buildout for the POA. Average monthly dues are about $130. It is anticipated that the Neighborhood Center and Raw Water System will be operated as separate enterprises under the POA and funded with various user fees, rents and other revenues. 9. ACCESS Comment: Access - queuing at a single entry/exit will be difficult, both within the project as well as impact to SH82. The single point of access (other than EVA) is a concern to staff perhaps some discussion of future access that may occur would mitigate some concern. Response: Based on the State Highway Access Code only a single access would be permissible based on the proposed traffic volumes generated by Cl. As noted in the Traffic Assessment (Appendix M of the Impact Report), the intersection operates at Level of Service A, B , and C upon signalization and queue lengths are inconsequential at buildout. Based on projections, queue lengths can be accommodated in the left turn and right turn lane on Highway 82 that would be required on Highway 82 as part of CI's access permit and adequate storage is available onsite along the entry road for peak periods. Full design analysis will be completed as part of the proposed intersection design and permitting process. None of the preliminary analysis seems to support the concerns identified by staff at the present time and, in fact, the State Highway Access Code seems to contradict the staff's contention regarding access and performance. REC PUD provides for future connections to the north and an additional potential connection to Highway 82 if and when the Garfield County Commercial investments (GCCI) property develops. Without knowing the nature or extent of GCCI's development, CI cannot assume that another highway access will be approved at that time pursuant to the State Highway Access Code, but based on the projected performance of Mirand Road, there would appear to be potential benefits from an enhanced intersection at this location in 2030. CI has 10 Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado not precluded and, in fact, provided for these connections in its plans. Access by GCCI to the CR113 intersection would require further analysis and potential upgrades to the intersection depending upon the nature of the initial design permitted by CDOT. This connection should be considered and analyzed as part of the intersection design process offered by Cl. 10. RFTA CROSSING Comment: RFTA - clearly comments state that current crossings are at -grade: "Although the at -grade crossing is covered by an easement, it poses a number of issues. First, according to the traffic study, trip generation from the residential, commercial and other uses is estimated at 276 a.m. peak hour, 347 p.m. peak hour, and 3,567 daily vehicle trips. This may pose safety conflicts between vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians at the crossing. In addition, the principal intention for purchasing the ROW and rail banking was to preserve it for future passenger rail. Should a rail system be established, the at -grade crossing would need to be improved, possibly to a grade separated crossing, to address operational and safety issues. RFTA does not wish to bear these costs and wishes to seek an agreement from the applicant that the crossing be upgraded per PUC guidelines Part 723-7 (Rules Regulating Railroad, Rail Fixed Guideways, Transportation by Rail, and rail Crossings) should rail service be established." Response: See Response to RFTA Comment on Page 34-35, Section 1.2 of the Response to review Agency Comments dated June 30, 2011. 11. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Comment: Comprehensive Plan - State statute requires that PUD's be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, therefore analysis should include the Comp Plan as a whole —the application includes analysis of the FLUM but does not include the remainder of Chapter 2, nor is there project analysis based upon Chapter 3, Plan Elements. Response: See Attachment D for a supplement to the Justification Report. 11 Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 12. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Comment: Affordable Housing - the proposal deviates to some degree with the ULUR requirements - particularly the pre -sale of the unit prior to construction, construction of units prior to platting of new phases, rental issues, higher % of AMI, etc.. Response: CI is prepared to provide affordable housing in accordance with adopted County requirements. However, CI would like to continue to pursue enhancements to the program as provided for in our application and gain direction from the BoCC on whether CI should pursue an amendment to the ULUR to allow for such a program in association with this development. 13. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Comment: The Fiscal Impact Analysis anticipates an absorption rate of approximately 58 units per year, how will this be affected by the highest foreclosure rate in the history of Garfield County with an anticipated 700 units in 2011? Also, the Analysis discusses one-time revenue of $1.2 million related to building permits for the project but the analysis doesn't discuss or analyze the expenditures that will result such as additional employees, overtime, vehicle cost, or administration that will be experienced by the Building and Planning Department. Direct impact to other County departments (other than Sheriff), particularly Clerk & Recorder and Health and Human Services, was not fully analyzed. Response: See Attachment E prepared by Andrew Knudtsen, Economic & Planning Systems which responds to the various aspects of this comment. 12 ATTACHMENT A: LETTER FROM WAYNE FORMAN Brownstein 1 Hyatt Farber 1 Schreck August 30, 2011 VIA EMAIL (KEASTLEY@GARFIELD-COUNTY.COM) Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Wayne F. Forman Attorney at Law 303.223.1120 tel 303.223.0920 fax wforman@bhfs.com RE: River Edge PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan: Response to your July 5, 2011 letter regarding Items 2 and 4. Dear Kathy: On behalf of Carbondale Investments, LLC, I am writing to address Items 2 and 4 in your July 5, 2011 letter to Rocky Shepard. In Item 2, you reference ULUR Section 7-105 which requires an adequate water supply plan, and acknowledge that the Division of Water Resources has provided a "material injury" finding based on the fact that the two water court decrees on which Carbondale intends to rely to supply water to the River Edge PUD had not been yet approved by the water court. Since that time, on August 20, 2011 and August 21, 2011, the water court has entered rulings in Case Nos. 07CW164 and 08CW198, respectively. Therefore, the basis for the Division of Water Resources' material injury finding has been resolved. Within twenty days of these rulings, the water court will enter them as final decrees, unless a protest is filed. As the 07CW164 case was fully stipulated and the 08CW198 was unopposed, it is extremely unlikely that a protest to these rulings will be filed. Under any plausible construction of ULUR Section 7-105, therefore, Carbondale has submitted an adequate water supply plan for its proposed development. With regard to Item 4, Carbondale intends to obtain water and wastewater service from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Carbondale and the District are in the final stages of drafting a Pre - Inclusion Agreement that would provide the terms under which the River Edge Project would be included into the District and receive water and wastewater service. The parties have agreed to all of the material terms of the agreement and we are now engaged in the final drafting of the agreement to ensure that the parties have properly memorialized their rights and obligations under the agreement. Carbondale anticipates that it will have a fully -executed and approved agreement at the time of the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for September 14, 2011. If the parties are unable to finalize the draft agreement by that date, Carbondale is certain that a final agreement will be submitted in advance of the Board of County Commissioners hearings. Attachment A 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 1 Denver, CO 80202-4432 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 1 bhfs.com 303.223.1100 tel 303.223.1111 fax Kathy Eastley, AICP August 30, 2011 Page 2 I am available if you have any questions or concerns regarding these issues. WFF:jc cc: Rockwood Shepard Mark Sawyer Sam Otero Lori Baker, Esq. Carey Gagnon, Esq. Scott Grosscup, Esq. 13738\2\1579906.1 Attachment A EFILED Document CO Garfield County District Court 9th JD DT DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION 5, COLORADO Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street, Suite 104 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: (970) 945-5075 CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC AND THE ROARING FORK WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT IN GARFIELD, PITKIN, SUMMIT AND EAGLE COUNTIES Filing Date: Aug 22 2011 10.33AM Filing ID: 39402602 Review Clerk: Kathy Hall A COURT USE ONLY A Case No.: 07C W 164 FINDINGS AND RULING OF THE REFEREE AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE WATER COURT THIS MATTER has come before the Water Referee on an Application for Water Rights, Approval of Plan for Augmentation and for Appropriative Right of Exchange (the "Application"), originally filed by River Bend Colorado, LLC ("River Bend"), for whom Carbondale Investments, LLC ("Carbondale") has been substituted as Applicant. On November 20, 2008, the Court entered an order adding The Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District ("District") as an Applicant in this case. Upon inclusion of subject property into the District, the District would provide water and wastewater services to the Development. The Referee, having reviewed the Application and the other pleadings in this case, and having made such investigations as are necessary to determine whether or not the statements in the Application are true, having consulted with the Division Engineer, and having become fully advised with respect to the subject matter of the Application in accordance with C.R.S. § 37-92- 302(4), C.R.S., does hereby make the following Findings and Ruling of the Referee in this matter. I. INTRODUCTION The water rights that are the subject of the Application are intended to serve the development of 280 acres of land located in Garfield County. Colorado (the "Development"). A map and legal description of such property is attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively. Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W164 Page 2 The Court entered a decree in Case No. 01 CW 187, Water Division No. 5, for a Change of Water Right and for Approval of Plan for Augmentation for water service through the District water system to the Development, for up to 349.55 EQRs as defined by the policies of the District. The decree in Case No. 0I CW 187 contemplates that the final Development may include a variety of configurations of residential and commercial EQRs, but subject to the overall limitation of 349.55 EQRs as defined by the policies of the District. The decree in Case No. 0 I C W 187 has been amended by the decree in 08C W 198 so as to be consistent with the decree in this case. The purpose of this decree is to supplement the decree in Case No. 01 CW 187 to provide potable water service for an additional 850.45 EQRs, for a cumulative total under this decree and the decree in Case No. 0 I CW 187 not to exceed 1200.00 EQRs as defined in the policies of the District and Carbondale. The District and Carbondale are currently negotiating a pre -inclusion agreement under which the District would provide potable water for the Development, or a portion thereof. The maximum number of EQRs that could be developed within the Development is 1200, as defined in the policies of the District, including the irrigation of up to seven acres within the Development under the decrees in this case and Case No. 01 CW 187. Until such an agreement is executed, Carbondale shall be entitled to exercise the rights under this decree and the decrees entered in Case Nos. 01 C W 187 and 08C W 198 only from the proposed structures for the REC Roaring Fork Diversion and the REC Well Field and shall have no rights to utilize the other existing or proposed structures decreed herein to supply water to the Development, namely, the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement, the Aspen Glen Well Nos. 1-7, Coryell Ranch Well Nos. 1-14, the Roberson Ditch, or the Posey Pump and Pipeline. The Basalt Water Conservancy District provides augmentation water pursuant to the decrees in this case and Case No. 0ICW 187 through an allotment contract originally entered into with Sanders Ranch Holdings, 1.1C, and which was assigned to River Bend. Carbondale has obtained from the BWCD an assignment of an amended water allotment contract that will provide sufficient augmentation water for this decree, and the decrees in Case Nos. 0ICW188, 01 C W 189 and 07C W 154, as described below. This amended allotment contract is referred to herein as the "Allotment Contract." Carbondale may convey to the District the water rights included in the decrees in this case and Case No. 01CW'187, and may assign to the District the portion of the Allotment Contract necessary- for augmentation under the decrees in this case and Case No. 01 CW 187. Upon such conveyance and assignment, the District shall be responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions of the decrees in this case and Case No. 0 I CW 187. II. FINDINGS 1. Name, address and telephone number of Applicants Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W 164 Page 3 A. Carbondale Investments, LLC 2801 Turtle Creek Blvd., Apt. 6E Dallas, TX 75219 and c/o Rockwood Shepard Carbondale Investments LLC 243 Crescent Lane Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)-456-5325 B. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District P.O. Box 1002 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 2. History of Case: The Application in this case was properly verified and filed with the Water Clerk, Water Division No. 5 on September 27, 2007. The initial application was amended by the First Amended Application by Order of the Court dated November 29, 2007. On September 19, 2008, the Division Engineer submitted a written Summary of Consultation in accordance with C.R.S. §37-92-302(4). The Application was further amended by the Second Amended Application by Order of the Court dated November 20, 2008. The Application was further amended by the Third Amended Application by Order of the Court dated January 6, 2009. On August 26, 2009, the Division Engineer submitted a written Summary of Consultation in accordance with C.R.S. §37-92-302(4) with respect to the Third Amended Application, which the Referee has considered. On June 3, 2010, the Court ordered that Carbondale be substituted as the Applicant in this case and that the case caption be amended accordingly. 3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Timely and adequate notice of the Application was given in the manner required by law. See C.R.S. §37-92-302. Neither the land nor the water rights involved in the Application are located in a designated groundwater basin. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and over all persons who have standing to appear as parties, whether they have appeared or not, all notices required by law having been given and the Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Application. See C.R.S. §§37-92-203 and 37-92-302. 4. Opposition: Timely statements of opposition were filed in this case by the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company, Thompson Glen Ditch Company, Thomas H. Bailey, and the United States Bureau of Reclamation. No other person or entity has sought to intervene and the time for filing statements of opposition has expired. The Court has approved stipulations between the Applicants and each of these opposers and this decree is at least as restrictive on the Applicants as the ruling to which these opposers have consented. Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W164 Page 4 A. Conditional Water Right 5. Name of structure: Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement (renamed from River Bend Enlargement in Application). 6. Location of Point of Diversion. The Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement will be diverted at the point of diversion of the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion, located on the West bank of the Roaring Fork River in the NE 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 29, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 6th P.M., at a point whence the NE corner of said Section 29 bears North 53°18' East, a distance of 1,357.4 feet. The point of diversion can also be described as being 846 feet from the North Section line and 1,068 feet from the East Section line of said Section 29. 7. Locations of Alternate Points of Diversion. The Application seeks approval to divert up to 1.25 c.f.s. at the following alternate points of diversion owned and operated by the District, as alternate points of diversion to the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement: Aspen Glen Well Nos. 1 through 7 ("Aspen Glen Wells"), Coryell Ranch Well Nos. I through 14 ("Coryell Ranch Wells"), the Robertson Ditch and the Posy Pump and Pipeline. Diversions hereunder may be in addition to all or part of the 0.5 c.f.s. allotment of the Basalt Conduit water right under the decree in Case No. 01CW187. The maximum total rate of diversion through the alternate points of diversion under the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement water right and through the REC Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion described below in Paragraphs 1I.13 and II.C, respectively, under this decree shall be 1.25 c.f.s. The total diversions under this decree and the decrees in Case Nos. 0ICWI87 and 08CW198 shall be 1.75 c.f.s. The water right applied for herein right may be diverted at any one or any combination of said alternate points of diversion; provided, however, that until such time as the Development is included into the District pursuant to an agreement between Carbondale and the District, Carbondale shall be entitled to exercise these rights only at the REC Roaring Fork Diversion and REC Well Field as alternate points of diversion, and in that case, the District shall not exercise the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement or its alternative points under this decree. The locations of the Aspen Glen Wells, Coryell Ranch Wells, Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion, Robertson Ditch and Posy Pump and Pipeline are shown on Exhibit C. A. The Aspen Glen Wells are located in T.7S., R.88 W., 6th P.M., in Garfield County, Colorado, and are described as follows: Aspen Glen Well No. 1 located in the SE1/4 SW1/4, Sec. 20. 660 feet from the South section line and 1555 feet from the West section line of said Sec. 20. Aspen Glen Well No. 2 located in the NW1/4 NE1/4, Sec. 29, 768 feet from the North section line and 2200 feet from the East section line of said Sec. 29. Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W 164 Page 5 Aspen Glen Well No. 3 located in the NW 1/4 NEI/4, Sec. 29, 508 feet from the North section line and 1794 feet from the East section line of said Sec. 29. Aspen Glen Well No. 4 located in the N W1/4 NEI /4, Sec. 29, 788 feet from the North section line and 2462 feet from the East section line of said Sec. 29. Aspen Glen Well No. 5 located in the NW1/4 NEI/4, Sec. 29, 703 feet from the North section line and 2038 feet from the East section line of said Sec. 29. Aspen Glen Well No. 6 located in the NW1/4 NE1/4, Sec. 29, 393 feet from the North section line and 2270 feet from the East section line of said Sec. 29. Aspen Glen Well No. 7 located in the NE1/4 NW1/4, Sec. 29, 447 feet from the North section line and 2627 feet from the West section line of said Sec. 29. B. The Coryell Ranch Wells are located as described in Table 1 below. Table 1— Location of Coryell Ranch Wells 1-14 in T. 7 S., R. 88 W. of the 6'h P.M. Well No. Quarter Quarter Location in Section 29 Distance from North line of Section 29 Distance from East Line of Section 29 1 NE NE 1268.54 1021.95 2 SW NE 1849 2064.12 3 SE NE 2086.54 86.95 4 SE NE 1808.54 301.95 5 SE NE 1508.54 486.95 6 NE NE 1218.54 666.95 7 NE NE 928.54 966.95 8 NW NE 774 1284.12 9 SW NE 1469 1294.12 10 SW NE 1609 1604.12 11 SW NE 1739 1839.12 12 NW NE 879 1619.12 13 SE NE 1733.54 831.95 14 SE NE 1873.54 971.95 C. The Robertson Ditch has a point of diversion located on the Westerly bank of the Roaring Fork River at a point whence the SE corner of S. 12, T. 7 S., R. 89 W., Sixth P.M. Bears N. 27°56" W. 2,788.14 feet. This structure can also be described as a point within the NW. 'A of the SE. 'A, S. 18, T. 7 S., R. 88 W., 6"' P.M. 1,509 Ft. from the South line and 1123 Ft. from the West line of said Section 18. with its source from the Roaring Fork River. D. The Posy Pump and Pipeline has a point of diversion located in Government Lot 17 of Section 1, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6`" P.M. at a point whence the Northwest Corner of said Section 1 bears North 57°02'42" West a distance of 3799.13 feet. This Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07CW164 Page 6 structure can also be described as a point within NW. 1/4 of the SE. 1/4, S. 1, T. 7 S. , R. 89 W. of the 6th P.M. 2300 Ft. from the South line and 2290 Ft. from the East line of said Section 1, with its source from the Roaring Fork River. 8. Source: The source of water for the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement is the Roaring Fork River. The source of water for the Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch Wells is groundwater tributary to the Roaring Fork River. The source of water for the Robertson Ditch and the Posy Pump and Pipeline is the Roaring Fork River. 9. A. Date of initiation of appropriation: September 27, 2007 B. How appropriation was initiated: By the formation of an intent to make the appropriation described herein and overt acts constituting a substantial step towards the appropriation, including engineering and design of the proposed development and notice at the developed altemate points of diversion described herein,. C. Date water applied to beneficial use: N/A 10. Amount: 1.25 c.f.s., conditional 11. Proposed use: Domestic and municipal purposes, including but not limited to, fire protection uses and park and landscape irrigation on up to four acres of land within the Development. 12. Name and address of owners of land on which structures are located: The District has contractual or easement rights to the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement and all the alternate points of diversion. 13. Application). B. Conditional Underground Water Right Name of structure: REC Well Field (renamed from RBC Well Field in 14. Locations of Alternate Points of Diversion: The REC Well Field consists of that portion of the Development, excluding a Conservation Easement area granted to the Roaring Fork Conservancy, located in the W. % of S. 7, T. 7 S., R. 88 W. of the Sixth P.M., the E. 'A of S. 12, T. 7 S., R. 89 W. of the Sixth P.M., and the SE. 1/4 of S. 1, T. 7 S., R. 89 W. of the Sixth P.M. The Applicant may develop up to ten wells within the REC Well Field and each of these wells is claimed as an alternate point of diversion. 15. Source: Groundwater tributary to the Roaring Fork River 16. A. Date of initiation of appropriation: December 31, 2008 Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W 164 Page 7 B. How appropriation was initiated: By the formation of an intent to make the appropriation described herein and overt acts constituting a substantial step towards the appropriation, including engineering and design of the proposed development and notice at the developed alternate points of diversion described herein. C. Date water applied to beneficial use: N/A 17. Amount: 1.25 c.f.s., conditional 18. Proposed use: Domestic and municipal purposes, including but not limited to, fire protection uses and park and landscape irrigation on up to four acres of land within the Development. 19. Name and address of owners of land on which structures are located: Carbondale. C. Conditional Water Right 20. Name of structure: REC Roaring Fork Diversion (renamed from RBC Roaring Fork Diversion in Application). 21. Location of Point of Diversion: The REC Roaring Fork Diversion is located on the East bank of the Roaring Fork River in the NW1 of the NW/4, S. 18, T. 7 S., R. 88 W., Sixth P.M., L206 Ft. from the North and 434 Ft. from the West lines of said S. 18. 22. Source: Roaring Fork River 23. A. Date of initiation of appropriation: December 31, 2008 B. How appropriation was initiated: By the formation of an intent to make the appropriation described herein and overt acts constituting a substantial step towards the appropriation, including engineering and design of the proposed development and notice at the developed alternate points of diversion described herein. C. Date water applied to beneficial use: N/A 24. Amount claimed: 1.25 c.f.s., conditional 25. Proposed use: Domestic and municipal purposes, including but not limited to, tire protection uses and park and landscape irrigation on up to four acres of land within the Development. 26. Name and address of owners of land on which structures are located: The REC Roaring Fork Diversion is located within the Development. Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W164 Page 8 D. Plan for Augmentation With respect to the claim for approval of a plan for augmentation set forth in the Application, the Referee makes the following findings based on the evidence and documents presented in this case: 27. Names of structures to be augmented: Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement and its alternate points of diversion decreed herein, the REC Well Field, and the REC Roaring Fork Diversion as applied for herein. This plan for augmentation shall apply only to those out -of -priority depletions associated with diversions from these structures under these augmented water rights for service to the Development pursuant to this decree. 28. Water rights used for augmentation: Pursuant to the Allotment Contract. Carbondale is entitled to use up to 74.9 acre feet per year, total, of augmentation water from any of the three sources described below (Ruedi Reservoir, Green Mountain Reservoir and the Troy and Edith Ditches). An estimated amount of 25.17 acre feet of the 74.9 acre feet of Allotment Contract water will be dedicated to augmentation of out -of -priority depletions pursuant to this decree from the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement and its alternate points of diversion decreed herein, the REC Well Field, and the REC Roaring Fork Diversion. Another portion of the 74.9 acre feet of water available under the Allotment Contract will be dedicated to augmentation of out -of -priority depletions pursuant to the decree in Case No. 01 C W 187, as the same is amended by the decree in Case No. 08C W 198, from the Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch Wells, Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion, REC Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion. A final portion of the 74.9 acre feet of water available under the Allotment Contract will be dedicated to augmentation of evaporation losses from Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1-5 pursuant to two separate decrees in Case Nos. 01CW188 and 01CW189. The total quantity of water allocated under all of these decrees is 71.42 acre-feet, leaving a surplus of 3.48 acre-feet available under the Allotment Contract to be used for additional transit losses or other augmentation purposes under these decrees. The quantity of augmentation water allocated under each of these decrees is summarized in Table 2, below. Table 2 — Quantity of Augmentation Water Allocated Under the Allotment Contract Decree Quantity of Water Allocated (AF) Case No. 07C W 164 25.17 Case No.01 C W 187, as amended by Case No.08C W 198 12.95 Case No.01 C W 188 6.5 Case No.01 C W 189 26.8 Attachment A TOTAL Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W 164 Page 9 71.42 A. Ruedi Reservoir: (1) Previous decrees: Ruedi Reservoir is a component of the Frying Pan - Arkansas Project and was originally decreed for the storage of up to 140,697.3 acre feet of water in Civil Action No. 4613, Garfield County District Court, on June 20, 1958, with a date of appropriation of July 29. 1957. Subsequently, in Case No. W-789-76, the decreed storage capacity for this Reservoir was reduced to 102,369 acre feet. By decree of the water court in Case No. 81CW34, Ruedi Reservoir was decreed a refill right in the amount of 101,280 acre feet, conditional. In Water Court case No. 95CW95, 44,509 acre feet was made absolute. (2) Legal description: Ruedi Reservoir is an on -channel reservoir located in Sections 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14 through 18, Township 8 South, Range 84 West, of the 6th P.M. in Pitkin and Eagle Counties. (3) Source: Frying Pan River, tributary of Colorado River (4) Decreed amount: 102,369 acre feet (originally decreed for 140,697.3 acre feet; reduced to 102,369 acre feet in Case No. W-789-76; decreed for refill right of 101,280 acre feet, conditional, 44,509 acre feet subsequently made absolute) (5) Adjudication date: June 20, 1958 (6) Appropriation date: July 29, 1957 (7) Decreed uses: Generation of electric energy, domestic, municipal, industrial, irrigation and stock watering (8) Remarks: Augmentation water may be released from Ruedi Reservoir into the Frying Pan River, tributary to the Roaring Fork River, tributary to the Colorado River, to augment out -of -priority depletions caused by diversions under the structures to be augmented hereunder. 13. Green Mountain Reservoir: (1) Previous decrees: Water storage rights for Green Mountain Reservoir were originally decreed in Case Nos. 2782, 5016, and 5017, United States District Court, District of Colorado, October 12, 1955. (2) Legal description: Green Mountain Reservoir is an on -channel reservoir and is located approximately 16 miles Southeast of the Town of Kremmling in Summit County, Colorado, and more particularly in all or parts of Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 24 of Township Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07CW164 Page 10 2 South, Range 80 West, and of Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, and 34, Township 2 South, Range 79 West of the 6th P.M. (3) (4) (5) (6) Source: Blue River, tributary of Colorado River Decreed amount: 154,645 acre feet Adjudication date: October 12, 1955 Appropriation date: August 1, 1935 (7) Decreed uses: In accordance with paragraph 5(a), (b), and (c) of the section entitled "Manner of Operation of Project Facilities and Auxiliary Facilities" in Senate Document No. 80. C. Troy Ditch and Edith Ditch Water Rights are described in Table 3 below: Table 3 — Description of Troy Ditch and Edith Ditch Water Rights Structure Priority Court Case No. Adj. Date App. Date Decreed Amount (c f.s,) Use (4) AMOUNT SOLD. TRANSFERRED OR RESERVED AMOUNT REMAIN ENG (10) (5) (6) (7) (8) 9) CI. S. AF Troy Ditch (1) 370 3082 08/2511936 05/01/1906 5.10 1 0,000 0.000 0.095 0.064 0.035 4.906 N/A Troy Ditch I41 Enlg 427 3082 08/25/1936 05/01/1928 10.80 1 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.134 0 073 10.393 N/A Troy Ditch 2"' Enlg 669 4613 06/2(/3958 06/01/1942 6.20 1 0 000 0.000 0.115 0.077 0.042 5.966 N/A Edith Ditch 353 3082 08/25/1936 05/01/1904 2.72 1 0.110 0.132 0.050 0.000 0018 2.410 N/A Edith Ditch 1° Enlg 673 4613 06/20/1958 07/01/1946 3.23 1 0 000 0.000 0_(60 0.000 0.022 3148 N/A Troy. Ditch Water System aka Lower Headgate (2) 2 81 15.50(3) 1, D, M, C, P 0.110 0.132 0.520 0.275 0.190 14.273 412.89 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Attachment A Origina ly diverted from Miller Creek. All others orig'nally diverted from Frying Pan River. Alternate point for all priorities of Troy and Edith Ditches. Combined amount limited to 15.5 c.f.s. and 453 AF of consumptive use, 300 AF of which can be stored. 1= Irrigation, D = Domestic, M = Municipal, C = Industrial and P = Piscatorial. Transferred to Edith Ditch Well in Case No. 80CW1 with 1.0 AF. Transferred to three springs on Cap K Ranch in Case No. 82 CW I89 (1.29 AF assumed to be included). Deeded to George Yates with 15.4 AF in 1983. 0.2 c.f.s. and 10.60 c.f.s. were included in Case No. 82CW357 for Ruedi South Shores augmentation plan. Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W 164 Page 11 Deeded to Joan Wheeler in 1987 for diversion at the Troy Ditch I'S' and 2"d Enlargement (16.9 AF assumed to be included). Reserved for augmentation of Cap K Ponds with 5.52 AF. Case No. 91CW220. A total of 40.11 AF of the original 453.00 AF has been sold or transferred. The total amount remaining to the Basalt District under all the said Troy and Edith Ditch water rights is 412.89 acre feet. Decreed Legal Descriptions: Troy Ditch Headgate No. 1 is located on the West bank of Miller Creek at a point whence the North Quarter Corner of Section 14, Township 8 South, Range 84 West, bears North 38 degrees 29 minutes West, approximately 632 feet. Troy Ditch (Headgate No. 2) First Enlargement and Extension is at a point on the South bank of the Frying Pan River, whence the Northwest Corner of Section 13, Township 8 South, Range 84 West, of the 6th P.M., bears North 87 degrees 17 minutes West a distance of approximately 1172 feet. Troy Ditch Second Enlargement as decreed is located at a point whence the Southwest Corner of Section 7 Township 8 South Range 83 West of the 6th P.M. bears South 83 degrees 13 minutes West 2,549.15 feet. The existing point of diversion of the Troy Ditch, First and Second Enlargements as determined by a subsequent survey is located on the South bank of the Frying Pan River at a point whence the Southwest Corner of Section 12, Township 8 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. bears South 89 degrees 00 minutes 21 seconds West 7,798.32 feet. The point of diversion of the Lower Headgate of the Troy Ditch and Water System from which the water is pumped into the ditch is located on the South bank of the Frying Pan River at a point whence the Northwest Corner of Section 13, Township 8 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. bears North 86 degrees 39 minutes 32 seconds West 1,527.38 feet. Edith Ditch is located on the north bank of the Frying Pan River at a point approximateli 900 feet east of the northwest corner of Section 13, Township 8 South, Range 84 West of the 6t P.M. Edith Ditch First Enlargement as decreed, is located on the Northerly bank of the Frying Pan River at a point whence the Southeast Corner of Section 12, Township 8 South, Range 84 West of the 6t P.M. bears South 83 degrees 58 minutes East 4,280.9 feet. In Case No. W-2281, Division 5, the Court decreed that 453 acre feet of annual consumptive -use credits were available to these ditches, and that 300 acre feet could be stored in an unnamed reservoir. The Basalt District owns 412.89 acre feet of the 453 acre feet, and makes the water rights available to contract allotees for use pursuant to an approved substitute supply plan or decree of the Court. Augmentation water from the Troy and Edith Ditches may be delivered to the Roaring Fork River by bypassing water at the headgates to those ditches on the Frying Pan River. 29. Statement of Plan for Augmentation: A. In addition to the 349.55 EQRs decreed in the decree in Case No. 01CW187, the Development will consist of a maximum of 850.45 residential or commercial EQRs, based on the following EQR and depletion assumptions: Gallons per day per residential EQR 350 Gallons per day per commercial EQR 350 Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07CW164 Page 12 Irrigated area, potable (sq. ft.) 174,240 (4 ac.) B. Either Carbondale or the District will provide domestic and municipal water service to the Development. Diversions from the structures to be augmented hereunder, shall not exceed 1.25 c.f.s. for use within the Development. All out -of -priority depletions associated with such diversions will be augmented by releases of up to 25.17 acre feet of the 74.9 acre feet of Allotment Contract water from the sources of augmentation supply available under the Allotment Contract. This augmentation plan will be administered under the direction of the Division Engineer in the course of administering the Basalt Water Conservancy District's water supply program. C. The domestic and municipal water requirements for the Development and the estimated augmentation requirements are described in Table 4 below. The estimated amount of augmentation water required amounts to 25.17 acre feet per year. based on the projections described in Table 3, including a 5% transit loss for water released from Ruedi and Green Mountain Reservoirs. In the event that transit losses are increased in the future, Applicants, their successors, or assigns, shall allocate additional augmentation water to compensate for such increase, and shall modify any accounting form pertaining to this plan accordingly. So long as any additional augmentation water is from the same sources as the augmentation water available under the Allotment Contract (Green Mountain Reservoir, Ruedi Reservoir, or the Troy and Edith Ditches), no amendment or supplementation of this decree shall be required to effect such change. Table 4 - Demand, Consumptive Use and Augmentation Requirements Month Demand Consumptive Use 1 2 3 4, 5 6 7 In- House Irrigation Total In House Irrigation "Total Augmentation Requirement January 28.32 0.00 28.32 1.42 0.00 1.42 1.49 February 25.58 0.00 25.58 1.28 0.00 1.28 1.34 March 28.32 0.00 28.32 1.42 0.00 1.42 1.49 April 27.41 0.11 27.52 1.37 0.09 1.46 1.53 May 28.32 1.75 30.07 1.42 1.40 2.82 2.96 June 27.41 2.32 29.72 1.37 1.85 3.22 3.39 July 28.32 2.16 30.48 1.42 1.73 3.14 3.30 August 28.32 1.36 29.68 1.42 1.09 2.50 2.63 September 27.41 1.I6 28.57 1.37 0.93 2.30 2.42 October 28.32 0.26 28.58 1.42 0.21 1.62 1.70 November 27.41 0.00 27.41 1.37 0.00 1.37 1.44 December 28.32 0.00 28.32 1.42 0.00 1.42 1.49 TOTALS 333.44 9.13 342.57 16.67 7.30 23.97 25.17 Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07CW164 Page 13 (1) In-house water demand in acre-feet based on 850.45 EQRs at 350 gallons per day per EQR (2) Irrigation demand in acre-feet for 174,240 sq. ft. of irrigated area based on 80% application efficiency, Col 5 - efficiency. (3) Col 1 + Col 2 (4) In-house consumptive use based on 5% consumptive use through at a central wastewater treatment plant (5) Irrigation consumptive use 1.83 acre-feet per acre based on a modified Blaney Criddle analysis (6) Col 4 - Col 5 (7) Augmentation requirement includes 5% allowance for transit loss D. The current sources of supply available to the District are the Aspen Glen Well Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the Coryell Ranch Well Nos. 11 and 13. Glover analyses on the Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch Wells show that stream impacts from pumping such wells occur in the same month as the well pumping. Prior to diverting from the other ground water structures or ground water rights to be augmented under this decree, as described in Paragraphs 5 through 26 and Paragraph 27. the District or Carbondale shall re-evaluate lagged pumping impacts for such water rights and structures, and submit a Glover analysis of lagged depletions from each structure, together with accounting that includes any modification necessitated by changes in the timing of depletions, to the Division Engineer. After reviewing the Glover analysis and accounting, the Division Engineer may administratively approve such ground water diversions to the extent out -of -priority depletions are fully augmented in time, quantity, and location. E. It is anticipated that wastewater treatment for the Development will be provided at the District's Water Treatment Plant ("Treatment Plant"), located upstream from the Development on the west side of the Roaring Fork River. Treated effluent will be discharged to the Roaring Fork River at the Treatment Plant outfall. The location of the outfall is depicted on Exhibit C. Applicants will take credit for such return flows in their accounting and will only be required to augment out -of -priority depletions associated with diversions for municipal and domestic in-house uses. If Carbondale is required to develop its own wastewater treatment plant, the outfall for that plant will be located at one of two alternate locations, one on Cattle Creek and the other on the Roaring Fork River, depicted on Exhibit C ("Carbondale Plant"). F. Municipal use within the Development shall include irrigation of up to four acres of parks and landscaped areas under this decree. The decree in Case No. OICW187 provides for irrigation of up to three acres, for a total of up to seven acres under the two decrees. Return flows from irrigation shall accrue to the Roaring Fork River. Applicants will take credit for such return flows in their accounting and will be required to augment only out -of -priority depletions associated with diversions for irrigation. Estimated irrigation requirements and associated augmentation requirements are set forth in Table 4, above. Except for the seven acres of parks and landscaping irrigation, water for outdoor and irrigation uses (including irrigation of lawns and gardens) within the Development will be supplied from the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek through the Glenwood and Staton Ditches. G. This plan for augmentation and change of water rights will be administered based on an accounting plan to be developed in conjunction with the State Engineer's Office. Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W 164 Page 14 The accounting plan shall account for all diversions and depletions under this decree and the decree in Case No. 01CW187 and. at a minimum, will account for the elements described in Exhibit D. E. Appropriative Right of Exchange 30. Appropriative Right of Exchange. The Application incorporates an appropriative right of exchange of Applicant's contract for the use of water stored in Green Mountain Reservoir for use in the Roaring Fork River to augment out -of -priority depletions caused by diversions under the River Edge Enlargement water right through the alternate points of diversion. Green Mountain Reservoir is located on the Blue River, tributary to the Colorado River, at the point described in paragraph 28.B., above. Augmentation water may be released from Green Mountain Reservoir and delivered to the confluence of the Colorado and Roaring Fork Rivers. The reach of the exchange is between the confluence of the Colorado and the Roaring Fork Rivers, and any of the points of diversion described in paragraph 7, above, including the REC Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion, up to the Coryell Ranch Well No. 3 which is the farthest upstream alternate point of diversion. The rate of the exchange is the rate of diversion under the River Edge Enlargement water right, up to 1.25 c.f.s., minus return flows to the particular reach. The appropriation date of the exchange shall be administered as September 27, 2007. 31. Legal Description of Exchange Reach and Rate of Exchange. The exchange decreed herein is segmented into two reaches. a diversion amount reach and a depletion amount reach, as follows: A.(1) If the District provides water and wastewater service to the Development, the upstream, diversion amount reach is located from the furthest upstream point of diversion for the Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch Wells in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th P.M., 2,086.54 feet from the North Section line and 86.95 feet from the East Section line, downstream to the location of the outfall of the District's wastewater treatment plant located on the left (west) bank of the Roaring Fork River in the SE1/4 of the SE1/4, T7S, R89W, 6th P.M., 337 feet from the South Section line and 237 feet from the East Section line. The rate of the exchange in this reach is 1.25 c.f.s. A.(2) If Carbondale provides water and wastewater service to the Development, the upstream, diversion amount reach is located from the REC Roaring Fork Diversion described above to the discharge from the Carbondale Plant to the Roaring Fork River, which will occur at one of the following two locations: the confluence of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River in the N W 114 of the N W 1 /4 Section I, T7S, R88W, 6th P.M., 1,197 feet from the North Section line and 852 feet from the East Section line; ora point in the N W 1 /4 of the N W 1 /4 of Section 18, T7S, R89W, 6th P.M. 1160 feet from the North section line and 420 feet from the West section line. The rate of the exchange in this reach is 1.25 c.f.s. Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W 164 Page 15 B.(1) If the District provides water and wastewater service to the Development, the downstream. depletion amount reach is located from the location of the outfall of the District's wastewater treatment plant located on the left (west) bank of the Roaring Fork River in the SPA of the SEA, T7S, R89W, 6th P.M., 337 feet from the South Section line and 237 feet from the East Section line, downstream to the confluence of the Colorado and the Roaring Fork Rivers in the SE 'A of the NW 1/4, Section 9, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M., 2,150 feet from the North Section line and 2,286 feet from the West Section line. The rate of exchange in this reach is 0.80 c.f.s., the rate of diversion under the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement water right, up to 1.25 c.f.s., minus the discharge at the outfall of the applicable wastewater treatment plant minus the return flow from up to 4 acres of irrigation. B.(2) If Carbondale provides water and wastewater service to the Development, the downstream, depletion amount reach is located from the downstream -most point of discharge to the Roaring Fork River from the Carbondale Plant, which is at the confluence of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River in the N W 1 /4 of the N W1/4 Section 1, T7S, R88 W, 6`h P.M., 1,197 feet from the North Section line and 852 feet from the East Section line, downstream to said confluence of the Colorado and Roaring Fork Rivers. The rate of exchange in this reach is 0.80 c.f.s., the rate of diversion under the REC Roaring Fork Diversion water right, up to 1.25 c.f.s., minus the discharge at the outfall of the Carbondale wastewater treatment plant minus the return flow from up to 4 acres of irrigation. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 32. The Water Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and over all persons or entities affected hereby, whether they have appeared or not. See C.R.S. §§ 37-92-203 and 37-92-302. 33. Timely and adequate notice of the Application was given in the manner provided by statute. See C.R.S. § 37-92-302(2). 34. The Application filed herein is in accordance with the law and should be granted subject to the terms and conditions of this decree. See C.R.S. §§ 37-92-302 and 37-92-305. No injury to other water rights will occur as a result of the exercise of the requested change of water rights or plan for augmentation and exchange in accordance with the terms and conditions of this decree. See C.R.S. § 37-92-305(3). IV. RULING OF THE REFEREE AND DECREE OF THE COURT The foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law are incorporated in this decree by this reference, and the Application is hereby granted, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this decree. 35. The request for approval of the Conditional Underground and Surface Water Right for the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement described in Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W 164 Page 16 Section 1I.A., and the diversion thereof at the alternate points of diversion described therein is hereby approved, subject to the terms and conditions of this decree. 36. The Conditional Underground Water Right for the REC Well Field in Section I1.B. is hereby approved, subject to the terms and conditions of this decree. 37. The Conditional Water Right for the REC Roaring Fork Diversion in Section II.C. is hereby approved, subject to the terms and conditions of this decree. 38. The Plan for Augmentation described in Section II.D. is hereby approved, subject to the terms and conditions of this decree. 39. The Appropriative Right of Exchange described in Section II.E. of this decree is hereby approved, subject to the terms and conditions of this decree. The Applicants shall provide adequate notice to the Division Engineer prior to operating the exchange decreed herein. 40. The terms and conditions of this decree are adequate to assure that no material injury to any water rights will result from the exercise of the water rights or the plan for augmentation set forth herein. 41. The maximum total rate of diversion through the alternate points of diversion described in paragraph 7 above, under the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement and its alternate points of diversion decreed herein, REC Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion water rights under this decree shall be 1.25 c.f.s. The maximum total diversions under this decree and the decree in Case No. 01 C W 187 shall be 1.75 c.f.s. The Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement water right may be diverted by the District at any one or any combination of the Aspen Glen Wells, the Coryell Ranch Wells, the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion. the Robertson Ditch or the Posy Pump and Pipeline. The total diversions from Aspen Glen Wells, the Coryell Ranch Wells, the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion, the Robertson Ditch or the Posy Pump and Pipeline shall be limited to that amount of water available at the point of diversion at the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion. 42. The maximum amount of land that may be irrigated under this decree and the decree in Case No. 01 CW 1 S7 shall be seven acres. Return flows from irrigation shall accrue to the Roaring Fork River. As part of the accounting required under this decree, the appropriate Applicant shall provide to the Division Engineer a map showing the location and amount of land irrigated by the District's water system. In the event that the amount of augmentation water is insufficient to fully replace all out -of -priority depletions hereunder, the appropriate Applicant shall terminate irrigation under this decree to the extent necessary to allow in-house uses to continue. 43. Within sixty days of completion of construction of the well(s) within the REC Well Field pursuant to a well permit, the appropriate Applicant must notify both the Water Court Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W 164 Page 17 and the Division of Water Resources of the precise location of the well(s). In its application to make the conditional ground water right(s) in the REC Well Field absolute, the Applicant shall identify the specific point(s) of diversion and the terms and conditions necessary to avoid injury to other water rights from well pumping at that location. This may result in changes to the terms and conditions of the decree that are specific to the ultimate location of the well(s). 44. The plan for augmentation approved herein is sufficient to permit the continuation of diversions when curtailment would otherwise be required to meet a valid senior call for water, to the extent that the Applicants shall provide replacement water necessary to meet the lawful requirements of a senior diverter at the time and location and to the extent the senior would be deprived of his or her lawful entitlement by the Applicants' diversion. 45. The plan for augmentation approved herein provides for the augmentation of those out -of -priority depletions associated with diversions under the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement and its alternate points of diversion decreed herein, REC Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion water rights. Augmentation shall only be required when said water rights are out -of -priority. 46. The estimated augmentation requirement of 25.17 acre feet annually is appropriate and reasonable. 47. The Green Mountain Reservoir and Ruedi Reservoir water utilized in connection with the subject plan for augmentation shall be stored in its respective reservoir under the priorities awarded to the United States of America for said reservoirs. However, Applicants agree that the subject plan for augmentation shall not be administered under the priority date awarded the United States of America for Green Mountain Reservoir or Ruedi Reservoir. but shall be administered as a decree entered with a filing date of 2007. 48. To the extent the implementation of the subject plan for augmentation necessitates the use of Green Mountain and/or Ruedi Reservoir water, the appropriate Applicant shall have a final, fully executed agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation or the Basalt Water Conservancy District for the use of Green Mountain and/or Ruedi Reservoir water, as the case may be, prior to its implementation of those portions of the augmentation plan which require the use of such water. Applicants acknowledge that their right to utilize Green Mountain or Ruedi Reservoir water as a source of augmentation water for the rights sought herein is dependent upon the terms of any agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation or the Basalt Water Conservancy District and the physical availability of such water for Applicants' benefit. Applicants agree that to the extent the exercise of the rights sought herein depend upon Green Mountain or Ruedi Reservoir as a source of augmentation water, such rights shall not be exercised should Green Mountain or Ruedi Reservoir water no longer be available for Applicants' use. Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W164 Page 18 Water stored in Green Mountain Reservoir pursuant to the Allotment Contract shall not be used to augment out -of -priority depletions under this decree unless sufficient exchange potential exists on the reach beginning at the confluence of the Colorado River and the Roaring Fork River, upstream to the points of diversion for the Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch Wells if the District is using these wells to supply the Development or otherwise to the REC Roaring Fork Diversion. 49. The transit losses associated with replacement releases and the exchange in this decree are only for the purposes of establishing that the plan can operate and may be sufficient to prevent injury. Actual transit losses will be determined and assessed at the time releases are made and may be modified pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 37-80-102(7) and 37-83-104 as determined necessary by the Division Engineer. 50. The appropriate Applicant shall install measuring devices, provide accounting, and supply calculations regarding the timing of depletions as required by the Division Engineer for the operation of this plan, and shall file an annual report with the Division Engineer by November 15th following each preceding irrigation year (November I through October 31) summarizing diversions and replacements made under this plan. The accounting report shall account for all diversions and depletions under this decree and the decree in Case No. 01 C W 187 and, at a minimum, will account for the elements described in Exhibit D. 51. Carbondale shall establish a homeowners association or special district which shall be responsible for ensuring that the terms and conditions not the responsibility of the District under this decree are met. 52. The appropriate Applicant must obtain and maintain valid well permits issued pursuant to C.R.S. §37-90-137 and this plan of augmentation prior to the construction and/or operation of the wells pursuant to this plan. The State Engineer shall issue well permits allowing diversions of the River Edge Enlargement water right at the Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch Wells at such time as the Applicants or their successors or assigns submit well permit applications to the Office of the State Engineer. See C.R.S. § 37-90-137(2). In issuing such permits, the State Engineer shall be bound by this decree. 53. The timing and amount of any releases of replacement water shall be made at the discretion of the Division Engineer, and may account for revised lagged pumping impacts. The appropriate Applicant will provide monthly accounting to the Division Engineer of the amount and timing of diversions, resulting consumptive use, out -of -priority depletions and the discharge of augmentation water. Such information will be included in an accounting form to be developed by said Applicant, acceptable to the Division Engineer. Said Applicant will designate a representative responsible for tiling an annual report with the Division Engineer by November 15 of each year, summarizing diversions and replacements made under the plan for augmentation decreed herein during the previous water year of November 1 through October 31. 54. The State and Division Engineers shall administer the water rights as set forth herein and will not curtail withdrawals under the water rights described herein as long as such Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07CW164 Page 19 withdrawals occur in priority and in accordance with this decree. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-92- 305(8), the State Engineer shall curtail all out -of -priority diversions, the depletions from which are not replaced so as to prevent injury to vested water rights. Further, if the Allotment Contract is terminated or expires and fails to be renewed, this decree must be amended to include an alternative source of replacement water prior to such termination or expiration, or else all out -of - priority diversions hereunder will be curtailed. 55. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-92-304(6), the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the plan for augmentation decreed herein regarding the question of injury to vested water rights or decreed conditional water rights of others, for a period of five years after the Applicants provide written notice to the parties, the Division Engineer, and the Court that the augmentation plan has become operational. The augmentation plan shall be deemed operational hereunder at the time of build -out of the initial phase of the Development (375 EQRs or such lesser amount that is approved by Garfield County for development of the initial phase) and first use of the augmentation supply. Such notice must confirm that the decreed augmenting sources are in place, that the terms and conditions necessary to operate the plan as required by this decree have been met, and that the augmented uses and augmentation have been initiated. Further, the Court shall retain jurisdiction regarding the question of injury from the withdrawals of ground water from new sources (other than Aspen Glen Wells Nos. 2, 3, and 4 and Coryell Ranch Wells Nos. 11 and 13) for a period of two years after each new ground water structure is brought on line. 56. An application for a Finding of Reasonable Diligence shall be filed in the same month as the decree herein is entered every six (6) years after the entry of the decree herein so long as Applicants desire to maintain the conditional water right herein awarded, or until a determination has been made that such conditional water right is made absolute by reason of completion of the appropriation. 57. Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Uniform Local Rules for all State Water Court Divisions, upon the sale or transfer of the conditional water rights decreed herein, the transferee shall file with Division No. 5 Water Court, a notice of transfer which shall state: A. The title and case number of this Case No. 07CW164; B. The description of the conditional water right to be transferred: C. The name of the transferor; D. The name and mailing address of the transferee; E. A copy of the recorded deed of transfer. The owner of said conditional water rights shall also notify the clerk of the Water Court for Water Division No. 5 of any change of mailing address. The clerk shall place any notice of transfer or change of address in the case tile of this Case No. 07CW164 and in the case file (if any) in which the court makes any subsequent finding of reasonable diligence. Dated: a,,aOJ ORO i Attachment A • Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W ] 64 Page 20 J Hon. 1441,-K--.rabIr rDt .,,a4(p1-girt, Water Referee Water Division No. 5 *Altalsaiu WAN 4'4 ad lid", iAhdu Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC and Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Case No. 07C W 164 Page 21 THE COURT DOTH FIND THAT NO PROTEST WAS FILED IN THIS MATTER. THE FOREGOING RULING IS CONFIRMED AND APPROVED, AND IS HEREBY MADE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF I -HIS COURT. Dated: Hon. James B. Boyd Water Judge Water Division No. 5 C'\Documents and Settings\PWilberlDesktoplCarbondale[nvestments\BHFSDOCS-!l41O848-v8-Draft decree O7CW164DOC Attachment A CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC PROPERTY BOUNDARY RESOURCE CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC ENGINEERING,INC 909 Colorado Avenue Atta6BlanwabdSprings, CO 81601 (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile EXHIBIT A PROPERTY LOCATION MAP Date: 09/08/2010 File: 660-7.4 Drawn by: RP/RKM Approved by: MJE EXHIBIlT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A A TRACT OF LAND STRIATE IN LOTS 4, 9, 7.8 AND 0 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OP THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND IPI LOT 31 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO LYING WEST OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY No. 82 AND LYING EAST OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LSE FOR THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD (DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD) ASPEN BRANCH, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE WITNESS CORNER TO THE SOLTI1I 314 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, WHENCE A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 BEARS S 89 DEGREES 29'47' E A DISTANCE OF 2871.90 FEET, WITH ALL BEARINGS CON TA1NED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE THEREIN): THENCE N 27 DEGREES 39'24" E A DISTANCE OF 1134.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR TIIE SQU HERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAQ.ROAD ASPEN BRANCH AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT DESCRIBED HERE[: THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING 2 COURSES; 1) 79.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OP A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WFS'Y, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2915.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS N 18 DEGREES 51'48 W A DISTANCE OF 79.82 FEET; 2) N 19 DEGREES 38126 W A DISTANCE OF 3826,47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 31 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH. RANGE 89 WEST: T: THENCE S 89 DEGREES 43130" Ti ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 31 A DISTANCE OF 100.90 FEET TO THE NORTUEiAST CORNER OF SAID IDT 31; THENCES 00 DEGREES 10'09" W ALONG THE EAST INE OF SAID LOT 31 A DISTANCE OF 64.03 FEET TO '17E NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7 OF SECTION 7. TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST; THENCE S 90 DEGREES 00'40' E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OP SAID LOT 7 A DISTANCE OF 673.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY FOR COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING 9 COURSES; 1) S 35 DEGREES 14'00" E A DISTANCE OF 129.88 FEET: 2) 250.29 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST. [LAVING A RADIUS OF 1640.00 P'ET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS S 28 DEGREES 19'00' E A DISTANCE OF 250.10 FEET; 3) S 11 DEGREES 08'00" E A DISTANCE OF 97.90 PEET: 4) 348.52 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST. HAVING A RADIUS OF 1820.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS S 15 DEGREES 50'00" E A DISTANCE OF 318.00 FEEL 5) S 08 DEGREES 52'00" E A DISTANCE OF 313.00 FEET; S 06 DEGREES 01'00' E A DISTANCE OF 700.90 FEET: 7) S 00 DEGREES 18'30' EA DISTANCE OF 201.00 FEET; 11) S 008 DEGREES 53100' E A DISTANCE OF 200.30 FEET; 9) 3 06 DEGREES 01'00" E A DISTANCE OF 1487,80 EST; • THENCE LEAVING SAID 'WESTERLY AIGITt OF WAY LINE 5.98 DEGREES 0010' W A DISTANCE OF 73.94 FEET TO TELE POINT OF BEGINNING. Attachment A Owr Order No: GW250592-4 LEGAL N EXCEPTING FROM THE ABOVE PARCEL: THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED 1N DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 2. 1999 IN BOOR 1142 AT PAGE - 961 AND IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 24. 2901 IN BOOK 1228 AT PAGE 600. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL B: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 8.7 AND 9 OF SECTION 18, LATS 3, 4, 7, 8 AND 9 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH. RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND IN LOTS 1, 9, 10. 11, 17, 18 AND 25 OF SECTION 12. LOT 31 OF SECTION I, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF 711E SIXTH PRDNCEPAL MERIDIAN. GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING WEST OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD (DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD) ASPEN BRANCH AND LYING NORTH AND EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: - COMMENCING AT A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE WITNESS CORNER TO THE SOUTH 114 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, WHENCE A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER FOR SAID SECTION 7 BEARS S 89 DEGREES 29'47' E A DISTANCE OF 2671.80 FEET, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HER.BIN BEING RELATIVE TEELRETO; THENCE S 89 DEGREES 29'47' E ALONG THE SOUTH LANE OF SAID SECTION 7 A DISTANCE OF 828.06 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD (ASPEN BRANCH) AND TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE TRACT DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING 4 COURSES: 1) S 09 DEGREES 35'10" E A DISTANCE OF 1545,87 FEET; 2) 626.05 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1482.50 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS S 21 DEGREES 41'02' E A DISTANCE OF 521.41 FEET; 3)S 33 DEGREES 46'54' E A DISTANCE OF 387.28 FEET; 4) 294.32 FEET `ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST. HAVING A RADIUS OF 2815.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS S 30 DEGREES 4?'11' E ADISTANCE OF 294.19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SECTION 18. TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, - RANGE 88 WEST; THENCE N 89 DEGREES 53'16" W A DISTANCE OF 407.83 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER; - THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ROARING FORK RIVER THE FOLLOWING 15 COURSES: 1)N47DEGREES 15'14' 2) N 57 DEGREES 54'58` 3) N 83 DEGREES 52'39" 4) N 55 DEGREES 41'54' S) N 35 DEGREES 45'21" 6) N 34 DECREES 06'17` 7) N 13 DEGREES 37107" 8) N 44 DEGREES'39'33" 9) N 51 DEGREES 46'41' W A DISTANCE OF 122.26 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 449. 02 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 3E8.20 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 196.47 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 225.15 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 318.15 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 255.65 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 175.65 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 662.76 FEET Attachme TA 19Atfi�El 4 i`- TiRnargi Our Order Ne: GW250592-4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 10) N 30 DEGREES 48'54' W A DISTANCE OF 163.28 FEEL; 11) N 17 DEGREES 48'37' W A DISTANCE OF 173.22 FEET; 12) N Z9 DEGREES 26'35" W A DISTANCE OF 153.19 FEET; 13) N 19 DEGREES 3I'W W A DISTANCE OF 246.38 FEET; 14) N 29 DEGREES 13'18' W A DISTANCE OF 6I5.00 FEET; 15) N 24 DEGREES 10'18' W A DISTANCE OF 142.52 FEET TO A PODVT ON THE WEST LINE OF LOT 18 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST; THENCE N 00 DEGREES 04'33` W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 18 A DISTANCE OF 323.83 FEET TO THE NOBTTIWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 18; THENCE N 08 DEGREES 21'38' W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF 1.07 17 OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 553.42 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17: THENCE N 03 DEGREES 09,52' E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 110F SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 741.05 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 11; THENCE N 00 DEGREES 24'17' W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 10 OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 1423.80 mer TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10: THENCE N 88 DEGREES 35'38" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT I OF SAID SECTION 12 AND EXISTING FENCE A DISTANCE OF 86.41 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE N 02 DEGREES 15'08" E ALONG THE WEST UNE OF SAID LOT 1 AND EXISTING FENCE A DISTANCE of 482.03 FEET. TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1: THENCE N 02 DEGREES 15'08` E ALONG THE WEST UNE OF LOT 31 OF SECTION 1. TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST AND EXISTING FENCE A DISTANCE OF 75.91 FIOT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THS WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 31 AND EXISTING FENCE N 02 DEGREES 00'23' E A DISTANCE OF 590.77 PEST TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 31; THENCE S 89 DEGREES 4310' E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 91 AND EXISTING FENCE A DISTANCE OF 683.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE OF SAID SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD (ASPEN BRANCH; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING 3 COURSES: 1) S 19 DEG 38'52' E A DISTANCE OF 3885.72 FEET: 2) 494.33 FEET ALONG TETE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST. HAVING A RADIUS OF 2815.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS S 14 DEGREES 37'01" E A DISTANCE OF 493.70 FEET; 3) S 09 DEGREES 35'10" E A DISTANCE OF 582.43 FET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER W1111 ALL THAT PROPERTY OF PARCEL B (WHICH PARCEL B IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED IN BOOR 511 AT PAGE 103 AS RECEPTION NO. 288181 OF 151E GARFIELD COUNTY. COLORADO. RECORDS) LYING AND BEING ABOVE AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE CLENWOOD DITCIT AS NOW EXISTING AND IN FLAG& PARCEL C: A T AC"I' OF LAND SITUATE IN LOT 4 OF SECTION 7. TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH. RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 8111 PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING WEST OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82 AND LYING EAST OF ME EASTERLY MIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD) ASPEN BRANCH, BEING MORE Attachment A 'i t+U1114U! 1711111 11.11111.1..1 Orr Order No: GW250592-4 LEGAL. DESCRIPTION PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE WITNESS CORNER TO THE SOUTH 114 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, WHENCE A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 BEARS S 89 DEGREES 2844r E A DISTANCE OF 2871.90 FEET, WITH ALL . BEARINGS CONTAR ED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE N 33 DEGREES 27'23' E A DISTANCE OF 1032.41 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR TIM SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD ASPEN BRANCH AND TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT DESCRIBED IIS: THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE N 90 DEGREES 00'00' E A DISTANCE OF 40.74 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82; THENCE S 06 DEGREES 01'00' E ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 202.70 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONGSAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE S 04 DEGREES 34'54' E A DISTANCE OF 280.70 FEET TO -A POINT INTERSECTING THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD ASPEN BRANCH; THENCE N 09 DEGREBS'35'I0" W ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 188.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2915.00 FEW: THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND ARC OF SAID CURVE 282.80 FEET. THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 12 DEGREES 21'48" W A DISTANCE OF 292.49 FEET TO TIM PONT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL D: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 7. TOWNSk1P 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE B7'H PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. SAID TRACT OF LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: • COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF SECTION 1, T7S, R 89 W OF THE 8TH P.M. (WTTTI ALL BEARING CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE TO A BEARING OF N 00 DEGREES 10' 09' E BETWEEN THE SE CORNER AND THE E 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1); THENCE N 00 DEGREES 10' OS" E ALONG SAID SECTION LINE 827.10 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THAT PROPERTY SURVEY RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 305 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY INDEX FOR INFORMATIONAL LAND SURVEY PLATS, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SECTION INE N 00 DEGREES 10' 09' E 84.03 FEET TO A POINT IN AN EXISTING FENCE LINE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION LINE S 88 DEGREES 38' 14' E ALONG AN EXISTING FENCE LINE 292.82 FEET;. THENCE CONTINUING ALONG AN EXISTING FENCE LINE S 86 DEGREES 47' 11" E I18.34 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID FENCE INE 530 DEGREES 31' 43" E 64.28 FRET TO A POINT ON SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY; THENCE LEAVING SAID EXISTING FENCE LINE N 90 DEGREES 00' 00' W ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY 443.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF GARFIBLD,STATE OF COLORADO Attachment A CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC PROPERTY BOUNDARY CONFLUENCE OF CATTLE CREEK AND ROARING FORK RIVER REC WWTP OUTFALL ALTERNATIVE LOCATION CATTLE CREEK REC WWTP OUTFALL ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ROARING FORK RIVER ROARING FORK WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT WWTP OUTFALL CORYELL RANCH ROARING FORK DIVERSION CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC CASE NO.07CW164 EXHIBIT C WATER RIGHTS LOCATION MAP Date: 2/14/2011 File: 660-7.4 Drawn by: RKM by: MJE RESOURCE E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C 909 Colorado Avenue GR�twcbmi inr*k, CO 81601Approved (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC Ln cri ENTER Number of developed EQRs ENTER Water Year Attachment A n A Augmentation River Call Release BWCD Contract Augmentation Release /kD\a �u=.S0 1112; » m ¢ m Net Stream Depletion Return Flow In -House Lagged Total Irrigation Return Return Return Flow Flow Flow mi COI NI Consumptive Use In -House Lawn and Total Garden coi/ _ oli « cli * Diversions Ground Water I Surface Water %E$ /2 e REC Roaring Fork Diversion REC Well Field Lagged Stream Diversions Diversions Coryell Ranch Wells Diversions Aspen Glen Wells Diversions ) )I Jan Feb Mar Apr ƒ] Jul Aug Sep Oct Total o \ ) i it [ / 2il _2 e /� 7 N ] /f/ §{\))\( ( o 2 {ƒ /) t42EJ) _ ) 0o- 0 \�(§ i J7 .8.- =2 \ ;»[ - - i \ \§ (\§f )) i z& °})E { �� 0` {){) )/ - k n�o) ® 72 -9- r2 ®«0w2!`={;§f/.)g-=;=Eli)gg !!!!!!!'!12:3!!!:: 00 GC»2,,z00-0;,== EFILED Document CO Garfield County District Court 9th JD DT DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION 5, COLORADO Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street, Suite 104 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: (970) 945-5075 Filing Date: Aug 22 2011 IU:22AM N Filing ID: 39402201 Review Clerk: Kathy Hall A. COURT USE ONLY A CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC, THE ROARING FORK WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT AND BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT IN GARFIELD, PITKIN, SUMMIT AND EAGLE COUNTIES Case No.: 08CW198 FINDINGS AND RULING OF THE REFEREE AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE WATER COURT THIS MATTER has come before the Water Referee on an Application for Change of Water Right and to Amend Plan for Augmentation (the "Application"), originally filed by River Bend Colorado, LLC ("River Bend"), for whom Carbondale Investments, LLC ("Carbondale") has been substituted, the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District ("District") and the Basalt Water Conservancy District (`BWCD") as the Applicants in this case. The Referee, having reviewed the Application and the other pleadings in this case, and having made such investigations as are necessary to determine whether or not the statements in the Application are true, having consulted with the Division Engineer, and having become fully advised with respect to the subject matter of the Application in accordance with C.R.S. § 37-92-- 302(4), C.R.S., does hereby make the following Findings and Ruling of the Referee in this matter. 1. INTRODUCTION The water rights that are the subject of the Application are intended to serve the development of 280 acres of land located in Garfield County, Colorado (the "Development"). A map and legal description of such property is attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively. Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al. Case No. 08C W 198 Page 2 Carbondale and the District are currently negotiating the terms of a pre -inclusion agreement under which the District would provide potable water for the Development, or a portion thereof. The maximum number of EQRs that could be developed on the Development is 1200, as defined in the policies of the District, including the irrigation of up to seven acres within the Development as established under the decrees in Case Nos. 01CW187 and 07CW164. BWCD provides augmentation water pursuant to the decrees in Case No. OICW I87 and 07CW164 through an Allotment Contract originally entered into with Sanders Ranch Holdings, LLC, which was assigned to River Bend. Carbondale has obtained from the BWCD the assignment of an amended water allotment contract that will provide sufficient augmentation water for this decree, and the decrees in Case Nos. 01CW188, 01CW189 and 07CW164. This amended allotment contract is referred to herein as the "Allotment Contract." In Case No. 01CW187, Water Division No. 5, River Bend obtained a decree for Change of Water Right and for Approval of Plan for Augmentation including Exchange. The decree in Case No. 01CW187 approves a water supply to provide potable water service through the District for up to 349.55 EQRs as defined in the then -existing policies of the District. Carbondale now owns the rights decreed to River Bend in that case. In Case No. 07CW164, Carbondale and District obtained a decree for Water Rights, for Approval of Plan for Augmentation and for Appropriative Right of Exchange. The decree in Case No. 07CW164 approves a water supply to provide potable water service either through the District or through Carbondale for an additional 850.45 EQRs as defined in the current policies of the District. Case Nos. 01CW187 and 07CW164 combine to provide water service for a total of 1.200 EQRs to the Development by Carbondale, the District and BWCD. Upon inclusion of the Development into the District. the Applicant will convey the water rights included in this Application, the decrees in Case Nos. 01CW187 and 07CW164 and will assign the appropriate portion of the Allotment Contract to the District pursuant to the above -referenced pre -inclusion agreement. If no pre -inclusion agreement is executed, Carbondale shall retain its interest in these water rights and shall supply water to the Development at the structures decreed within the Development (REC Roaring Fork Diversion and REC Well Field). The purpose of this decree is to change the water rights decreed in Case No. O1 C W 187 to add additional alternate points of diversion for the Basalt Conduit water right, to include the additional alternate points as augmented structures, and to increase the augmentation water supply to be consistent with current District policy. In this way, the decrees in Case Nos. 01CW187 and 07CW164 will be consistent. II. FINDINGS i Name, address and telephone number of Applicants Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al. Case No. 08C W 198 Page 3 A. Carbondale Investments, LLC 2801 Turtle Creek Blvd., Apt. 6E Dallas, TX 75219 and c/o Rockwood Shepard Carbondale Investments LLC 243 Crescent Lane Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. 970-456-5325 B. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District P.O. Box 1002 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 970-945-2144 C. Basalt Water Conservancy District P.O. Box 974 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 970-945-6777 2. History of Case: The Application in this case was properly verified and filed with the Water Clerk, Water Division No. 5 on December 31, 2008. On October 20, 2009, the Division Engineer submitted a written Summary of Consultation in accordance with C.R.S. §37- 92-302(4) with respect to the Application, which the Referee has considered. On May 26, 2010, the Court ordered Carbondale substituted for River Bend as the Applicant in this case and the caption amended accordingly. 3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Timely and adequate notice of the Application was given in the manner required by law. See C.R.S. §37-92-302. Neither the land nor the water rights involved in the Application are located in a designated groundwater basin. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and over all persons who have standing to appear as parties, whether they have appeared or not, all notices required by law having been given and the Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Application. See C.R.S. §§37-92-203 and 37-92-302. 4. Opposition: No statements of opposition were filed in this case and the time for filing statements of opposition has expired. A. Additional Alternate Points of Diversion for Basalt Conduit 5. Decreed name of structures for which change is sought: Basalt Conduit Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al. Case No. 08C W 198 Page 4 A. From previous decrees (1) Date entered: June 20, 1958, as modified by Supplemental Decree dated August 3, 1959. (2) Case No.: Civil Action No. 4613. (3) Court: Garfield County District Court. B. Decreed point of diversion: The headgate and point of diversion is located on the left bank of the Frying Pan River at the head of the outlet tube for the Ruedi Reservoir whence the SW Corner of Section 7, T. 8 S., R. 84 W. of the 6ttf P.M. bears N. 79° 00' W at a distance of 2,017.1 feet, in Pitkin County. C. Source: Frying Pan River, tributary to the Roaring Fork River, tributary to the Colorado River. D. Appro_priation date: July 29, 1957. E. Amount: 450 c.f.s. F. Use: Generation of electric energy, domestic and municipal, stockwatering, piscatorial and industrial uses. G. Ilistoric Use: N/A 6. Proposed Change: A. The decree in Case No. 01CW187 changed 0.5 c.f.s. of the Basalt Conduit water right described above to the Aspen Glen Wells 1-7, the Coryell Ranch Wells 1-14 and the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion, as alternate points of diversion. Applicants propose to add the following as additional alternate points of diversion for the Applicants' interest in the Basalt Conduit water right as described in the decree in Case No. 01CW187. All references in the decree in Case No. 01CW187 to alternate points of diversion shall also include the following: (I) Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork .Diversion River Edge Enlargement, decreed in Case No. 07CW164, with a point of diversion on the West bank of the Roaring Fork River in the NEI/4 NEI /4, Section 29, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 6'h P.M., at a point whence the NE comer of said Section 29 bears North 53°18' East, a distance of 1,357.4 feet. The point of diversion can also be described as being 846 feet from the North Section line and 1,068 feet from the East Section line of said Section 29. (2) REC Well Field, decreed in Case No. 07CW164, and which consists of that portion of the Carbondale property, excluding the Conservation Easement area granted to the Roaring Fork Conservancy, located in the W. 1/2 of S. 7, T. 7 S., R. 88 W. of the Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al. Case No. 08C W 198 Page 5 Sixth P.M., the E. 1/2 of S. 12, T. 7 S., R. 89 W. of the Sixth P.M., and the SE. 1/4 of S. 1, T. 7 S., R. 89 W. of the Sixth P.M. The legal description of the Carbondale property is attached as Exhibit B. The Applicant may develop up to ten wells within the REC Well Field, as shown on Exhibit C, and each of these wells is claimed as an alternate point of diversion with its source being groundwater tributary to the Roaring Fork River. (3) REC Roaring Fork Diversion, decreed in Case No. 07CW 164, with a point of diversion on the East bank of the Roaring Fork River in S.18, T.7S., R.88W., 6th P.M., 1,206 feet from the North section line and 434 feet from the West section line of said Section 18, as shown on Exhibit C, and with its source from the Roaring Fork River. (4) Robertson Ditch, decreed in Case No. 00CW019, with a point of diversion located on the Westerly bank of the Roaring Fork River at a point whence the SE corner of S. 12, T. 7 S., R. 89 W., Sixth P.M. Bears N. 27°56' W. 2,788.14 feet. This structure can also be described as a point within the NW. 1/4 of the SE. 1/4, S. 18, T. 7 S., R. 88 W., 6'h P.M. 1,509 Ft. from the South line and 1123 Ft. from the West line of said Section 18, as shown on Exhibit C, with its source from the Roaring Fork River. (5) Posy Pump and Pipeline, decreed in Case No. 00CW019, with a point of diversion located in Government Lot 17 of Section 1, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M. at a point whence the Northwest Corner of said Section 1 bears North 57°02'42" West a distance of 3799.13 feet. This structure can also be described as a point within NW. '/4 of the SE. 1/4, S. 1, T. 7 S. , R. 89 W. of the 6`h P.M. 2300 Ft. from the South line and 2290 Ft. from the East line of said Section 1, as shown on Exhibit C, with its source from the Roaring Fork River. B. Name and address of owners of land on which structures are located: The District has contractual or easement rights to the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement, the Robertson Ditch and Posy Pump and Pipeline. The REC Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion are located on land owned by Carbondale. B. Changes to Plan for Augmentation 7. Amendments to Plan for Augmentation: Applicants request to amend the Plan for Augmentation decreed in Case No. 01CW187 to include additional structures to be augmented pursuant to that decree and to increase the assumed water use and related augmentation requirements. A. Names of structures to be augmented: Applicants propose to amend paragraph 8 of the decree in Case No. 01CW187 to include the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement, REC Well Field, REC Roaring Fork Diversion, Robertson Ditch, and Posy Pump and Pipeline, described above, as structures to be augmented. B. Water rights used for augmentation: Applicants propose to amend paragraph 9 of the decree in Case No. 01 CW 187 to include an additional 1.03 acre feet of Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al. Case No. 08C W 198 Page 6 Carbondale's interest in its Allotment Contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District, which provides augmentation water from Ruedi Reservoir, Green Mountain Reservoir, and/or the Troy Ditch and Edith Ditch Water Rights as those rights are described in that decree. C. Statement of Plan for Augmentation: (1) Applicants propose to amend paragraph 9.D(1) of the decree in Case No. 01CW187 to reflect the current EQR calculation policies of the District. This change reflects an increase in assumed water use, which is more conservative and therefore more protective of other water rights. (2) Applicants propose to amend paragraph 9.D(4) of the decree in Case No. 01CW187 to reflect the increase in the amount of estimated augmentation water requirements based upon the increase in the assumed water use. (3) Applicants propose to amend Exhibit E to the decree in Case No. 01CW187, and to amend paragraph 18 of the decree in Case No. Ol C W 187 to reflect an estimated augmentation requirement of 12.95 a.f. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 8. The Water Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and over all persons or entities affected hereby, whether they have appeared or not. See C.R.S. §§ 37-92-203 and 37-92-302. 9. Timely and adequate notice of the Application was given in the manner provided by statute. See C.R.S. § 37-92-302(2). 10. The Application filed herein is in accordance with the law and should be granted subject to the terms and conditions of this decree. See C.R.S. §§ 37-92-302 and 37-92-305. No injury to other water rights will occur as a result of the exercise of the requested change of water rights or plan for augmentation and exchange in accordance with the terms and conditions of this decree. See C.R.S. § 37-92-305(3). Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al. Case No. 08CW198 Page 7 IV. RULING OF THE REFEREE AND DECREE OF THE COURT The foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law are incorporated in this decree by this reference, and the Application is hereby granted, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this decree. 1. The change of water right and amendment of the decree in Case No. 01CW187 as decreed herein will not affect in any material way the operation of said water right and plan for augmentation, and therefore will not injuriously affect the owner of or persons entitled to use water under a vested water right or a decreed conditional water right. 12. The requested change in point of diversion for the Basalt Conduit water right, as described in Section 11.A., is approved. The decree in Case No. 01CW187 is hereby amended to add the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement, REC Well Field, REC Roaring Fork Diversion, Robertson Ditch and Posy Pump and Pipeline, as described in Section II.A., as additional alternate points of diversion for the Basalt Conduit. All references in the decree in Case No. 01CW187 to alternate points of diversion shall also include the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement, REC Well Field, REC Roaring Fork Diversion, Robertson Ditch and Posy Pump and Pipeline as described in Section ILA. If the District supplies water to the Development, it shall have the right to use all of the foregoing alternate points of diversion. If Carbondale supplies its own water, it is entitled to use only the REC Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion as alternate points of diversion, and the District structures shall not constitute alternate points for those REC structures. 13. The requested amendment to the Plan for Augmentation decreed in Case No. 01CW187, as described in Section 1I.B., is approved. The Plan for Augmentation decreed in Case No. 0I C W 187 is hereby amended in the following respects. A. Paragraph 8 of the decree in Case No. 01CW187 is hereby amended to include the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement, REC Well Field, REC Roaring Fork Diversion. Robertson Ditch, and Posy Pump and Pipeline, described above, as structures to be augmented. If Carbondale supplies its own water, it is entitled to use only the REC Well Field and REC Roaring Fork Diversion as alternate points of diversion, and the District structures shall not constitute alternate points for those RFC structures. B. Paragraph 9 of the decree in Case No, 01CW187 is hereby amended to read as follows: Pursuant to the Allotment Contract, Carbondale is entitled to use up to 74.9 acre feet, total, of augmentation water from any of the three sources described below (Ruedi Reservoir, Green Mountain Reservoir and the Troy and Edith Ditches). An estimated amount of 12.95 acre-feet of the 74.9 acre-foot Allotment Contract water will be Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al. Case No. 08C W 198 Page 8 dedicated to augmentation of out of priority depletions pursuant to this decree from the Aspen Glen, Coryell Ranch Wells, Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion River Edge Enlargement, REC Roaring Fork Diversion, REC Well Field, Robertson Ditch, and Posy Pump and Pipeline. Another portion of the 74.9 acre feet of water available under the Allotment Contract will be dedicated to augmentation of out -of -priority depletions pursuant to the decree in Case No. 07CW164. A final portion of the 74.9 acre feet of water available under the Allotment Contract will be dedicated to augmentation of evaporation losses from Bair Chase Lakes Nos. 1-5 pursuant to two separate decrees in Case Nos. 01 C W 188 and 0 I C W 189. The total quantity of water allocated under all of these decrees is 71.42 acre-feet, leaving a surplus of 3.48 acre-feet available under the Allotment Contract to be used for additional transit losses or other augmentation purposes under these decrees. The quantity of augmentation water allocated under each of these decrees is summarized below. Quantity of Augmentation Water Allocated Under the Allotment Contract Decree Quantity of Water Allocated (AF) Case No. 07CW164 25.17 Case No. 0 I C W I 87, as amended by Case No. 08C W 198 12.95 Case No. 01 C W 188 6.5 Case No. 01 C W 189 26.8 TOTAL 71.42 C. Paragraph 9.D(1) of the decree in Case No. 01 C W 187 is hereby amended to reflect the following EQR and depletion assumptions: Gallons per day per residential EQR 350 Gallons per day per commercial EQR 350 Irrigated area, potable (sq. ft.) I30,680 (3 ac.) % irrigation efficiency 80 CU for domestic/commercial 5 Irrigation CU (af/ac) 1.83 D. Paragraph 9.D(4) of the decree in Case No. 01CW 187 is hereby amended to reflect the increase in the amount of estimated augmentation water requirements based upon the increase in the assumed water use, to read as follows: Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al. Case No. 08C W 198 Page 9 The domestic and municipal water requirements for the Development and the estimated augmentation requirements are described in the table attached as Exhibit E. The estimated amount of augmentation water required amounts to 12.95 acre feet per year, based on the projections described in Exhibit E, including a 5% transit loss for water released from Ruedi and Green Mountain Reservoirs. Estimated project monthly depletions and augmentation requirements (including 5% transit Toss) are set forth below. Estimated Monthly Augmentation Requirements 349.55 EQRs Month Augmentation Requirement January 0.61 February 0.55 March 0.61 April 0.66 May 1.72 June 2.05 July 1.97 August 1.47 September 1.33 October 0.77 November 0.59 December 0.61 E. Paragraph 18 of the decree in Case No. 01 C W 187 is hereby amended to reflect an estimated augmentation requirement of 12.95 a.f. F. Exhibit E to the decree in Case No. 01CW187 is hereby amended to read as follows: EXHIBIT E CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC WATER REQUIREMENTS (For 349.55 EQRs and 3 Acres of Landscape Irrigation) (All Values in Acre -Feet) Month Demand Consumptive Use I 2 3 4 5 6 7 In- House Irrigation Total In- House Irrigation Total Augmentation Requirement January 11.64 0.00 11.64 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.61 February 10.51 0.00 10.51 0.53 0.00 0.53 0.55 March 11.64 i 0.00 11.64 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.61 April 1 1.26 0.09 11.35 0.56 0.07 0.63 0.66 May 11.64 1.31 12.95 0.58 1.05 1.63 1.72 June 11.26 1.74 13.00 0.56 1.39 1.95 2.05 Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al. Case No. 08C W 198 Page I0 July 11.64 1.62 13.26 0.58 1.30 1.88 1.97 August 11.64 1.02 12.66 0.58 0.82 1.40 1.47 September 11.26 0.87 12.14 0.56 0.70 1.26 1.33 October 11.64 0.19 11.83 0.58 0.15 0.74 0.77 November 11.26 0.00 11.26 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.59 December 11.64 0.00 11.64 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.61 TOTALS 137.05 6.85 143.90 6.85 5.48 12.33 12.95 (1) In-house water demand in acre-feet based on 349.55 EQRs at 350 gallons per day per EQR (2) Irrigation demand in acre-feet for 130,680 sq. ft. of irrigated area based on 80% application efficiency, Col 5 - efficiency. (3) CoI 1 + Col 2 (4) In-house consumptive use based on 5% consumptive use through at a central wastewater treatment plant (5) Irrigation consumptive use 1.83 acre-feet per acre based on a modified Blaney Criddle analysis (6) Col 4 + CoI 5 (7) Augmentation requirement includes 5% allowance for transit loss 14. Except as specifically changed and amended herein, the decree in Case No. 01CW187 shall remain in full force and effect. The terms and conditions of this decree and the decree in Case No. 01CW187 are adequate to assure that no material injury to any water rights will result from the exercise of the water rights or the plan for augmentation set forth herein. All of the terms and conditions relating to the use of the Applicants' interest in the 0.5 c.f.s. of the Basalt Conduit water right set forth in the decree in Case No. 01CW187 shall apply to the use of such water right at the new alternate points of diversion set forth above. 15. The Applicants shall give adequate notice to the Division Engineer prior to operating the exchange decreed in Case No. 01 C W 187. 16. The plan for augmentation approved herein is sufficient to permit the continuation of diversions when curtailment would otherwise be required to meet a valid senior call for water, to the extent that the Applicants shall provide replacement water necessary to meet the lawful requirements of a senior divcrter at the time and location and to the extent the senior would be deprived of his or her lawful entitlement by the Applicants' diversion. Attachment A Ruling and Decree of Carbondale Investments, LLC, et al. Case No. 08CW198 Page 11 17. Before the plan for augmentation in Case No. 01 C W 187 becomes operational, the well subject to Permit No. 23054-A shall be plugged and abandoned. 18. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-92-304(6), the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the change of water rights and plan for augmentation decreed herein regarding the question of injury to vested water rights or decreed conditional water rights of others, for a period of five years after the Applicants provide written notice to the Division Engineer and the Court that the augmentation plan has become operational. The augmentation plan shall be deemed operational hereunder at the time of build -out of the initial phase of the Development (375 EQRs or such lesser amount that is approved by Garfield County for development of the initial phase) and first use of the augmentation supply. Such notice must confirm that the decreed augmenting sources are in place, that the terms and conditions necessary to operate the plan as required by this decree have been met, and that the augmented uses and augmentation have been initiated. Dated: 3I) co1I Hon Water Referee* Water Division No. 5 UAmeel 1.1W It Papki THE COURT DOTH FIND THAT NO PROTEST WAS FILED I I'HIS M TTER. THE FOREGOING RULING IS CONFIRMED AND APPROVED, AND IS HEREBY MADE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THIS COURT. Dated: Hon. James B. Boyd Water Judge Water Division No. 5 Attachment A CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC PROPERTY BOUNDARY RESOURCE CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC ENGINEERING,INC 909 Colorado Avenue Atta6BlanwabdSprings, CO 81601 (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile EXHIBIT A PROPERTY LOCATION MAP Date: 09/08/2010 File: 660-7.4 Drawn by: RP/RKM Approved by: MJE EXHIBIlT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A A TRACT OF LAND STRIATE IN LOTS 4, 9, 7.8 AND 0 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OP THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND IPI LOT 31 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO LYING WEST OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY No. 82 AND LYING EAST OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LSE FOR THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD (DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD) ASPEN BRANCH, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE WITNESS CORNER TO THE SOLTI1I 314 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, WHENCE A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 BEARS S 89 DEGREES 29'47' E A DISTANCE OF 2871.90 FEET, WITH ALL BEARINGS CON TA1NED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE THEREIN): THENCE N 27 DEGREES 39'24" E A DISTANCE OF 1134.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR TIIE SQU HERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAQ.ROAD ASPEN BRANCH AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT DESCRIBED HERE[: THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING 2 COURSES; 1) 79.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OP A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WFS'Y, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2915.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS N 18 DEGREES 51'48 W A DISTANCE OF 79.82 FEET; 2) N 19 DEGREES 38126 W A DISTANCE OF 3826,47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 31 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH. RANGE 89 WEST: T: THENCE S 89 DEGREES 43130" Ti ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 31 A DISTANCE OF 100.90 FEET TO THE NORTUEiAST CORNER OF SAID IDT 31; THENCES 00 DEGREES 10'09" W ALONG THE EAST INE OF SAID LOT 31 A DISTANCE OF 64.03 FEET TO '17E NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7 OF SECTION 7. TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST; THENCE S 90 DEGREES 00'40' E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OP SAID LOT 7 A DISTANCE OF 673.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY FOR COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING 9 COURSES; 1) S 35 DEGREES 14'00" E A DISTANCE OF 129.88 FEET: 2) 250.29 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST. [LAVING A RADIUS OF 1640.00 P'ET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS S 28 DEGREES 19'00' E A DISTANCE OF 250.10 FEET; 3) S 11 DEGREES 08'00" E A DISTANCE OF 97.90 PEET: 4) 348.52 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST. HAVING A RADIUS OF 1820.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS S 15 DEGREES 50'00" E A DISTANCE OF 318.00 FEEL 5) S 08 DEGREES 52'00" E A DISTANCE OF 313.00 FEET; S 06 DEGREES 01'00' E A DISTANCE OF 700.90 FEET: 7) S 00 DEGREES 18'30' EA DISTANCE OF 201.00 FEET; 11) S 008 DEGREES 53100' E A DISTANCE OF 200.30 FEET; 9) 3 06 DEGREES 01'00" E A DISTANCE OF 1487,80 EST; • THENCE LEAVING SAID 'WESTERLY AIGITt OF WAY LINE 5.98 DEGREES 0010' W A DISTANCE OF 73.94 FEET TO TELE POINT OF BEGINNING. Attachment A Owr Order No: GW250592-4 LEGAL N EXCEPTING FROM THE ABOVE PARCEL: THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED 1N DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 2. 1999 IN BOOR 1142 AT PAGE - 961 AND IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 24. 2901 IN BOOK 1228 AT PAGE 600. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL B: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 8.7 AND 9 OF SECTION 18, LATS 3, 4, 7, 8 AND 9 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH. RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND IN LOTS 1, 9, 10. 11, 17, 18 AND 25 OF SECTION 12. LOT 31 OF SECTION I, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF 711E SIXTH PRDNCEPAL MERIDIAN. GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING WEST OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD (DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD) ASPEN BRANCH AND LYING NORTH AND EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: - COMMENCING AT A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE WITNESS CORNER TO THE SOUTH 114 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, WHENCE A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER FOR SAID SECTION 7 BEARS S 89 DEGREES 29'47' E A DISTANCE OF 2671.80 FEET, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HER.BIN BEING RELATIVE TEELRETO; THENCE S 89 DEGREES 29'47' E ALONG THE SOUTH LANE OF SAID SECTION 7 A DISTANCE OF 828.06 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD (ASPEN BRANCH) AND TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE TRACT DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING 4 COURSES: 1) S 09 DEGREES 35'10" E A DISTANCE OF 1545,87 FEET; 2) 626.05 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1482.50 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS S 21 DEGREES 41'02' E A DISTANCE OF 521.41 FEET; 3)S 33 DEGREES 46'54' E A DISTANCE OF 387.28 FEET; 4) 294.32 FEET `ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST. HAVING A RADIUS OF 2815.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS S 30 DEGREES 4?'11' E ADISTANCE OF 294.19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SECTION 18. TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, - RANGE 88 WEST; THENCE N 89 DEGREES 53'16" W A DISTANCE OF 407.83 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER; - THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ROARING FORK RIVER THE FOLLOWING 15 COURSES: 1)N47DEGREES 15'14' 2) N 57 DEGREES 54'58` 3) N 83 DEGREES 52'39" 4) N 55 DEGREES 41'54' S) N 35 DEGREES 45'21" 6) N 34 DECREES 06'17` 7) N 13 DEGREES 37107" 8) N 44 DEGREES'39'33" 9) N 51 DEGREES 46'41' W A DISTANCE OF 122.26 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 449. 02 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 3E8.20 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 196.47 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 225.15 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 318.15 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 255.65 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 175.65 FEET; W A DISTANCE OF 662.76 FEET Attachme TA 19Atfi�El 4 i`- TiRnargi Our Order Ne: GW250592-4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 10) N 30 DEGREES 48'54' W A DISTANCE OF 163.28 FEEL; 11) N 17 DEGREES 48'37' W A DISTANCE OF 173.22 FEET; 12) N Z9 DEGREES 26'35" W A DISTANCE OF 153.19 FEET; 13) N 19 DEGREES 3I'W W A DISTANCE OF 246.38 FEET; 14) N 29 DEGREES 13'18' W A DISTANCE OF 6I5.00 FEET; 15) N 24 DEGREES 10'18' W A DISTANCE OF 142.52 FEET TO A PODVT ON THE WEST LINE OF LOT 18 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST; THENCE N 00 DEGREES 04'33` W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 18 A DISTANCE OF 323.83 FEET TO THE NOBTTIWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 18; THENCE N 08 DEGREES 21'38' W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF 1.07 17 OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 553.42 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17: THENCE N 03 DEGREES 09,52' E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 110F SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 741.05 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 11; THENCE N 00 DEGREES 24'17' W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 10 OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 1423.80 mer TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10: THENCE N 88 DEGREES 35'38" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT I OF SAID SECTION 12 AND EXISTING FENCE A DISTANCE OF 86.41 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE N 02 DEGREES 15'08" E ALONG THE WEST UNE OF SAID LOT 1 AND EXISTING FENCE A DISTANCE of 482.03 FEET. TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1: THENCE N 02 DEGREES 15'08` E ALONG THE WEST UNE OF LOT 31 OF SECTION 1. TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST AND EXISTING FENCE A DISTANCE OF 75.91 FIOT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THS WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 31 AND EXISTING FENCE N 02 DEGREES 00'23' E A DISTANCE OF 590.77 PEST TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 31; THENCE S 89 DEGREES 4310' E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 91 AND EXISTING FENCE A DISTANCE OF 683.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE OF SAID SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD (ASPEN BRANCH; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING 3 COURSES: 1) S 19 DEG 38'52' E A DISTANCE OF 3885.72 FEET: 2) 494.33 FEET ALONG TETE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST. HAVING A RADIUS OF 2815.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS S 14 DEGREES 37'01" E A DISTANCE OF 493.70 FEET; 3) S 09 DEGREES 35'10" E A DISTANCE OF 582.43 FET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER W1111 ALL THAT PROPERTY OF PARCEL B (WHICH PARCEL B IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED IN BOOR 511 AT PAGE 103 AS RECEPTION NO. 288181 OF 151E GARFIELD COUNTY. COLORADO. RECORDS) LYING AND BEING ABOVE AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE CLENWOOD DITCIT AS NOW EXISTING AND IN FLAG& PARCEL C: A T AC"I' OF LAND SITUATE IN LOT 4 OF SECTION 7. TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH. RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 8111 PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING WEST OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82 AND LYING EAST OF ME EASTERLY MIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD) ASPEN BRANCH, BEING MORE Attachment A 'i t+U1114U! 1711111 11.11111.1..1 Orr Order No: GW250592-4 LEGAL. DESCRIPTION PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE WITNESS CORNER TO THE SOUTH 114 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, WHENCE A FOUND GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR BRASS CAP IN PLACE FOR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 BEARS S 89 DEGREES 2844r E A DISTANCE OF 2871.90 FEET, WITH ALL . BEARINGS CONTAR ED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE N 33 DEGREES 27'23' E A DISTANCE OF 1032.41 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR TIM SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD ASPEN BRANCH AND TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT DESCRIBED IIS: THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE N 90 DEGREES 00'00' E A DISTANCE OF 40.74 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82; THENCE S 06 DEGREES 01'00' E ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 202.70 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONGSAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE S 04 DEGREES 34'54' E A DISTANCE OF 280.70 FEET TO -A POINT INTERSECTING THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY RAILROAD ASPEN BRANCH; THENCE N 09 DEGREBS'35'I0" W ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 188.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2915.00 FEW: THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND ARC OF SAID CURVE 282.80 FEET. THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 12 DEGREES 21'48" W A DISTANCE OF 292.49 FEET TO TIM PONT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL D: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 7. TOWNSk1P 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE B7'H PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. SAID TRACT OF LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: • COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF SECTION 1, T7S, R 89 W OF THE 8TH P.M. (WTTTI ALL BEARING CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE TO A BEARING OF N 00 DEGREES 10' 09' E BETWEEN THE SE CORNER AND THE E 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1); THENCE N 00 DEGREES 10' OS" E ALONG SAID SECTION LINE 827.10 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THAT PROPERTY SURVEY RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 305 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY INDEX FOR INFORMATIONAL LAND SURVEY PLATS, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SECTION INE N 00 DEGREES 10' 09' E 84.03 FEET TO A POINT IN AN EXISTING FENCE LINE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION LINE S 88 DEGREES 38' 14' E ALONG AN EXISTING FENCE LINE 292.82 FEET;. THENCE CONTINUING ALONG AN EXISTING FENCE LINE S 86 DEGREES 47' 11" E I18.34 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID FENCE INE 530 DEGREES 31' 43" E 64.28 FRET TO A POINT ON SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY; THENCE LEAVING SAID EXISTING FENCE LINE N 90 DEGREES 00' 00' W ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY 443.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF GARFIBLD,STATE OF COLORADO Attachment A CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC PROPERTY BOUNDARY ROARING FORK WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT WWTP OUTFALL CORYELL RANCH ROARING FORK DIVERSION CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC CASE NO.08CW198 EXHIBIT C WATER RIGHTS LOCATION MAP Date: 2/11/2011 File: 660-7.4 Drawn by: RKM by: MJE RESOURCE E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C 909 Colorado Avenue GR�twcbmi inr*k, CO 81601Approved (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS LLC Ln cri ENTER Number of developed EQRs ENTER Water Year Attachment A n A Augmentation River Call Release BWCD Contract Augmentation Release /kD\a �u=.S0 1112; » m ¢ m Net Stream Depletion Return Flow In -House Lagged Total Irrigation Return Return Return Flow Flow Flow mi COI NI Consumptive Use In -House Lawn and Total Garden coi/ _ oli « cli * Diversions Ground Water I Surface Water %E$ /2 e REC Roaring Fork Diversion REC Well Field Lagged Stream Diversions Diversions Coryell Ranch Wells Diversions Aspen Glen Wells Diversions ) )I Jan Feb Mar Apr ƒ] Jul Aug Sep Oct Total o \ ) i it [ / 2il _2 e /� 7 N ] /f/ §{\))\( ( o 2 {ƒ /) t42EJ) _ ) 0o- 0 \�(§ i J7 .8.- =2 \ ;»[ - - i \ \§ (\§f )) i z& °})E { �� 0` {){) )/ - k n�o) ® 72 -9- r2 ®«0w2!`={;§f/.)g-=;=Eli)gg !!!!!!!'!12:3!!!:: 00 GC»2,,z00-0;,== Response to Staff Comments River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado ATTACHMENT B: REVISED PUD GUIDE AND PLAN w*.trEn• COLORADO PUD DEVELOPMENT GUIDE RIVER EDGE COLORADO GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO OWNER/APPLICANT: CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC 7999 HWY 82 CARBONDALE CO 8 1 6 2 3 970-456-5325 CONSULTANT: 8140 PARTNERS, LLC PO BOX 0426 EAGLE, CO 81631 AUGUST 5, 2011 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado PUD DEVELOPMENT GUIDE RIVER EDGE COLORADO GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE AND INTENT 4 A. PURPOSE 4 B. INTENT 4 C. RELATED CONTROLS 4 D. NOTICE TO BUYERS 5 E. AUTHORITY AND APPROVALS 5 11. ADMINISTRATION 5 A. INTERPRETATION 5 B. RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER REGULATIONS 6 1. LAND USE AND OTHER COUNTY REGULATIONS 6 2. BUILDING PERMITS 6 C. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FILINGS/AMENDMENTS 6 1. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION FILINGS (FINAL PLATS) 6 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED PUD 6 D. ENFORCEMENT 9 E. SEVERABILITY 9 111. ZONING DESIGNATIONS 9 A. ZONING CATEGORIES AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS 10 1. RESIDENTIAL USE ZONING CATEGORY 10 2. COMMUNITY SPACE CATEGORY 10 3. RIGHT-OF-WAY (TRACTS) ZONING CATEGORY AND ZONING DISTRICT 11 4. UTILITY (TRACTS) 11 IV. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 11 A. ALLOWED USES 11 B. DIMENSIONAL AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 11 1. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS 11 2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 12 3. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS 18 2 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 4. STORMWATER 19 C. SPECIFIC USE, FACILITY AND ACTIVITY STANDARDS 19 1. ACCESSORY USES 19 2. ANIMAL RESTRICTION 19 3. DAY CARE AND GROUP HOMES 19 4. RETAINING WALLS 20 5. VEHICLE AND EXTERIOR STORAGE 20 6. ROAD AND TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS 20 7. SIGNAGE 20 8. FIREPLACES 22 9. NOISE 22 10. UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS UNDERGROUND .22 11. UTILITY FACILITIES 22 12. TRASH STORAGE AND PICK-UP 23 13. HOME OCCUPATIONS 23 14. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PLANS, USES AND STANDARDS 24 V. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES 26 A. GEOHAZARD AREAS 27 B. SLOPE INSTABILITY AREA 27 C. HERON PROTECTION AREA 27 D. HERON ACTIVITY AREA 27 E. 20 FOOT CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACCESS CONTROL AREA 28 F. FLOODPLAINS 28 G. WETLANDS 28 VI. DEFINITIONS 28 A. WORD CONVENTIONS 28 B. DEFINITIONS 29 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: ZONING, USE, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS TABLES APPENDIX B: ROAD STANDARDS 3 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado I. PURPOSE AND INTENT A. PURPOSE The purpose of this River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development Guide ("PUD Guide") is to establish development standards, supplemental regulations, and guidelines for the development of land within the River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development (the "REC PUD", "PUD" or "Project"). This PUD Guide was approved by the Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC"), Garfield County, Colorado on , 2011 pursuant to Resolution No. 2011-_ The provisions of this PUD Guide constitute the zone district regulations for the REC PUD and define, without limitation, the permitted use of land and limitations or restrictions on the use of real property. All development within the PUD shall be administered by Garfield County, River Edge Colorado Property Owners' Association, Inc. ("POA") and any other appropriate authorities having jurisdiction in accordance with this PUD Guide. This PUD Guide is supported by the River Edge Colorado PUD Plan (the "PUD Plan") which is recorded with Reception No. in the official records of Garfield County. The PUD Plan illustrates the general distribution of land uses, unit types and counts, and development framework within the PUD. B. INTENT This PUD Guide and the PUD Plan intend to ensure that the REC PUD is developed as a comprehensive planned community that will encompass such beneficial features as providing a balance of residential, community and recreational uses; preserving significant and important open space; enhancing safety; providing necessary infrastructure; creating aesthetically pleasing man-made and natural features; and promoting high standards of development quality through stringent planning and development controls. The REC PUD is intended to establish a comfortable "clustered" form of residential environment reflected in the proposed planning standards and development styles, and to produce an environment which manages automobiles and maintains a scale and set of linkages that promote pedestrian travel and human interaction in community spaces within the PUD. The mixture of housing types is designed to meet the range of housing needs of current and future Garfield County residents. The REC PUD authorizes a maximum of 366 dwelling units and up to 30,000 square feet of community buildings including utility and maintenance facilities. C. RELATED CONTROLS It is acknowledged that the REC PUD is also governed by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for River Edge Colorado (the "CCRS") recorded with Reception No. in the official records of Garfield County, as they may be amended from time to time by the POA; and the River Edge Colorado Design Guidelines (the "Design Guidelines") administered by the Architectural Control Board of the POA (the "ACB"). The ACB shall review and approve any development applications prior to County review of such applications except as may otherwise be provided in the CCRS or Design Guidelines. The REC PUD is further governed by the REC PUD 4 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Development Agreement approved by the BoCC on , 201_ pursuant to Resolution No. 201 - and the conditions and considerations contained within said Resolution and all other associated documents made a part of said resolution. The CCRS, Design Guidelines, Development Agreement, Resolution No. 201 - and all other documents made a part of said resolution and all subsequently filed Final Plats and resolutions approving said Final Plats are collectively referred to herein as the "Project Documents". D. NOTICE TO BUYERS Buyers of lots or parcels within the boundaries of the REC PUD should be aware that requirements more restrictive than those contained in this PUD Guide may be imposed as a result of other Project Documents such as the CCRS or Final Plats that are recorded separately, concurrently or subsequently to this PUD Guide. The most current Project Documents should be consulted prior to formalizing development plans for construction within the PUD or instituting a use on any lot or tract. E. AUTHORITY AND APPROVALS This PUD Guide and associated PUD Plan were approved under the authority provided by Article VI of the ULUR. The authority for Article VI of the ULUR is provided for by the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972 [Title 24, Article 67, Colorado Revised Statute ("C.R.S."), as amended]. The adoption of this PUD Guide and associated PUD Plan shall evidence the findings and decision of the BoCC that this PUD Guide and associated PUD Plan are in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 and all applicable requirements of the ULUR, and that this PUD complies with the provisions of Planned Unit Development Act of 1972. Approval and filing of this PUD Guide, PUD Plan, and Project Documents for recording in the Office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder shall create a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24 C.R.S., as amended, in accordance with Article I, Division 2 of the ULUR and Development Agreement. Such right shall vest upon filing for recording, in the Office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder, the first approved Final Plat within the boundaries of the PUD. Said vested property right shall be defined as specifically provided for by the Development Agreement. II. ADMINISTRATION A. INTERPRETATION The provisions of this PUD Guide and associated PUD Plan relating to the use of land and development of property within the REC PUD shall be interpreted by the Director. 5 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado B. RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER REGULATIONS 1. LAND USE AND OTHER COUNTY REGULATIONS The PUD Guide is intended to address all land use and development standards of specific interest to Garfield County and to meet the intent of the regulatory standards contained in the ULUR which promote the Garfield Comprehensive Plan 2030 and the health, safety and general welfare of the public. This PUD Guide, PUD Plan and the Project Documents are intended to serve as the comprehensive regulatory framework for the REC PUD. Where the ULUR is not in specific conflict with a provision of this PUD Guide, PUD Plan and Project Documents the provisions of the ULUR shall also control. All other applicable County regulations such as building codes and environmental health regulations shall apply to activities within the REC PUD. 2. BUILDING PERMITS Building permits shall be obtained from Garfield County in accordance with County requirements for the construction of any buildings or structures within the REC PUD or any other actions subject to the Building Code requirements. Building plans for all buildings and structures constructed within the REC PUD shall conform to this PUD Guide, CCRS and the Design Guidelines. No building permit shall be issued within any area of the REC PUD for which a Final Plat has not been approved by the BoCC and recorded in the Office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder unless the proposed use requiring such building permit is otherwise specifically allowed for by this PUD Guide on unplatted land including pre -development site grading and reclamation and temporary uses. C. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FILINGS/AMENDMENTS 1. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION FILINGS (FINAL PLATS) The PUD Plan identifies the boundaries of six filings and five sub -filings in the REC PUD which filings were approved concurrent with the approval of this PUD Guide and the associated PUD Plan. Each phase of the REC PUD is required to submit specific subdivision plans (i.e., Final Plat application) to Garfield County for review and approval as detailed in the ULUR and herein which when approved by the BoCC shall be recorded and upon recording shall constitute a subdivision of land and shall define the official legal boundaries of all lots and tracts depicted on the PUD Plan. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED PUD It is anticipated that modifications or amendments to this PUD Guide and associated PUD Plan may be necessary from time to time as development of the PUD progresses. This PUD Guide provides for two types of modifications as defined herein: (1) Substantial Modification; and (2) Non -Substantial Modification. In the event there is a question regarding whether the 6 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado modification is a Substantial Modification or Non -Substantial Modification, the Director shall make the final determination subject to the right of appeal of such determination to the BoCC, or the Director may refer the question directly to BoCC. a) Substantial Modification (Major Changes) Substantial Modifications require approval of the BoCC. Any Substantial Modification shall following the procedural review and approval standards established by the ULUR including notification and hearing. The following criteria shall be used to identify a Substantial Modification: • Any increase in the total number of dwelling units or total building area allowed within the PUD; • Any addition of land to the PUD; • Any change in the zoning district designation of a lot or tract to a different zoning district classified in a different zoning category; • Major rearrangements of the boundaries of proposed filings, lots or tracts as determined by the Director and overall increases in development density, except as otherwise permitted herein; • Any removal or release of any land from the PUD; • A change that would alter an approved land use standard; • A change that would include a use not previously permitted; • A change that would require an amendment to the PUD conditions approved by the BoCC; or • Any other modification specifically identified as a Substantial Modification by this PUD Guide. No Substantial Modification, removal or release of the provisions of the PUD approval resolution or PUD Guide shall be permitted except upon a finding by the BoCC following a public hearing noticed and held in accordance with applicable provisions of the ULUR, that the modification, removal or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across the street from the PUD or the affected area within the PUD, or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Upon approval of a Substantial Modification, the PUD Guide and PUD Plan shall be amended accordingly. b) Non -substantial Modification (Minor Changes) Subject to the provisions set forth below, a Non -Substantial Modification in the PUD may be approved by the Director without requiring notice or public hearing, or an amendment to the PUD Guide except as necessary, provided that the changes are similar in nature and impact to the listed permitted uses and are consistent with the intent of boundaries of a given lot or tract. Non -Substantial Modifications shall include, without limitation, the following: • Additions of land uses not previously listed but determined to be similar to listed uses; • Minor rearrangements of the boundaries of lots or tracts that result from final design of infrastructure and platting; • Any other minor changes that have no effect on the conditions and representations otherwise approved as part of the PUD; • Any change in the zoning district designation of a lot or tract to a different zoning district classification in the same zoning category except a change to a tract designated in an Open Space Zoning District provided the lot or tract meets the minimum dimensional standards after any changes in lot or tract lines required by such change (Required lot or tract line changes shall be considered non -substantial if they conform to the requirements of the other provisions of this Section.); • Any change in the zoning district designation of a tract from a zoning district designation in the Utility Use Zoning Category to a zoning district designation in the Community Space Zoning Category except Neighborhood Center Zoning District provided the tract meets the minimum dimensional standards after any changes in tract lines required by such change (Required tract line changes shall be considered non -substantial if they conform to the requirements of the other provisions of this Section); or • Any lot or tract relocation at time of Final Plat to avoid geologic hazards determined to be substantive by a Geotechnical Engineer. Non -Substantial Modifications shall be authorized by the Director upon written request. The Director shall act upon any Non -Substantial 8 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Modification request within forty-five (45) days of such a request. If the Non -Substantial Modification meets any of the conditions above, the Director shall be compelled to issue an approval or, at applicant's request, shall refer the issue to BoCC for consideration. Where the Director finds that the application does not meet one of the conditions above, the Director may deny the modification or refer the application for modification to the BoCC. The applicant shall have the right to appeal any decision of the Director to the BoCC within 30 days of such decision. Within five (5) days of making a request for consideration of a Non -Substantial Modification to the Director, the applicant shall provide notice to all adjacent property owners located within 200 feet of the subject request. Notice shall be sent to the adjacent property owners by certified mail return receipt requested or in an equivalent manner so as to document receipt. The notice shall include a description of the location and nature of the request and shall provide adjacent property owners an opportunity to provide comment to the Director prior to the Director's decision. Documentation of that notice meeting these requirements shall be provided to the Director prior to the Director's action on any such request. D. ENFORCEMENT Garfield County shall have responsibility for interpreting and enforcing this PUD Guide, provided, however, POA and ACB shall have the independent right and responsibility to enforce the provisions of this PUD Guide as provided for by applicable law. E. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this PUD Guide, PUD Plan and Project Documents, or its application to any person, entity or circumstance, is specifically held to be invalid or unenforceable by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this PUD Guide PUD Plan and associated documents and the application of the provisions thereof to other persons, entities or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and, to that end, this PUD Guide, PUD Plan and Project Documents shall continue to be enforced to the greatest extent possible consistent with law and the public interest. Upon such a finding, this PUD Guide and associated documents shall be modified as necessary to maintain the original intent of the REC PUD. III. ZONING DESIGNATIONS All lots and tracts have been identified within a certain Zoning Category and Zoning District on the PUD Plan. The lot and tract zoning designation tables [Table 2A and 2B of the PUD Plan (Page 2 of 8) and Table 1 and 2 (Appendix A)] identify the Zoning Category and Zoning District designations of all lots and tracts within the REC PUD. The use and development of all lots and tracts shall be controlled by their designation. It is recognized that the lot and tract boundary lines depicted on the PUD Plan are approximate and based on preliminary engineering and are not field surveyed. As a result, lot and tract boundary lines may be changed from those depicted on the PUD Plan at the time of Final Plat. Such boundary line changes shall be considered a Non - 9 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Substantial Modification provided the boundaries are in general conformance with the intent of the PUD Plan and conform to the standards governing such changes provided for herein. A. ZONING CATEGORIES AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The lots and tracts within the REC PUD are designate into one of four Zoning Categories and one of several Zoning District designations within each Zoning Category. Zoning Categories represent broad use types and include Residential, Community Space, Right - of -Way, and Utility Use Categories. Zoning District designations represent more limited or restricted zoning classifications given to each lot or tract within the PUD. The Zoning District designation of each lot or tract provides more specific regulatory requirements under this PUD Guide. The following Zoning Categories and Zoning Districts are established by this PUD Guide. 1. RESIDENTIAL USE ZONING CATEGORY The Residential Use Zoning Category includes all Zoning District designation that provide for various forms of residential use within the REC PUD. The Residential Zoning Districts established by this PUD Guide include: • Attached Home (Lots) Residential Zoning District • Estate (Lots) Residential Zoning District • Executive (Lots) Residential Zoning District • Garden Home (Lots) Residential Zoning District • Town (Lots) Residential Zoning District • Village (Lots) Residential Zoning District 2. COMMUNITY SPACE CATEGORY The Community Spaces Zoning Category includes all Zoning District designations that provided for community activities and community outdoor spaces and amenities within the REC PUD. The Community Space Zoning Districts established by this PUD Guide include: • Common Area (Tracts) Zoning District • Garden/Orchard (Tracts) Zoning District • Neighborhood Center (Tracts) Zoning District • Open Space (Tracts) Zoning District • Park (Tracts) Zoning District 10 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 3. RIGHT-OF-WAY (TRACTS) ZONING CATEGORY AND ZONING DISTRICT The Right -of -Way (Tracts) Zoning Category and District provides for legal vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress to all lots and tracts within the Project and, in concert with utility and drainage easements, provide corridors for utilities to service the REC PUD. 4. UTILITY (TRACTS) The Utility (Tracts) Zoning Category includes all Zoning District designations created to provide for any required major utility facilities such as water treatment plants and maintenance facilities that might be necessary to serve the REC PUD. The Utility Zoning Districts established by this PUD Guide include: ■ Irrigation and Maintenance (Tracts) Zoning District ■ Water and Wastewater (Tracts) Zoning District IV. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. ALLOWED USES The Use Table [Table 3 (Appendix A)] establishes the uses allowed by right as principal or accessory use. Uses that are not specifically identified in the Use Table [Table 3 (Appendix A)] shall be considered to be uses that are not allowed, except that any use that is not specifically identified but is included within and consistent with the definition of any uses permitted by right, and similar to or compatible with other uses permitted by right within a Use Designation shall also be permitted as a use by right. In the event of any question as to the appropriate use type of any existing or proposed use or activity, the Director shall have the authority to determine the appropriate use type. In making such determination, the Director shall consider such characteristics or specific requirements of the use in common with those uses allowed by right. A determination of the Director may be appealed to the BoCC following the procedures established by the ULUR. B. DIMENSIONAL AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following dimensional and general development standards shall apply to all lands within the REC PUD. 1. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Table 4 (Appendix A) details the dimensional standards applicable to all zoning districts within the REC PUD. All development within the REC PUD shall conform to the dimensional standards specified herein. Development is further subject to additional building location and dimensional standards as provided for in the CCRS. Conformance with the dimensional standards herein contained does not 11 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado guarantee conformance with the CCRS.OnIy one principal use shall be located on a lot. However, there shall be no limit on the number of principal uses that may occur within any tract within the REC PUD provided said uses and structures conform to these dimensional, development and performance standards in this PUD Guide. When multiple uses by right are proposed on a tract within the REC PUD, implementing the use shall not require a Land Use Change Permit as defined by the ULUR and only require building permit review if a building is proposed to be constructed or the use of an existing building will be changed in accordance with Section 2-105 of the ULUR. 2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS All development within the REC PUD shall conform to the development standards specified herein. Development is further subject to additional development standards as provided for in the CCRS. Conformance with the development standards herein contained does not guarantee conformance with the CCRS. a) General Development Standards (1) Lighting All exterior lighting shall be full cutoff or cutoff design so the light source is not visible by adjacent property owners or lands upon any adjacent Community Space Tracts. Direct source lighting is not allowed (i.e., the actual light bulb is visible). See also specific standards by Zoning Category. (2) Fences Wood rail fences that conform to the Design Guidelines are allowed on rear/side lot lines of residential lots to provide delineation of private space. Fences in front yards are prohibited. Wood rail fences may also be permitted by the POA in Community Space Tracts to provide for protection of playgrounds and key or important features or to enhance safety. Fencing shall be placed in a manner that does not interfere with the ability of wildlife to cross roads and move between Open Space Tracts. Fencing along roads shall be prohibited unless necessary for safety. Fences shall not exceed 4 feet in height. (3) Drainage Positive drainage shall be maintained from all buildings. Lots shall be drained utilizing the designated drainage and utility easements. No lot owner shall take any action which aversely impacts the ability to utilize any drainage or utility easement located on their lot for its intended use. 12 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado (4) Foundation Drains Foundation drains shall be required for all foundations except foundations which are slab -on -grade. Foundation drains shall be daylighted at least 10 feet from the foundation wall or to a storm sewer unless otherwise provided for by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. Where a foundation drain must be connected to a storm sewer or extended onto a Community Use tract, written approval of the POA shall be required. (5) Landscaping and Reclamation Disturbed soils shall be landscaped as soon as practical upon completion of construction. BMPs shall be maintained until such time as landscaping is established and ensures the retention of soils during rainfall events. All landscaping and lot/tract reclamation shall conform to the landscaping and reclamation standards in the CCRS. (6) Hazard Mitigation All development shall conform to the Hazard Mitigation Plan filed with the Final Plat and any plat notes. b) Zoning Category/District Specific Development Standards All development shall conform to the following development standards. Where both zoning category and zoning district standards are provided, the zoning district standards shall control. (1) Residential Zoning Category (a) Driveways Driveways within the front yard shall be no wider than 10 feet. No driveway shall be allowed within the front yard on any lot which has access to an alley or internal access drive (i.e., Garden Home Lots). Driveway approaches shall meet the requirements in Appendix C and shall be surfaced in uncolored concrete. (b) Lighting No fixture shall be placed more than 10 feet above the surface it is intended to light. (c) Parking Areas A minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. The minimum dimensions for each off-street parking space are 9 feet by 18 feet. All off-street parking spaces shall be surfaced in asphalt or concrete. (2) Neighborhood Center Zoning District (a) Parking and Drives One off-street parking space shall be provided for every 400 square feet of indoor floor area. Minimum dimensions for 13 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado each off-street parking space are 9 feet by 20 feet. Parking accessibility including the ratio of required accessible parking spaces shall conform to "ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities" published by the U.S. Department of Justice. Paved surfaces shall be striped to demarcate the parking spaces. Parking areas, loading areas, aisles, and access drives shall have a durable, all weather surface made of materials that are suitable to the uses to which the parking area will be put. Appropriate parking surface materials may include, but are not limited to, asphalt, concrete, or paving blocks. Parking and drive surfaces shall be graded, with a minimum grade of 2% for asphalt, 1% for concrete, and 2% for paving blocks, or as otherwise determined by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. Driveway approaches shall meet the requirements in Appendix C and shall be surfaced in uncolored concrete. Two-way drives accessing the parking areas and building shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Turning radii of all drives servicing the buildings shall conform to Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District requirements which may include providing hard surface tracking aprons and mountable curbs as well as require the use of both travel lanes. Parking areas shall be landscaped in accordance with the Landscape Standards in CCRS. (b) Lighting Light sources shall not exceed 15 feet in height. (c) Site Plan Approval The site and landscape plan for the Neighborhood Center Tract shall be approved concurrently with the final plat which includes the Neighborhood Center Tract. Building permits shall be obtained as required. The site and landscape plan shall conform to this PUD Guide and Design Guidelines. (3) Utility Zoning Category (a) Parking and Drives One off-street parking space shall be provided for every 2000 square feet of indoor floor area. Minimum dimensions for each off-street parking space are 9 feet by 20 feet. Parking accessibility including the ratio of required accessible parking spaces shall conform to "ADA 14 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities" published by the U.S. Department of Justice. Paved surfaces shall be striped to demarcate the parking spaces. Off-street parking areas, loading areas, aisles, and access drives shall have a durable, all weather surface made of materials that are suitable to the uses to which the parking area will be put, and are compatible with the character of the proposed development and the surrounding land use. Appropriate parking surface materials may include, but are not limited to, asphalt, concrete, paving blocks, or "grass" pavers. Parking and drive surfaces shall be graded, with a minimum grade of 2% for asphalt, 1% for concrete, and 2% for paving blocks or "grass" pavers, or as otherwise determined by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. Driveway approaches shall meet the requirements in Appendix C and shall be surfaced in uncolored concrete. Drives access the parking areas and building shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Turning radii of all drives servicing the buildings shall conform to Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District requirements which may include providing hard surface tracking aprons and mountable curbs as well as require the use of both travel lanes. Parking areas shall be landscaped in accordance with the Landscape Standards in CCRS. (b) Lighting Light sources shall not exceed 15 feet in height. (c) Site Plan Approval The site and landscape plan for each Utility Tract shall be approved concurrently with the final plat which includes the tract within its boundaries if structures are planned as part of the subdivision improvements. Alternatively, the site and landscape plan for a Utility Tract may be approved in accordance with the site plan review process required under the ULUR if development of the tract is proposed subsequent to platting. Building permits shall be obtained as required. (4) Open Space Zoning District (a) Buildings Limited Buildings are limited to buildings associated with utility placements including the Glenwood Ditch. 15 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado (b) Roads Roads are limited to utility maintenance roads. Roads shall be designed as two -track roads or utilize "grass" pavers adequate to support the required apparatus. Roads shall be limited to the maximum extent practicable and landscaped to limit the road's visual impact. Roads may be designed where appropriate as soft trails. (c) Parking and Drives Parking shall be prohibited in Open Space Tracts except in association with utility and open space maintenance and construction. (d) Lighting Exterior lighting shall be prohibited in Open Space Tracts except as necessary to meet Federal and State regulatory standards in association with utility facilities. (e) Site Plans Approval Initial landscaping and recreational facility plans for each Open Space Tract shall be approved concurrently with the final plat containing the Open Space Tract. Landscaping shall meet all landscape requirements of this PUD Guide and applicable approvals. All recreational trails and other facilities shall be designed, constructed and placed in accordance with applicable approvals and the CCRS. (5) Common Area Zoning District (a) Buildings Limited Buildings are limited to buildings associated with utility placements including the Glenwood Ditch; small open-air recreational structures such as pavilions; and restrooms. (b) Roads Roads are limited to utility roads. Roads shall be designed as two track road or with "grass" pavers adequate to support the required apparatus, but shall be limited to the maximum extent practicable and landscaped to limit their visual impact. (c) Parking and Drives On -street parking is generally considered adequate to serve any potential Common Area Tract uses. No designated parking spaces shall be allowed. Parking required for utility facilities shall occur on maintenance roads. 16 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado (d) Lighting No exterior lighting shall be allowed except bollard trail head lighting provided for by the CCRS or security lighting determined to be necessary by the POA. Any lighting shall be full cutoff, cutoff, or semi -cutoff fixtures, as may be most appropriate for the intended purpose. Additionally lighting, as may be required to meet State or Federal regulatory standards in association with a utility facility, shall be allowed, but shall be applied in a manner that limits the amount lighting and light spill from the areas required to be lit to the maximum extent practicable. (e) Site Plan Approval The landscaping and facility plans of Common Area Tracts shall be approved concurrently with the final plat containing the Common Area Tract. Modifications to the design and landscaping consistent with this PUD Guide and the CCRS shall be permitted and may be undertaken by the POA or their assigns without County review and approval except as such may require a building permit. Landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the CCRS. All recreational trails and other facilities shall be designed, constructed and placed in accordance with CCRS. (6) Garden/Orchard Zoning District (a) General Development Standards Garden and Orchard Tracts shall meet the same development standards as Common Area Tracts. (7) (b) Wildlife Controls Seasonal wildlife proof fences shall be used to protect active garden and orchard areas from bears and other wildlife. Composting shall only occur in bear -proof containers. Right -of -Way Zoning District (a) General Development Standards Streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved Final Plat and the road standards herein contained (Appendix B). All Right -of -Way Tracts shall be maintained in a manner that facilitates access to lots and tracts within REC and provides for adequate emergency ingress and egress throughout the REC PUD in accordance with Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District requirements. Landscaping shall meet the requirements of the CCRS. 17 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado The landscaping plan for each Right -of -Way Tract shall be approved as a component of the Final Plat approval for each Right -of -Way Tract included within the particular final plat being reviewed. Building permits shall be obtained as required. (b) Lighting Standards Lighting shall meet the requirements of the Lighting Plan approved as part of the final plat. Additional lighting may be added or lighting may be modified by the POA or its assigns to meet applicable State and Federal requirements or to enhance safety as necessary without review or approval by Garfield County. Building permits shall be obtained as required. 3. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS This section details the landscaping requirements in both the public realm, including the street character of the REC, and the private spaces. Landscaping for individual lots shall be based on the landscape framework within public spaces. a) Landscaping Required All land within the REC PUD, in both private and public landscape zones shall be landscaped in accordance with this PUD Guide and the CCRS. Landscaping shall be installed as soon as practicable after the land is disturbed and construction has been completed which shall generally be presumed to be no longer than 30 days following completion of construction when construction is completed during the growing season (i.e., May 1 -October 1) or June 1 of the following year unless otherwise approved. As long as soil is in a non -vegetated state or in a disturbed condition, erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained in accordance with Section X of this PUD Guide. All plant materials must be kept in a healthy condition. Dead plants must be removed and replaced as soon as practicable which shall generally be presumed to be the spring of the next growing season. Landscaping must include a properly functioning automated sprinkler and/or drip irrigation system, with individual zones for non -turf areas. b) General Landscape Standards All landscaping shall conform to the following general landscape standards. (1) Fire Hydrants and Utilities Landscaping shall not obstruct fire hydrants or utility boxes. Trees and shrubs shall not be planted within 4 feet of existing overhead or underground lines. 18 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado (2) Clear Vision Triangle Landscaping shall be planted and maintained in a manner that does not impact site distances at street and alley/court intersections. A clear vision triangle shall be maintained at all street and alley/court intersections. No shrubs greater than 30 inches high shall be planted within a clear vision triangle. Trees within a clear vision area shall be pruned of branches lower than 8 feet above the ground. (3) Parking and Storage Prohibited Areas required as landscaping shall not be used for parking, outdoor storage and similar uses, but may be used for snow storage provided drainage and potential pollutants are managed so as not to impact stormwater water quality or flood adjacent properties. 4. STORMWATER All construction and construction sites shall conform to the requirements of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act and Clean Water Act. Owners are responsible for ensuring that their property conforms with these requirements at all times and that required CDPS Permits are obtained. Regardless of whether or not a CDPS Permit is required for any proposed construction or on any construction site, appropriate BMPs shall be maintained at all times and storm drainage facilities including ditches, storm drains, drainage easements, roads and sidewalks, and streams, rivers and ponds shall be maintained free of sediment or other pollutant discharges. Any owner discharging sediment or other pollutants to any storm drainage facilities shall be responsible for any damage caused by such discharge and shall be responsible for clean up. C. SPECIFIC USE, FACILITY AND ACTIVITY STANDARDS 1. ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses are allowed in association with all principal uses. Accessory uses shall not be sited prior to the principal use and shall be clearly secondary to the principal use in scale. 2. ANIMAL RESTRICTION Animals are permitted on residential lots subject to Garfield County regulations, with the exception that the keeping of horses, other livestock, or poultry which is prohibited. In accordance with the RFC Conservation Easement, additional pet restrictions shall apply to certain lots and areas within the REC PUD which shall be enforceable under the CCRS. 3. DAY CARE AND GROUP HOMES Day care and group homes shall be subject to all requirements of the ULUR as if the REC PUD were zoned Residential -Suburban (RS). 19 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 4. RETAINING WALLS Privacy walls are prohibited. Retaining walls are permitted and must be comply with Garfield County regulations. 5. VEHICLE AND EXTERIOR STORAGE All vehicle, material and equipment storage shall conform to the ULUR as if the REC PUD were zoned Residential Suburban (RS). 6. ROAD AND TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS a) Roads Roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards in Appendix B. Pavement design shall be in accordance with the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer at time of final plat. b) Pedestrian and Trail System A sidewalk system with 5 foot wide sidewalks on both sides of every street within the REC PUD with the exception of alleys and courts shall be designed and constructed in association with each final plat. This system shall be 100% ADA compliant and provide access to all the major amenities of the community. A soft trail system interconnects with the sidewalk system and forms an approximate 1.5 mile secondary pedestrian network connecting the various residential areas to each other and to the open space and recreation areas shall be designed and constructed in association with each final plat. The soft trail shall be constructed to meet the following criteria: • 4' wide, compacted decomposed granite surface within 4" minimum depth, sealed, over a weed barrier fabric and compacted sub -grade. • 8' wide easement for each path segment which can overlap with utility easements. • Up to 8% gradients but not fully ADA compliant, with stairs and segments greater than 8%. 7. SIGNAGE All signage shall conform to the requirements of the ULUR as if the REC PUD were zoned Residential Suburban (RS) except that that the following signage shall be allowed in accordance with the following standards. 20 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado a) Community Identification, Wayfinding and Educational Signs Community identification, wayfinding and educational signs shall be allowed in accordance with the following standards. Community Identification and Garden Home Identification Signs shall obtain a sign permit from Garfield County in accordance with Article XI of the ULUR. Wayfinding and educational signs placed by the POA shall be exempt from obtaining a sign permit from Garfield County. (1) Community Identification Sign -Tract AY Tract AY shall be allowed one ground -mounted development/subdivision identification sign which shall not exceed 100 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from all lot/tract lines. The placement and design of the sign and any associated plantings shall meet CDOT criteria for the clear vision triangle. The sign shall further comply with the requirements of the RFTA Open Space Easement recorded in Book 1143 at Page 1 and amended in Book 1217 at Page 593. The sign may be unlighted or lighted in one of the following ways: (a) backlit utilizing individual back lit letters or logos which are silhouetted against a softly illuminated wall; (b) utilized individual letters with translucent faces, containing soft lighting elements inside each letter; (c) metal -faced box signs with cut-out letters and soft -glow fluorescent tubes; or (d) sign face lighted with shielded downcast lights. The signs shall be illuminated only with steady, stationary, shielded light sources directed solely onto the sign without causing glare. Light bulbs or lighting tubes used for illuminating a sign shall not be visible from adjacent street or residential properties. The intensity of sign lighting shall not exceed that necessary to illuminate and make legible a sign from the adjacent travel way; and the illumination of a sign shall not be obtrusive to the surrounding area. (2) Community Identification Sign -Community Space Tracts One ground -mounted community identification sign shall be allowed on each street frontage of any Community Space Tract. No community identification sign except that allowed on Tract AY and Tract AA shall exceed 30 square feet in area and 5 feet in height. The ground -mounted community identification signs located on Tract AA may be enlarged to 50 square feet to include tenant information. Ground -mounted community identification signs may be unlighted or meet the lighting standards for Community Identification Signs in Tract AY. (3) Garden Community Identification Sign -Garden Home Tracts One ground -mounted garden home tract identification sign shall be allowed at each entry to any Garden Home Tract. No garden home tract identification sign shall exceed 30 square feet in area and 5 21 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado feet in height. Ground -mounted signs may be unlighted or meet the lighting standards for Community Identification Signs in Tract AY. The ground -mounted garden home tract identification sign, if utilized, shall include the range of addresses included within the Garden Home Tract. (4) Wayfinding and Educational Signs Unlighted wayfinding and educational signs may be located on any Community Space Tract. Signs shall be no taller than 8 feet and have a sign area of no more than 10 square feet. 8. FIREPLACES Open hearth, solid -fuel fireplaces shall be prohibited. Natural gas and any solid - fuel burning stove (defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401 et. seq.) shall be allowed. 9. NOISE Noise shall not exceed applicable State noise standards. Additional applicable noise standards shall be applicable to all utility facilities and temporary construction and development activities. 10. UTILITIES DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS UNDERGROUND All utilities except control panels and boxes shall be located underground. 11. UTILITY FACILITIES a) Noise All utility installations or facilities shall be so operated that the noise level inherently and regularly generated by these activities across lot lines shall not exceed 55 dbA at the nearest residential lot line. In the event the measured noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard, the noise level shall be adjusted so as to equal the noise standard. The noise level standard shall be reduced by five dBA for a simple tone noise such as a whine, screech, or hum, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulse noise such as hammering or riveting. Exhaust from ventilation units, or other air control device shall not produce a noise level greater than the noise level standards set forth in this section. The noise level shall be measured utilizing the "A" weighing scale of the sound level meter and the "slow" meter response (use "fast" response for impulsive type sounds) at a position or positions at any point on the receiver's property. In general, the microphone shall be located 4 to 5 feet above the ground; 10 feet or more from the nearest reflective surface, where possible. However, in those cases where another elevation is deemed appropriate, the latter shall be utilized. 22 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado b) Vibration All utility installations or facilities shall be so operated as not to create a vibration which is perceptible without instruments by the average person at or beyond any lot line of the lot containing such activities. Ground vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition work is exempted from this standard. c) Smoke All utility installations or facilities shall be so operated as not to emit visible smoke as dark as Ringelmann number 2 or its equivalent opacity for more than three minutes in any one-hour period, and visible smoke as dark as Ringelmann number 1 or its equivalent opacity for more than an additional seven minutes in any one-hour period. Darker or more opaque smoke is prohibited at any time. d) Particulate Matter and Air Contaminants All utility installations or facilities shall be so operated as not to emit particulate matter of air contaminants which are readily detectable without instruments by the average person at or beyond any lot line of the lot containing such activities. e) Odor All utility installations or facilities shall be so operated as not to emit matter causing unpleasant odors which are perceptible by the average person at at or beyond any lot line of the lot containing such activities. f) Humidity, Heat, Cold, and Glare All utility installations or facilities shall be so operated as not to produce humidity, heat, cold, or glare which is perceptible without instruments by the average person at at or beyond any lot line of the lot containing such activities. 12. TRASH STORAGE AND PICK-UP All trash stored or placed outdoors for pickup shall be in bear -proof trash containers. 13. HOME OCCUPATIONS A home occupation shall meet the requirements of the ULUR as if the REC PUD were zoned Residential Suburban (RS). 23 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 14. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PLANS, USES AND STANDARDS Construction activities shall conform to the following standards and requirements. a) Construction Activities and Plans (1) Phase 0 Site Reclamation The property within the boundaries of the REC PUD was heavily damaged by previous grading activities. In advance or concurrent with the platting of any portion of the REC PUD, reclamation activities are allowed to occur within the entirety of the REC PUD boundaries. Prior to undertaking reclamation activities, security as identified in the Development Agreement shall be posted and detailed plans for reclamation shall be submitted to the the Garfield County Planning and Building Department which plans shall include the locations of proposed activities and actions including equipment stroage and contractors offices and other facilities, grading, BMPs, drainage, storage areas for materials, and locations of materials processing along with standards for the proposed activities including standards for dust control, noise, and hours of operation consistent with this PUD Guide and the ULUR. The Phase 0 Site Reclamation shall be shall be administratively approved by the Director within 30 days of submittal. The administrative approval may be a referred to the BoCC in accordance with the ULUR. The approved construction plans shall include detailed plans concerning restoration activities and BMPs and appropriate restoration and BMP security provisions for areas where stockpiles will be maintained. (2) Construction Activities in Association with a Final Plat At the time of submission of final plat, detailed construction plans shall be submitted and approved concurrent with the final plat. The construction plans shall address all aspects of final plat infrastructure, facilities and housing construction. Construction activities may be allowed both within the boundaries of the final plat and on unplatted lands within the REC PUD. The construction plans shall detail the staging areas, fabrication areas, construction and fabrication operations, equipment storage, location of construction facilities such as construction office and equipment and materials storage, construction BMPs, materials processing, drainage, dust control, and noise along with standards of operation and performance of all such activities so as to minimize impacts to surrounding properties to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with this PUD Guide and the ULUR. Activities located outside the platted areas shall be appropriately secured to ensure their removal and/or restoration upon completion of construction in association with the final plat or such other time as may be 24 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado agreed to by the BoCC in approving the final plat. The plans approved concurrent with final plat shall constitute the approved construction plans. All approved construction plans shall include detailed plans concerning restoration activities and appropriate restoration security provisions. b) Construction Uses (1) Accessory Uses In association with approved construction activities, accessory construction uses include temporary restrooms, port -a -lets, break or changing rooms, construction offices, model homes, mobile food service wagons, and other buildings and facilities of a temporary nature necessary to support construction activities shall be allowed on both platted and unplatted ground within the REC PUD in accordance with the approved construction plans. (2) Materials Processing Materials processing including crushing and concrete batch plants shall be allowed in association with construction in accordance with the approved construction plans. Dust control, screening, hours of operation and noise abatement measures shall be appropriately integrated into any approved construction plans. (3) Construction Signs Temporary construction signs denoting the architect, engineer or contractor for a project under construction are allowed provided there is only one sign per lot frontage, the sign area does not exceed 24 square feet, the sign does not exceed 6 feet in height, and the sign is removed within 7 days following after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the project. No sign permit shall be required from Garfield County. (4) Contractor's Equipment and Materials Storage Yard Contractor's equipment and materials storage yards shall be allowed in association with construction in accordance with the approved construction plans. (5) Infrastructure and Building Fabrication Infrastructure and building fabrication areas may be proposed within the REC PUD at time of final plat as part of the construction plans on either platted or unplatted ground which may include buildings. Appropriate standards for ensuring minimization of impacts along with clearing and site restoration including appropriate security to cover such activities shall be included within the construction plans. 25 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado c) Standards (1) Drainage and BMPs Construction site drainage shall conform to all Federal, State and local standards, regulations and laws. A SWMP and required BMPs shall be maintained at all times through restoration and revegetation. (2) Fuel Storage Areas Containment measures shall be provided for all fuel storage areas to prevent release into any waterbody. Inventory management or leak detection systems may be required. These measures shall be addressed in the construction plans as part of the Phase 0 Site Reclamation or final plat. (3) Noise and Hours of Operation Noise during construction shall meet Garfield County and State standards and laws. Outdoor construction activities shall not occur prior to 7:00 am or later than 7:00 pm. (4) Machine Maintenance Maintenance of vehicles or mobile machinery is prohibited within 100 feet of any waterbody. Emergency maintenance may be conducted until the vehicle or machinery can be moved. These measures shall be addressed in the construction plans as part of the Phase 0 Site Reclamation or final plat. (5) Spill Prevention Measures shall be implemented to prevent spilled fuels, lubricants or other hazardous materials from entering a waterbody during construction or operation of equipment and/or facility. If a spill occurs it should be cleaned up immediately and disposed of properly. These measures shall be addressed in the construction plans as part of the Phase 0 Site Reclamation or final plat. (6) Waste Storage Areas used for the collection and temporary storage of solid or liquid waste shall be designed to prevent discharge of these materials in runoff from the site. Collection sites shall be located away from the storm drainage system. Other best management practices such as covering the waste storage area, fencing the site, and constructing a perimeter dike to exclude runoff may also be required. These measures shall be addressed in the construction plans as part of the Phase 0 Site Reclamation or final plat. V. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES The REC PUD includes some environmental hazards and resources of importance to the development of the REC PUD. These hazards and resources include: geotechnical 26 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado hazards (Geohazard Buffer Area), slope instability areas, heron protection area, heron activity areas, conservation easement access control area, and floodplains. The areas are shown on the PUD Plan and any final plat on which standards or controls may be applicable. These hazards and resources should be considered at time of final plat and when undertaking the development of any lot or tract within the REC PUD. A. GEOHAZARD AREAS The Geohazard Buffer Zone is an 80 foot buffer area around geologic hazards identified at the time of approval of the PUD Plan. These areas as well as areas identified during Phase 0 Site Reclamation, within each final plat shall be investigated prior to platting and any "geohazard areas" identified at that time shall be shown on the final plat. Each final plat shall include a plat note requiring that no structures shall be located within designated "geohazard areas" unless investigations are completed and appropriate mitigation measures are proposed by a qualified engineer and such mitigation is implemented as part of construction. Detailed mitigation plans of utilities and road crossings of "geohazard areas" identified hereon or on the final plat shall be provided at time of final plat and implemented at time of construction. B. SLOPE INSTABILITY AREA Slope instability areas are proposed for mitigation during Phase 0 Site Reclamation. No structures shall be placed in areas identified as being subject to slope instability on any final plat. Engineered plans stamped by a qualified engineer of all roads, pipelines, utilities and other facilities crossing areas located within a Slope Instability Area shall address the hazard and include specific and appropriate mitigation to ensure the reasonable protection of life and property. All mitigation measures shall conform to any hazard mitigation plan approved as part of a Final Plat. C. HERON PROTECTION AREA Section 5.3 Part b of the RFC Conservation Easement requires all lots located within "200 meters of the heron rookery to be bermed and visually screened from the heron rookery through the planting of trees and other adequate vegetation, which screening shall be as dense as possible while still allowing for tree growth." Screening plans shall be reviewed and reasonably approved by the RFC prior to initiating construction. Screening plantings shall be maintained by the POA in accordance with the RFC Conservation Easement and CCRS. D. HERON ACTIVITY AREA At the time of final plat, the "Heron Activity Area" will be established on the face of the final plat by plat note identifying which lots are subject to construction timing restrictions. The "Heron Activity Area" shall be established by a site visit to active heron nesting trees by an accredited wildlife biologist during the spring months prior to filing of any final plat. Empty or unused nests or roost trees shall not be considered active heron nesting trees. Any lots on the final plat located within 200 meters of an active heron nesting trees as designated on the final plat shall be subject to a construction season restriction which shall provide for no external construction activities for new building erection between March 1 through August 1. After the initial construction of 27 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado subdivision infrastructure required under any subdivision improvement agreement and initial home construction within the boundaries of a final plat, the construction restriction shall no longer be applicable. The PUD Plan identifies the boundaries of the "Heron Activity Area" that would exist as of the date of the filing of the PUD Plan for purposes of illustration and shall have no regulatory effect. The restrictions associated with the "Heron Activity Area" are only enforceable by the POA (or its assigns). Garfield County shall have no responsibility to enforce but shall have the right to enforce the restrictions placed upon the final plat. E. 20 FOOT CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACCESS CONTROL AREA The 20 Foot Conservation Easement Access Control Area is a hardscape and landscape strip designed, installed and planted to protect the RFC Conservation Easement from human intrusions in undesirable locations to help preserve the conservation values within the adjacent easement. Recreation within this area is prohibited. The hardscape and landscape features shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Conservation Access Control Plan filed with each final plat for the REC PUD. Changes to these areas shall not be made without consulting the RFC. In addition, signage shall be provided and maintained within the "Conservation Easement Access Control Area" that identifies the area and discourages or restricts access as required by the conservation easement. The restrictions associated with the "conservation easement control area" shall be enforceable by the POA (or its assigns) and RFC in so far as the restrictions relate to requirements of the conservation easement. Garfield County shall have no responsibility to enforce. F. FLOODPLAINS No structures or fill shall be placed within an identified floodplain on the PUD Plan or on the applicable Flood Insurance Rate Map except as specifically provided for by the REC PUD to facilitate utility and bridge crossings of Cattle Creek. Work within any floodplain shall require approval by Garfield County in accordance with Garfield County's floodplain regulations. G. WETLANDS Wetlands shown on the PUD Plan were mapped in 2010 and represent the jurisdictional wetlands present on or immediately adjacent to the REC PUD at that time as defined by State and Federal laws. All activities within wetlands shall conform to Garfield County regulations and State and Federal law. VI. DEFINITIONS A. WORD CONVENTIONS The following guidelines and conventions shall be used in interpreting this PUD Guide: • In general, words used in the present tense shall include the future; the singular shall include the plural; and the plural the singular. 28 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado • The words "shall," "must," "will," "shall not," "will", "may not," "no ... may," and "no ... shall" are always mandatory. The word "should" indicate that which is recommended but not required. The word "may" indicates a use of discretion in making a decision. • The word "used" includes "designed, intended, or arranged" to be used. • The masculine gender includes the feminine and vice versa. • References to "distance" shall mean distance as measured horizontally unless otherwise specified. • When used with numbers, "Up to x," "Not more than x" and "a maximum of x" all include x. • Unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, conjunctions have the following meanings: (1) "And" indicates that all connected items or provisions apply; (2) "Or" indicates that the connected items or provisions may apply singularly or in combination; and (3) "Either...or" indicates that the connected items or provisions apply singularly, but not in combination. • All definitions which reference the C.R.S. and Building Code are generally intended to mirror the definitions used and in effect on the effective date of this PUD Guide or as they may be subsequently amended. If a definition in this PUD Guide conflicts with a definition under State statute or regulation, the State definition shall control over the PUD Guide definition except where a definition in this PUD Guide has further limited the size, number, or other specific parameter associated with a defined use. • The dimensional standards herein are considered mandatory. However, the diagrams and illustrations that accompany the dimensional standards are illustrative. Where a conflict between any dimensional standard and diagram or illustration occurs, the dimensional standard shall control. • Uses shall be interpreted in accordance with this PUD Guide. B. DEFINITIONS The following are the definitions for the terms contained in this PUD Guide. Words defined herein shall have the specific meaning assigned, unless the context clearly indicates another meaning. Words used in this PUD Guide shall have the definitions contained in the ULUR unless they are specifically defined herein or their dictionary meaning if defined neither herein or in the ULUR.If it is determined that any definition contained in the ULUR is applicable to the REC PUD and is in whole or partially in conflict with a definition set forth herein, the interpretation will favor consistency with the definitions and provisions in this PUD Guide. 29 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado The definitions are organized alphabetically. 1. ACCESSORY USE A use located on the same lot or tract as the principal building, structure or use to which it is related and that is supportive, secondary, and subordinate to and customarily found with the principal use of the land. 2. ACTIVE RECREATION AND SERVICES Active recreation refers to a mix of recreation uses that includes the following facilities or facility types: athletic fields, building or structures for recreational activities, concessions, community gardens and orchards, restrooms, sport courses or courts, children's play area, dog play areas, bike and walking paths, trails and associated facilities and may provide for supervised or unsupervised recreational activities. Neighborhood Center Tracts may also include community or recreation centers, pools, and accessory uses such as Community Service Uses. Such accessory services shall be designed and scaled to serve the residents of the REC PUD and their guests and recreationist utilizing any adjacent and internal public recreation facilities. 3. ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES Government, quasi -governmental or property owners' association offices providing administrative, clerical or public contact services that deal directly with the citizen and governmental functions, together with the incidental storage and maintenance of necessary vehicles. Typical uses include federal, state, county, city, metropolitan district, special district, not-for-profit organizations providing governmental -type functions, and property owners associations offices. 4. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT (AHA) An agreement between the applicant and Garfield County based upon the Affordable Housing Plan as required by Article VIII of the ULUR for the REC PUD. 5. AGRICULTURAL/HORTICULTURAL USES Agricultural and horticultural uses include the planting, cultivating, harvesting, and storage of hay and horticultural stock or ornamental plants for use within the REC PUD for landscaping or revegetation and erosion control activities. The planting and cultivation of hay and nursery stock or landscape materials is allowed to continue on both platted and unplatted portions of the property until such time that development make the use impractical in accordance with the provisions of this PUD Guide. Agricultural uses do not include community gardens or orchards which are allowed in specific Garden/Orchard and Common Area Tracts defined within this PUD Guide and PUD Plan, or home gardens or other similar uses which are allowed as an accessory use on all residential lots. 30 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 6. ALLEY A roadway designed to serve as access to the side or the rear yard of those properties whose principal frontage is on a street or Community Space. 7. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL BOARD ("ACB") The Architectural Control Board of the REC PUD established by the CCRS. 8. ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION Any projection that is not intended for occupancy and that extends beyond the face of an exterior wall of a building, including, without limitation, a roof overhang, mansard, unenclosed exterior balcony, marquee, canopy, awning, pilaster and fascia, but not including a sign 9. ATTACHED HOME (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended to provide large lots for medium sized attached or detached homes with limited private outdoor space. Attached Home Lots provide for zero lot line development with at least 10 feet between buildings. Attached Home Lots may be developed with attached homes on adjoining lots or coordinated with adjacent detached homes to provide larger side yard areas by offsetting homes to one side or the other on each lot. The intent is that attached homes be designed to mimic the look of a large single -unit dwelling. Attached Home Lots generally should be located internally to the development and front streets or Community Spaces. Attached home lots provide for somewhat limited architectural variation but substantial lot layout variation due to the variety of attached and detached arrangements that may be constructed. Attached Home Lots are alley loaded. Only one home is allowed per lot. 10. BERM Berm means a strip of mounded topsoil which provides a visual screen. 11. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) The specific management practices used to control pollutants in storm water. BMPs are of two types: "source controls" (nonstructural) and "treatment controls" (structural). Source or nonstructural controls are practices that prevent pollution by reducing potential pollutants at their source, such as proper chemical containment construction sites, before they come into contact with stormwater. Treatment or structural controls, such as constructed water quality detention facilities, remove pollutants already present in storm water. Best Management Practices can either be temporary, such as silt fence used during construction activity, or permanent detention facilities, to control pollutants in stormwater. 31 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 12. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ("BOA") A quasi-judicial body appointed by the Board of County Commissioners whose authority and procedures are described in C.R.S. 30-28-117 and C.R.S. 30-28-118 and ULUR. 13. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ("BOCC") The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County whose authority and procedures are described in the C.R.S. and ULUR. 14. BUFFER An area between land uses providing fencing, berms, mounds, plant materials or any combination thereof to act as visual or noise buffers. 15. BUILDING Any structure built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property of any kind. Portions of buildings connected by fully enclosed attachments that are useable by the buildings' occupants shall be treated as one building 16. BUILDING CODE The Building Code adopted and enforced by Garfield County, Colorado at the time a permit for construction of a building or structure, or other activity requiring a building permit from Garfield County is required. 17. BUILDING COVERAGE Building Coverage means the total area of a lot or tract covered by a building or buildings, measured at the ground level. Building Coverage is measured from outside of all exterior walls at ground level and shall include stairways, fireplaces, all cantilevered or supported building areas, ground level covered porches and decks, garages, and swimming pools. Building Coverage does not include roof overhangs; unenclosed walkways; usable areas under above -grade porches and decks, uncovered decks, porches, patios, terraces and stairways, less than 30 inches high; or similar extensions. 18. BUILDING ENVELOPE The portion of a lot or tract depicted and designated as a "Building Envelope" on the PUD Plan and whose boundaries are legally defined on the Final Plat. The specific purpose of all proposed building envelops is identified within this PUD Guide. All buildings must be located entirely within the Building Envelope, provided however that driveways, entry/address monuments, parking lots, utilities, grading, irrigation and drainage systems, retaining walls, water features, sports courts, playgrounds, landscaping and such other similar facilities may be located outside the Building Envelope unless otherwise specifically restricted within this Guide. 32 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 19. BUILDING HEIGHT The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished grade adjoining the building to the highest point of the roof surface, if a flat roof; to the deck line of mansard roofs; and to the mean height level between eaves and ridges for gable, hip and gambrel roofs. The height shall be measured as the averaged maximum height of any building segment from finished grade at any point directly above that grade location. Architectural projections including towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, observation towers, and flagpoles may extend above the maximum building height not more than 10 feet. 20. BUS STOPS, BENCHES, AND SHELTERS Roadside pullouts or signed areas with street furnishings and small bus shelters used as a staging location for travelers to transfer between pedestrian and bicycle modes and transit. 21. CLEAN WATER ACT ("CWA") The Clean Water Act, also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and including amendments thereto by the Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. Section 466 et seq., as amended. 22. CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE The area created by drawing an imaginary line between points 20 feet back from where the curb lines of the intersection quadrant meet. 23. COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM ("CDPS" AND "CDPS PERMIT") The Colorado Discharge Permit System or a permit issued by the state of Colorado under Part 5 of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act (Title 25, Article 8 of the Colorado Revised Statutes) that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state, whether the permit is applicable to a person, group or area. 24. COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT Title 25, Article 8 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. 25. COMMON AREA (TRACT) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended for a variety of community uses. These tracts are generally located within residential areas of the development to be left open to break up residential areas with landscaping and allow for pedestrian circulation connections to occur between the community spaces. Community gardens and orchards or other community -oriented uses desired by the residents within the REC and not involving the construction of builings can be allowed in the Common Area Tracts unless specifically restricted. Common Area Tracts such as at the entry to the REC and at entry points to the trail may include identifying, 33 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado educational, and direction/wayfinding signage. Drainage facilities and buried utilities and associated appurtenances are provided for in Common Area Tracts. The use of Common Area Tracts will evolve over time as there is need for improvements. The intent is to reserve flexibility for community uses desired by the residents into the future. Generally, however, these spaces will remain open and be planted with a mixture of native and cultivated species and serve as transitions to Open Space Tracts. 26. COMMUNITY GARDEN OR ORCHARD A vegetable garden and/or orchard that is communally cultivated and cared for, which use shall be permitted on the Garden/Orchard Tracts. Subject to the CCRS, Garden/Orchard Tracts may consist of individual plots, multiple caretaker areas, sitting areas, small-scale children's play areas and other accessory horticultural related uses, and may be used for community festivals and celebrations. 27. COMMUNITY IDENTIFICATION, WAYFINDING AND EDUCATIONAL SIGN A sign placed by the POA (or its assigns) identifying the REC community or features therein, providing location and directional information within the community, or providing educational or other necessary information to residents and visitors. 28. COMMUNITY MEETING FACILITY OR RECREATION HALL A facility for public gatherings and holding events such as weddings, wedding receptions, community meetings and meetings and events sponsored by neighborhood groups, religious groups, philanthropic organizations and so forth. 29. COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITIES A facility for government, special districts, quasi -governmental or property owners' association maintenance and service vehicles, equipment, supplies, office and staff to serve the REC PUD area. 30. COMMUNITY SERVICE SPACE(S) Leasable space within the Neighborhood Center, which space may be used for Community Service Use(s). Community Service Space(s) shall be owned by the POA or their assigns. 31. COMMUNITY SERVICE USES Not -for profit or for-profit uses that may, subject to the PUD Plan and the CCRS, be operated within the Community Service Space(s), if any. Community Service Uses shall be operated by a Community Service Tenant for the benefit of residents of the Community and may include, without limitation, a day care facility, a sandwich/coffee shop, and/or a health club. 34 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 32. COMMUNITY SERVICE TENANT A tenant or concessionaire of any Community Service Space operating a Community Service Use. 33. COMMUNITY SPACE ZONING CATEGORY Those areas identified as Open Space, Common Area, Garden/Orchard, and Neighborhood Center Use Designations by the PUD Guide and PUD Plan and created as Tracts by a Final Plat. Community Spaces are provided as a means of establishing areas for community activities and providing community outdoor spaces and amenities. Each Community Space is owned by the POA or their assigns. These areas are provided for the benefit of the owners within the REC PUD for the specific uses provided for by this PUD Guide. 34. CONSERVATION EASEMENT A certain Grant of Conservation Easement, dated February 3, 2000, by and between Sanders Ranch Holdings, LLC, its successors and assigns, as grantor, and Roaring Fork Conservancy ("RFC"), as grantee, recorded at Reception Number 559036 and survey map, dated December 24th, 2008, defining the boundaries of said easement recorded at Reception Number 804200 in the real property records of Garfield County, Colorado, as the same has been or may be supplemented or amended from time to time. 35. CONSTRUCTION To make or form by combining or arranging building parts or building elements, to include but not limited to examples such as road construction, community or recreation facility development, utility facility development, home construction, or parks development, and including the initial disturbance of soils associated with clearing, grading, or excavating activities or other construction -related activities (e.g., stockpiling of fill material). 36. CONSTRUCTION SIGN Construction sign means a temporary sign announcing development, construction or other improvement of a property by a building contractor or other person furnishing services, materials or labor to the premises, but does not include a "real estate sign." 37. CONSTRUCTION SITE Any location where construction or construction related activity occurs. 38. CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) A specific individual construction plan that describes the Best Management Practices (BMPs), as found in the current SWMM, to be implemented at a site to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants. The purpose of a SWMP is to 35 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado identify possible pollutant sources to stormwater and to set out BMPs that, when implemented, will reduce or eliminate any possible water quality impacts. 39. CONSTRUCTION USES AND ACTIVITIES Construction -related uses include those uses necessary, supportive or incidental to the construction of the REC PUD or construction of homes, buildings or facilities within the REC PUD during the development period. 40. CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS STORAGE YARD The temporary use of land for the purpose of storing machinery, equipment and supplies including office and repair facilities for use in supporting construction activities associated with the development of REC PUD infrastructure or housing, buildings or facilities within the REC PUD. 41. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ("CCRS") Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for River Edge Colorado (the "CCRS") recorded with Reception No. in the official records of Garfield County, as they may be amended from time to time by the POA. 42. DAY CARE CENTER A non-residential facility licensed by the State of Colorado for the care and supervision of more than 8 children or adults for periods of less than 24 hours per day. Day care centers include preschools and nursery schools. 43. DAY CARE HOME A private residence used for the care of 8 or fewer children other than the operator's own children for a period of less than 24 hours per day and the operator of which possesses a license from the State of Colorado. 44. DESIGN GUIDELINES River Edge Colorado Design Guidelines as defined in the CCRS. The Design Guidelines establish architectural and building material standards, landscape design requirements, site design criteria, and a design review process for development within REC PUD and are adopted by the POA and may be amended from time to time. The Design Guidelines shall be administered by the ACB. 45. DEVELOPER Developer means any person who seeks a permit or approval for the construction of a development from Garfield County. 36 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 46. DEVELOPMENT Any change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, without limitation, constructing, relocating, rehabilitating, reconstructing or expanding or enlarging (but not maintaining) a building or other structure or portion thereof, or establishing or changing a use, or mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving or excavation. 47. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Any agreement entered into with the BoCC detailing any commitments made between a developer and Garfield County. 48. DIRECTOR The Director of the Garfield County Building and Planning Department, or authorized representative, or such other person who may be named by title by the Garfield County Board of Commissioners to administer Garfield County's Unified Land Use Resolution (ULUR) or other such code intended to govern land use in Garfield County. 49. DWELLING UNIT One or more rooms designed to function as a single living facility and containing only one kitchen plus living, sanitary and sleeping facilities. 50. DWELLING, SINGLE -UNIT A dwelling unit located on a lot with no physical or structural connection to any other dwelling unit. 51. DWELLING, TWO -UNIT A dwelling unit within a structure containing two dwelling units, each of which has primary ground floor access to the outside and are attached to each other by party walls without openings, and where each dwelling unit is located on its own lot, and which may include interest in common areas, land and facilities appurtenant to the dwelling units. A Two -Unit Dwelling does not share common floor/ceilings with another dwelling unit. 52. EXECUTIVE (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended to provide semi -private residential lots for the development of large custom single -unit dwellings. These lots provide areas for custom homes and allow for the architectural variation. Executive lots may or may not front a street or alley (i.e., Right -of -Way Tract) and may be accessed via long private driveways located within designated access and utility easements. 37 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 53. ESTATE (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended to provide large street -oriented residential lots for the development of large single -unit dwellings. These lots generally should be located along the western and southern edge of the development area. These lots provide areas for custom and semi -custom homes, allow for substantial architectural variation, and provide generous private outdoor spaces. Estate Lots are front loaded. 54. FILING OR SUBDIVISION FILING A final plat within the REC PUD. 55. FINAL PLAT A map with supporting statements of certain described land prepared in accordance with the Garfield County subdivision regulations as an instrument for recording of real estate interests with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. (C.R.S. 30-28-101 (5)) 56. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) means the official map on which FEMA has delineated both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. 57. FLOOR AREA The total square footage of all levels of a building except a basement, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e., not including furring, drywall, plaster and other similar wall finishes). Excluded from the definition of floor area balconies and terraces, decks and patios whether covered or not, covered walkways, other roofed facilities which are not enclosed, basements and crawl spaces, mechanical rooms, garages or other enclosed parking areas, and attic spaces. 58. FRONT LOT LINE The boundary of a lot located along a street (i.e., Right -of Way Tract). On a corner lot, the Front Lot Line is the line which best conforms to the pattern of the adjacent block faces. In the case of alley accessed and loaded lots, the Front Lot Line shall be boundary of a lot which is most nearly opposite and most distant from the Rear Lot Line. 59. FRONT SETBACK LINE The imaginary line extending across the full width of a lot, parallel with the Front Lot Line between which no building, structure, or portion thereof shall be permitted, erected, constructed, or placed except a front porch, bay window, or architectural projections. Front porches shall be allowed to encroach up to eight (8) feet into the front yard. Bay windows shall be allowed to encroach up to two 38 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado (2) feet into the front yard. Architectural projections shall be allowed to encroach up to four (4) feet into the front yard. 60. FRONT YARD The area between the Front Lot Line and Front Setback Line. 61. GARDEN HOME TRACT A tract of land generally designated for development of Garden Home Lots. Portions of the Garden Home Tract may be designated, zoned and platted as Right -of -Way Tracts or Common Area Tracts. The tract designation is used only as a means of providing cross-references and general standards for Garden Home lot platting and development and does not serve as a formal designation. 62. GARDEN HOME (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended to provide locations for smaller two -unit dwellings or single -unit dwellings with almost no private outdoor space for those people who desire to limited yard maintenance and who focus their outdoor activities within the Community Spaces within the REC PUD. Garden Home Lots are located within pods within designated Garden Home Tracts. Garden Home Lots provide for zero lot line development with at least 10 feet between buildings. Garden Home Lots generally should be located internally to the development near or adjacent to Park Tracts. Homes should be generally laid out near the exterior edges of the Garden Home Tracts with small common areas and alleys (located within Right -of -Way Tracts) focused toward the core of each Garden Home Tract. Garden Home Lots provide for limited architectural and lot layout variation and architectural themes within each Garden Home Tract should be consistent throughout. Garden Homes shall be internally loaded from alleys with garages located to the interior side of the Garden Home Tract facing the alley or court providing access to the Garden Home Lot. No Garden Home Lot is permitted direct access to a street through the exterior Garden Home Tract boundary line. 63. GARDEN/ORCHARD (TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended to be areas specifically set aside for cultivating fruit trees and fruit and vegetable gardens. The production may be shared amongst the community for consumption or utilized by individual participants, while excess may be sold at local farmers markets, as determined by the residents in accordance with the CCRS. The Garden/Orchard Tracts are intended to become an identifying element for the REC community and distinguishing amenity around which festivals, celebrations, traditions, can be organized and revolve. Structures are generally limited to garden sheds or similar facilities necessary to support cultivation and agricultural fences meeting the Design Guidelines and the requirements of this PUD Guide. Drainage facilities and buried utilities and associated appurtenances are allowed in Garden/Orchard Tracts. Soft trails and identifying, educational, and direction/wayfinding signage are also allowed. 39 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 64. GROUP HOME A facility providing custodial care and treatment in a protective living environment for the handicapped or the aged person. This category of facility includes, without limitation, group homes for persons who are sixty years of age or older, group homes for the developmentally disabled or mentally ill, drug or alcohol abuse or rehabilitation centers, and facilities for persons with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. 65. GUEST HOUSE Lodging attached to the principal dwelling or located within a garage or accessory structure, and intended for occasional occupancy by visitors or guests of the family residing in the principal dwelling. A guest house is not considered a dwelling unit. A guest house may not be rented or otherwise occupied for extended periods. A guest house is an accessory use. 66. HOME OCCUPATION Any business or service of limited scope, conducted entirely within the dwelling and carried on solely by its residents and up to one fulltime equivalent employee who resides elsewhere, and which is clearly incidental and secondary to the principal use for residential purposes and which does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the residential character of the neighborhood. 67. INFRASTRUCTURE AND BUILDING FABRICATION The temporary use of land for the purpose of fabricating REC PUD infrastructure and building components. Building and infrastructure fabrication may be conducted inside temporary buildings constructed for the purpose of fabrication or outside. Temporary buildings may be utilized and removed or converted to a Use by Right if said conversion would conform to this PUD Guide. 68. IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE (TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district are intended to serve as areas set aside for facilities necessary to treat and distribute raw water for irrigation within the REC PUD area and provide facilities for POA maintenance facilities and equipment for maintaining infrastructure, Community Spaces, and Right -of -Way Tracts within the development. All Irrigation and Maintenance Tracts are to be owned, operated and maintained by the POA or other its assigns. These areas are provided for the benefit of the owners within the REC PUD for the specific uses provided for by this PUD Guide. Drainage facilities and buried utilities and associated appurtenances are allowed within Irrigation and Maintenance Tracts. Soft trails and identifying, educational, and direction/wayfinding signage are also allowed. 40 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 69. LANDSCAPED AREA Any land set apart for planting grass, shrubs, trees or similar living materials, including, without limitation, land in an arcade, plaza or pedestrian area, and of which fences and walls may be a part. 70. LANDSCAPING Materials, including, without limitation, grass, ground cover, shrubs, vines, hedges or trees and nonliving natural materials commonly used in landscaped development. 71. LOT A parcel that has been subdivided pursuant to a legal subdivision approval process and is precisely identified by reference to a filing, block and lot. 72. LOT LINE The property lines defining the exterior boundaries of a lot or tract. 73. MAJOR REARRANGEMENTS Major rearrangements shall include changes that significantly alter the alignment of roads and community spaces proposed in the PUD Plan not generally necessitated by reasonable realignments and changes due to final engineering design or resulting from the conversion of one residential lot type to another. Major rearrangements have the effect of changing the concept or framework of rights-of-way and community spaces presented in the PUD Plan. 74. MATERIALS PROCESSING The processing of onsite sand and gravel deposits, claimed as a result of site development conducted in accordance with the approved reclamation, grading or development plan, for use in the construction of REC PUD infrastructure and housing, buildings or facilities within the REC PUD including the screening, crushing, stockpiling, washing and creation of concrete from processed sand and gravel resources. While the primary purpose of materials processing is to utilize available onsite materials for construction of REC PUD infrastructure and minimize hauling, nothing in this definition shall limit excess materials which cannot be utilized for REC PUD infrastructure and site development activities from being exported offsite for use elsewhere. 75. MODEL HOME A dwelling temporarily used as a sales office or demonstration home for residential units under or proposed for construction, said dwelling being used as an example of a product offered for sale. The dwelling may be furnished and be used as a sales facility and office while being used as a model home. A model home may be occupied provided an occupancy permit or final inspection authorizing occupancy has been approved by the building official. 41 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 76. NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER (TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended to provide meeting, gathering, recreational, and service facilities for residents of REC. Multiple Civic and Community Uses may occur on these tracts to meet the needs of REC residents as allowed by this PUD Guide and as may be approved by the POA. These services may include community service uses with incidental merchandise sales or community activities such as community garage sales. Drainage facilities and buried utilities and associated appurtenances are allowed in Neighborhood Center Tracts. Soft trails and identifying, educational, and direction/wayfinding signage are also allowed. 77. NOXIOUS WEED An alien plant or part of an alien plant that has been designated by Colorado state regulations as being a state Noxious Weed 78. OPEN SPACE TRACT ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended to provide an area of the community that is naturalized with limited use that helps to buffer environmentally sensitive areas and RFTA trail from the development areas within the REC PUD, while allowing limited passive uses including walking, running, hiking, wildlife and scenery viewing. The primary purpose of Open Space Tracts is to provide natural spaces within the Project. As, such, landscaping of Open Space Tracts is to be predominantly native and drought tolerant species. Improvements within Open Space Tracts are very limited and include only portions of the soft trail system; seating/viewing areas; identifying, educational, and direction/wayfinding signage; drainage facilities; and buried utilities. Access roads for the utilities including the Glenwood Ditch may be provided as well as small utility buildings. 79. OWNER An individual, corporation, partnership, association, trust or other legal entity or combination of legal entities which is the record owner of an undivided fee simple interest in one or more lots, parcels, or dwelling units. 80. PARK (TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended to provide for active recreation activities including organized sports and play activities. Playgrounds, tot -lots, hard courts, and multi -use fields for organized recreation, games, and play are allowed in Park Tracts. Buildings are generally limited to picnic shelters, and small pavilions and amphitheaters. Drainage facilities and buried utilities and associated appurtenances are allowed in Park Tracts. Soft trails and identifying, educational, and direction/wayfinding signage are also allowed. 42 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 81. PASSIVE RECREATION Recreational activities that do not require prepared facilities like sports fields, playgrounds or pavilions. Passive recreational activities place minimal stress on a site's resources and are highly compatible with natural resource protection. Passive recreation include, but is not limited to, hiking, wildlife viewing, observing and photographing nature, picnicking, walking, cross country skiing, bird watching, bicycling, running/jogging, and fishing. Passive recreation may include benches and seating areas, picnic tables, viewing areas, and interpretative and directional signage. Generally, areas under passive recreation serve as habitat areas, and therefore passive recreations uses shall be limited to those recreational uses not detrimental to habitat uses. Uses such as camping, motorized vehicle recreation, or any similar activity shall not be considered passive recreation uses. 82. PHASE 0 SITE RECLAMATION Reclamation of the entire REC PUD in advance of platting. Phase 0 Site Reclamation includes grading and certain facility placement in order to restore the site with soils and vegetation, complete a majority of the required materials processing, undertake strategic geotechnical investigations, restore habitat, place utilities and structures such as Glenwood Ditch and grade separated crossing of RFTA trail, and prepare the site for future development. 83. PORCH Porch means a covered, unenclosed (except for railings) structure that projects from the exterior wall of a principal building, has no floor space above, and is intended to provide shelter to the entry of the building and supplemental outdoor living area. 84. PRINCIPAL USE The activity(ies) on the lot or parcel which constitute the primary purpose or function for which the land and any principal structure is intended, designed, or ordinarily used. 85. PROJECT DOCUMENTS The CCRS, Design Guidelines, Development Agreement, Resolution No. 2011 - and all other documents made a part of said resolution along with all subsequently approved Final Plats and resolutions approving said Final Plats. 86. RIGHT-OF-WAY (TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district for tracts intended to provide legal vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress to all lots and tracts within the REC PUD and, in concert with utility and drainage easements, provide corridors for utilities to service the REC PUD. Right -of -Way Tracts also provide areas for development of landscaped areas, street lights, directional signage, and street furnishings to help establish a 43 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado sense of place in accordance with this PUD Guide and the Design Guidelines. Right -of -Way Tracts are intended to be owned, operated and maintained by the POA or its assigns. These tracts are provided for the benefit of the owners within the REC PUD for ingress and egress to all lots and tracts within the REC PUD. 87. RIVER EDGE COLORADO PUD ("REC PUD", "REC", OR "PROJECT") The Planned Unit Development zone district authorized by the Garfield County, Resolution No. 2011-, and containing the property described on the PUD Plan, and including the PUD Guide, PUD Plan, and Project Documents. 88. RIVER EDGE COLORADO PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. ("POA") The association formed to manage and maintain property in which lot and tract owner within the REC PUD own an undivided common interest; manage, maintain and deliver services identified in the CCRS to properties within the REC PUD; and control the use and development of properties within the REC PUD pursuant the PUD Guide, PUD Plan, CCRS, and Project Documents. 89. RFTA OPEN SPACE EASEMENT That certain Grant of Easement Open Space Easement, by and between Sanders Ranch Holdings, LLC, as grantor, and RFTA (formerly the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority), as grantee, recorded on August 2, 1999 at Reception Number 549754 in the real property records of Garfield County, Colorado, as the same has been or may be supplemented or amended from time to time. 90. RFTA ROW The right-of-way located immediately east of the REC, which right-of-way currently is used as a bicycle and pedestrian trail. The RFTA ROW is preserved as a rail corridor and falls within the jurisdictions of RFTA and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. 91. REAR LOT LINE The boundary of a lot which is most nearly opposite and most distant from the Front Lot Line. Where an alley abuts a lot, the Rear Lot Line shall be the boundary of the lot abutting the alley (i.e., Right -of -Way Tract). 92. REAR SETBACK LINE The imaginary line extending across the full width of a lot, generally parallel to the Rear Lot Line between which no building, structure, or portion thereof shall be permitted, erected, constructed, or placed unless specifically allowed pursuant to this PUD Guide. 44 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 93. RESIDENTIAL ZONING CATEGORY The Residential Zoning category is the Zoning Category within which all residential zoning districts are classified. All residentially zoned lots and tracts within the Residential Zoning Category may be utilized for residential use and are subject to similar standards governing development. The intent of these lots and tracts within this category is to provide for the development of single family detached and two -unit dwellings. 94. SAFETY SERVICES FACILITIES Safety services facilities are for the conduct of safety and emergency services including police and fire protection services and emergency medical and ambulance services which may include fire stations or police stations. 95. SIDE LOT LINE Any boundary of a lot which is not a Front Lot Line, Rear Lot Line or Side Street Lot Line, and generally perpendicular with the Front Lot Line. 96. SIDE SETBACK LINE The imaginary line extending across the full depth of a lot, generally perpendicular with the Front Lot Line, and parallel to the Side Lot Line between which no building, structure, or portion thereof shall be permitted, erected, constructed, or placed unless specifically allowed pursuant to this PUD Guide. 97. SIDE YARD The area between the Side Lot Line and Side Setback Line. 98. SIDE STREET LOT LINE The boundary of a lot located along a street (i.e., Right -of -Way Tract), generally perpendicular with the Front Lot Line, which is not a Front Lot Line or Rear Lot Line. A lot having two street frontages has both a front lot line and side street lot line. 99. SIDE STREET SETBACK LINE The imaginary line extending across the full depth of a lot, parallel with the Side Street Lot Line and most nearly perpendicular to the Front Lot Line between which no building, structure, or portion thereof shall be permitted, erected, constructed, or placed unless specifically allowed pursuant to this PUD Guide. 100. SIDE STREET YARD The area between Side Street Lot Line and Side Street Setback Line. 45 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 101. SIGNS Any object or device or part thereof situated outdoors or in an exterior window which is used to advertise, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object, person, institution organization, business, product, service, event or location by any means, including, without limitation, words, letters, figures, design symbols, colors, sculpture, motion, illumination or projected images. 102. SIGN AREA The surface area upon, against or through which the message is displayed or illustrated. 103. SIGN HEIGHT Height of a sign, high or in height means the vertical distance measured from the elevation of the nearest sidewalk, or, if there is no sidewalk within twenty- five feet, from the lowest point of the finished grade on the lot upon which the sign is located and within twenty-five feet of the sign, to the uppermost point on the sign or the sign structure, whichever is higher 104. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL ("SWMM") The Stormwater Management Manual that contains the policy and criteria pertaining to stormwater runoff, including federal, state and local regulations pertaining to stormwater law and water quality. 105. STRUCTURE Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground above grade, but the term does not include poles, lines, cables or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities 106. TEMPORARY SALES OFFICE An office established temporarily on a property to make the initial sale of real estate products located on the property. Said office may be located in a model home or within a permanent building built for future Civic and Community Uses or a temporary building placed specifically for the purposes of providing a sales office. 107. TOWN (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended to provide reasonably sized lots for larger tract or semi -custom homes with greater private outdoor space than in the Village Lot Residential Zoning District. Town Lots generally should be located along the western and southern edges of the development area and back Open Space Tracts, but may also be located internally to the PUD and back Park, Garden/Orchard, or Common Area Tracts. These lots provide for limited architectural and lot layout variation. Town Lots are street or alley loaded. 46 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 108. TRACT Any physical portion of the REC PUD which is designated on the PUD Plan as a Tract as opposed to a lot, and the boundaries of which are depicted on the applicable Final Plat. 109. ULUR The Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as it may be amended. 110. UTILITY DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS Any below ground facilities used for the transmission, distribution, delivery, collection, or storage of water, sewage, electricity, natural gas, communications, electronic or electromagnetic signals, or other services which support the development of the REC PUD and any uses within the REC PUD including associated above ground accessory structures and facilities to support such below ground facilities. 111. UTILITY FACILITIES Any above ground structures or facilities used for the production, generation, treatment, transmission, distribution, delivery, collection, or storage of water, or sewage which support the development of the REC PUD and any uses within the REC PUD including without limitation water and sewage treatment works/facilities. 112. UTILITY ZONING CATEGORY This zoning category in includes those zoning districts established to provide for any required major utility and maintenance facilities such as a water treatment plant or POA maintenance facility that might be necessary to serve the REC PUD. The category includes Irrigation and maintenance Zoning District and Water and Wastewater Zoning District. 113. UTILITY AND SAFETY SIGNS Signs required alerting people to dangers or providing service or safety information associated with utility placements or facilities or safety issues associated with a location or site. 114. VILLAGE (LOT) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended to provide small lots for medium sized tract or semi - custom homes with limited private outdoor space. Village Lots generally should be located along the eastern edges of the development area and internally to the development. They generally back small Open Space Tracts, or Park, Garden/Orchard, and Common Area Tracts. These lots allow for very limited architectural and lot layout variation. Village Lots may be street or alley loaded. 47 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 115. WATER AND WASTEWATER (TRACTS) ZONING DISTRICT A zoning district intended to provide areas set aside for facilities necessary to treat and distribute potable water including the construction of water treatment plants and transmission facilities, or collection and treatment facilities for wastewater including lift stations and wastewater treatment facilities. Unlike the water and wastewater facilities located within Right -of -Way and Community Spaces or utility easements, Water and Wastewater Tracts are identified for more significant water and wastewater facilities than traditionally accommodated in public spaces and easements including facilities necessary to serve the REC PUD and other development areas within the region. These tracts are intended to be owned, operated and maintained by the POA or its assigns. These areas are provided for the benefit of the owners within the REC PUD for the specific uses provided for by this PUD Guide. Drainage facilities and buried utilities and associated appurtenances are allowed in Water and Wastewater Tracts. Soft trails and identifying, educational, and direction/wayfinding signage are also allowed provided they do not conflict with the primary use at the discretion of the owner. 116. WATER IMPOUNDMENTS Detention and retention facilities required for the treatment of water to enhance water quality to acceptable levels before discharge to lakes, rivers, streams or groundwater; or to provide storage volume to enable reduction of stormwater runoff flow rates. This definition shall include detention of water prior to distribution to raw water or potable water customers and the detention of water as a development amenity. Some uses allowed hereunder may require the appropriation of water rights. 117. ZONING CATEGORY A classification used to group each for of Zoning District designations into a group which represents a broader class of uses under which the specific Zoning District designation falls. 118. ZONING DISTRICT A specifically delineated area within which uniform regulations and requirements govern use, placement, spacing, and size of lots, parcels and buildings which is given to each tract and lot within the REC PUD. 48 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado APPENDIX A: ZONING, USE, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS TABLES Table 1 and 2 provide the Zoning Category and Zoning District designations for all proposed lots and tracts approved as part of the PUD Plan. The use designations identified hereon represent the intended use designation of each lot and tract for purposes of applying the provisions of this PUD Guide. Table 2 is sorted by Filing, Block, Lot/Tract. Table 3 identifies the principal and accessory uses allowed in each Zoning District within the REC PUD. Table 4 identifies the dimensional standards applicable to each Zoning District. A-1 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Table 1. Zoning Districts Table by Zoning Category and District1'2 Zoning Category and District Filing# Block # Lot/Tract # Residential Use Attached Home 1 B3 1-20 2 B7 13-23 2 B8 6-13 Estate 6 B19 1-8 Executive 6 B22 1 Town 1 B4 1-9 1 B5 1-5 1 B6 1-25 2 B8 1-5 3 B9 1, 3-18 3 B10 1-18 4 B11 1-16 4 B13 1-11 4 B14 1-5 4 B15 1-12 5 B1 1-18 5 B2 1-9 6 B20 1-13 6 B21 1-4 Village 2 B7 1-12 3 B9 2 4 B12 1-8 6 B16 1-11 6 B17 1-13 6 B18 1-11 Garden Home 1A B25 1-21 1B B26 1-13 2A B24 1-28 4A B23 1-19 5A B27 1-14 Community Uses Open Space 1 AH, AP, AU 2 BH1, BH2 3 BB 4 BN, BO 5 AN 6 AQ, CE A-2 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Table 1. Zoning District Table by Zoning Category and District (Continued) Zoning Category and District Filing# Block # Lot/Tract # Community Uses Continued Common Area 1 AC, AE, AV, AY 2 BD, BE, BF, BG 3 BT, BU, BV 4 BK, BL, BQ, BR, BS 5 AL, AZ 6 AT,CD Garden/Orchard 1 AB 2 BA 5 AM Neighborhood Center 1 M Park 1 Al 2 BI 3 BJ 6 AX Right -of -Way Uses Right -of -Way 1 RC, RF 2 RB 3 RD 4 RA, RH 5 RG 6 RE 1A AD1 1B AJ1 2A BC1 4A BM1, BM2 5A AK1 Utility Uses Irrigation and Maintenance 1 AG Water and Wastewater Utility 1 AO 6 AR 1 The use designations identified hereon represent the intended use designation of each lot and tract for purposes of applying the provisions of the PUD Guide. In accordance with the PUD Guide, the final legal boundaries of all lots and tracts are established upon recordation of an approved final plat for each filing. 2 Table duplicates Table 2A on the PUD Plan without lot and tract areas. A-3 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Table 2. Zoning District Table by Filing, Block and Lot -t2 Filing # Block # Lot/Tract # Zoning District1 1 B3 1-20 ATTACHED HOME 1 B4 1-9 TOWN 1 B5 1-5 1 B6 1-25 1 AA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER 1 AB GARDEN/ORCHARD 1 AC COMMON AREA 1 AE 1 AG IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE 1 AH OPEN SPACE 1 Al PARK 1 AO WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY 1 AP OPEN SPACE 1 AU 1 AV COMMON AREA 1 AY 1 RC RIGHT-OF-WAY 1 RF 1A B25 1-21 GARDEN HOME 1A AD1 RIGHT-OF-WAY 1B B26 1-13 GARDEN HOME 1B AJ1 RIGHT-OF-WAY 2 B7 1-12 VILLAGE 2 B7 13-23 ATTACHED HOME 2 B8 1-5 TOWN 2 B8 6-13 ATTACHED HOME 2 BA GARDEN/ORCHARD 2 BD COMMON AREA 2 BE 2 BF 2 BG 2 BH2 OPEN SPACE 2 RB RIGHT-OF-WAY 2A B24 1-28 GARDEN HOME 2A BC1 RIGHT-OF-WAY 3 B9 1 TOWN 3 B9 2 VILLAGE 3 B9 3-18 TOWN 3 B10 1-18 A-4 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Table 2. Zoning District Table by Filing, Block and Lot (Continued) Filing # Block # Lot/Tract # Zoning District1 3 BB OPEN SPACE 3 BH1 3 BI PARK 3 BT COMMON AREA 3 BU 3 BV 3 RD RIGHT-OF-WAY 4 B11 1-16 TOWN 4 B12 1-8 VILLAGE 4 B13 1-11 TOWN 4 B14 1-5 4 B15 1-12 4 BJ PARK 4 BK COMMON AREA 4 BL 4 BN OPEN SPACE 4 BO 4 BQ COMMON AREA 4 BR 4 BS 4 RA RIGHT-OF-WAY 4 RH 4A B23 1-19 GARDEN HOME 4A BM1 RIGHT-OF-WAY 4A BM2 5 B1 1-18 TOWN 5 B2 1-9 5 AL COMMON AREA 5 AM GARDEN/ORCHARD 5 AN OPEN SPACE 5 AZ COMMON AREA 5 RG RIGHT-OF-WAY 5A B27 1-14 GARDEN HOME 5A AK1 RIGHT-OF-WAY 6 B16 1-11 VILLAGE 6 B17 1-13 6 B18 1-11 6 B19 1-8 ESTATE 6 B20 1-13 TOWN 6 B21 1-4 A-5 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Filing # Block # Lot/Tract # Zoning District' 6 B22 1 EXECUTIVE 6 AQ OPEN SPACE 6 AR WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY 6 AT COMMON AREA 6 AX PARK 6 CD COMMON AREA 6 CE OPEN SPACE 6 RE RIGHT-OF-WAY 1 The use designations identified hereon represen the intended use designation of each lot and tract for purposes of applying the provisions of the PUD Guide. In accordance with the PUD Guide, the final legal boundaries of all lots and tracts are established upon recordation of an approved final plat for each filing. 2 Table duplicates Table 2B on the PUD Plan. A-6 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Table 3. Use Table LAND USE CATEGORIES' Estate and Executive Lots Town Lots LOT OR TRACT DESIGNATION Garden Home Attached Village Lots LotslTracts Home Lots NH Center Tract2 Open Space Tracts Agricultural/Horticultural N N N N N N N Administration Facilities N N N N N A N Bus Stops, Benches, and Shelters N N N N N A N Community Garden/Orchard N N N N N N N Community Identification Signage N N N N N AS AS Community Meeting Facility or Recreation Hall N N N N N A N Community Service Facilities N N N N N A N Day Care Center N N N N N A N Day Care Home AS AS AS N N N N Group Home AS AS AS N N N N Guest House AS AS AS N N N N Home Occupation AS AS AS AS AS N N One Unit Dwelling A A A A A N N Recreation and Services, Active N N N N N A N Recreation, Passive N N N N N A A Safety Services Facilities N N N N N A N Two Unit Dwelling N N N A A N N Utility Distribution and Collection Systems AS, AS, AS, AS, AS, AS, AS, Utility Facilities N N N N N N N Water Impoundments AS6 AS6 AS6 AS6 AS6 AS6 AS6 Land Use Symbols: A - Allowed as a Principal Use subject to the restrictions herein contained; N - Not Allowed; AS - Allowed as an Accessory Use subject to the restrictions herein contained. A-7 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Table 3. Use Table Continued LAND USE CATEGORIES 1 Common Areas Tracts Park Tracts OT OR TRACT DESIGNATION Water and Garden/ Wastewater Irrigation and Orchard Utility Maintenance Tracts Tracts Utility Tracts Rights of Way (includes ROW Tracts) Unplatted Land Agricultural/Horticultural N N N N N N A10 Administration Facilities N N N A A N N Bus Stops, Benches, and Shelters AS AS AS N N AS N Community Garden or Orchard A N A N N N N Community Identification Signage A A A A A N N Community Meeting Facility or Recreation Hall N N N N N N N Community Service Facilities N N A A A N N Day Care Center N N N N N N N Day Care Horne N N N N N N N Group Home N N N N N N N Guest House N N N N N N N Home Occupation N N N N N N N One Unit Dwelling N N N N N N N Recreation and Services, Active A A A N9 N9 N38 N Recreation, Passive A A A N9 N9 N3,8 N Safety Services Facilities N N N N N N N Two Unit Home N N N N N N N Utility Distribution and Collection Systems AS7 AS7 AS7 AS7 AS7 AS AS7 Utility Facilities N N N A A N A4 Water Impoundments AS6 AS6 AS6 AS6 AS6 AS6 A6 Notes: dance with applicable standards within the PUD Gude and as specifically limited in the Grant of Conservation 7, 2000 in Book 1171 at Page 929 with Reception Number 559036 in the Office of the Garfield County Clerk landscaping and other features maybe extended into a Right -of -Way Tract provided they do not interfere with the and such extensions are approved by the owner of the Right -of -Way Tract. In addition, tracts or areas dedicated as a constructed may be used on a temporary basis as open spaces and for trails and other Active Recreation and with Open Space, Common Area, or Park Tract standards until such time as the road is constructed and opened of the Right -of -Way Tract with Utilities of all forms allowed within the REC PUD. These Utilities shall be removed and the area reclaimed if tracts that allow for such uses. Utilities shall be located in permanent or temporary easements and their location shall for water quality and quantity management except as otherwise specifically provided on the PUD Plan. All facilities except those located on the same lot or tract the facility it is designed to serve, or tracts specifically platted for facilities serve more than one dwelling unit. may be provided in accordance this PUD Guide and Design Standards provided they do not interfere with the landscaping and other features maybe extended into tracts dedicated to utility uses (Water & Wastewater and interfere with the primary use and purpose of the tract and upon approval of the owner of the utility tract. In have not been constructed may be used on a temporary basis as open spaces and for trails and other recreational Space, Common Area, or Park Standards until such time as the utility facility is constructed and opened for use interim use. on the PUD Plan shall not be used for agricultural/horticultural uses. 1 All uses and activities shall be conducted in acco Easement dated February 3, 2000 and recorded February and Recorder. 2 NH Center Tract = Neighborhood Center Tract. 3 Extensions of park features including lighting, trails, primary use and purpose of the Right -of -Way Tract Right -of -Way Tract but where roads have not been Services Uses and may be landscaped in accordance for use and the landscaping is approved by the owner 4 Unplatted land within the REC PUD may be developed when platted they are not located on platted lots or generally conform to the PUD Plan. 6 Limited to stormwater detention and retention ponds shall be located within appropriate drainage easements that use. 7 Located in easements or Right -of -Way Tracts where 8 Landscaping, street furnishings and other amenities primary use and purpose of the Right -of -Way Tract. 9 Extensions of park features including lighting, trails, Maintenance & Irrigation Tracts) provided they do not addition, tracts dedicated to utility uses where facilities uses and may be landscaped in accordance with Open provided the owner of the utility tract authorizes said 10 Unplatted land dedicated as an Open Space Tract A-8 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado Table 4. Dimensional Standards Maximum Minimum Minimum Building Maximum Front Rear Side Side Street Maximum Lot Size Lot Width Coverage Floor Area Setback Setback Setback Setback Building Zoning Category and District (ft2) (ft) (%) (ft2) (ft)1,11 (ft)1 (ft)1 (ft)111 Height (ft)1 Residential Use Attached Home 4500 50 60 3200 (5000)5 252 7 06 10 35 Estate 9000 50 50 6000 252 10 5 15 35 Executive 43560 100 30 12000 15 15 15 15 35 Garden Home 2100 20 80 3600 (5000)57 108 18 06 59 25 Town 5900 50 50 3600 152 10 (7)3 5 10 35 Village 5000 50 60 3200 104 10 (7)3 5 5 25 Community Uses Common Area NA NA 10 1000 (100)7 10 10 10 10 15 Garden/Orchard NA NA 10 1000 (100)7 10 10 10 10 15 Nei Neighborhood Center 9 NA NA Building Envelope10 10000 1010 1010 1010 1010 35 Open Space NA NA NA 10013 10 10 10 10 10 Park NA NA NA NA 10 10 10 10 25 Right -of -Way Uses Right -of -Way NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utility Uses Irrigation and Maintenance NA NA Building Envelope10 NA 510 510 570 510 25 Water and Wastewater Utilit 12 y NA NA Building Envelope10 10000 510 510 510 510 25 Notes: 1 See CCRS for additional restrictions on the location and height of buildings. 2 Porches may encroach up to 8 feet into the front yard. Bay windows and architectural elements may encroach up to 3 feet into the front yard. No encroachment shall interfere with any drainage or utility easement. 3 Setback shall be reduced when lot is alley loaded. 4 Porches may encroach up to 5 feet into the front yard. Bay windows and architectural elements may encroach up to 3 feet into the front yard. No encroachment shall interfere with any drainage or utility easement. 5Total square footage of both dwelling units when dwellings are attached. 6A minimum of 10 feet is required between each one family or two-family dwelling. 7 No single recreational building such as a pavilion shall exceed 1000 square feet. No utility building shall exceed 100 square feet. 8 Front Setback is measured from the exterior boundary line of the Garden Home Tract which is generally congruent to the exterior lot line of the Garden Home Lot unless a Community Use tract lies between the Garden Home Lot and exterior boundary line of the Garden Home Tract. 9 Measured from the Right -of -Way Tract boundary line located within the Garden Home Tract. 10 All buildings shall be located within building envelops as identified on the final plat. 11 No building shall be located within a clear vision triangle. 12 Water and Wastewater Utility tracts shall be regulated as Common Area Tracts until a utility use is located within the tract. 13 No utility building shall exceed 100 square feet. A-9 PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado APPENDIX B: ROAD STANDARDS All roads, alleys and courts within the REC PUD shall be constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications contained in this appendix. B-1 FILE NAME: P:\CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS \06.00 DESIGN TASKS \06.02 - TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT\ENGINEERING & DESIGN \CAD\EXHIBITS\MISC REPORT FIGURES\PUD-STREETTYPSEC.DWG PLOT DATE/TIME: 8/5/2011 12:16 PM PLOTTED BY: CHRIS SNYDER PLOT STYLE: 8140CAD MSTAN ARD.CTB N 00 D v m 0 Z CO r m ROAD DESIGN TABLE CRITERIA ENTRY ROAD LOCAL ALLEY / COURT GARDEN HOME ACCESS EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS (EVA) DESIGN CAPACITY (ADT) 8,000 5,000 <500 <500 N/A DESIGN SPEED (MPH) 25 25 N/A N/A N/A POSTED SPEED (MPH) 25 25 N/A N/A N/A PAVEMENT WIDTH (FT) (LANES) 24 (2)' 36 (2)' 24 (2)' 20 (2)' 20 MIN. HORIZONTAL RADIUS (FT) 185 80 50 50 N/A DESIGN VEHICLE WB -50 WB -40 BUS -40 BUS -40 BUS -40 CURB RETURN RADII (FT) 30' 20' N/A N/A N/A MAX. GRADE (%) 8 8 8 8 8 CROSS SLOPE (%) 2 2 2 N/A N/A SURFACE ASPHALT ASPHALT ASPHALT ASPHALT ASPHALT ' TWO 12' TRAVEL LANES PLUS RAISED MEDIAN (VARYING WIDTH) AND NO ON -STREET PARKING. ] TWO 10' TRAVEL LANES AND ON -STREET PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. ' TWO 10' TRAVEL LANES AND 2' SHOULDERS. ° TWO 10' TRAVEL LANES. FILE NAME: P:\CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS \06.00 DESIGN TASKS \06.02 - TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT\ENGINEERING & DESIGN \ CAD \ EXHIBITS \MISC REPORT FIGURES \PUD-STREETiYPSEC.D WG PLOT DATE/TIME: 1/17/2011 11:11 AM PLOTTED BY: DAVE HOPTA PLOT STYLE: 8140CAD MSTAN ARD.CT8 -M 4.13 < x 51 T 1 V N a� D r0 m o 0 N 0 v m z z 0 VARIES - EXIST. CDOT ROW 4.00' PAVED 1 2.00' 1 2.00' 1 2.00' VARIES 1 zoo' VARIES VARIES 4% ,_ Ir �% 1 Ir t t d D EXISTING SH82 WIDENING TYPICAL SECTION 0 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE O1 HOT MIX ASPHALT 0.02 FT /F1 ir 0 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON SOIL CONDITIONS DETAIL A SCALE: N.T.S NOTES: 0 THIS STREET ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL ASPHALT CONCRETE ROAD SECTION. 0 SEE TABLE D-2 FOR SIDE SLOPE REQUIREMENTS. 3. GRADES: MINIMUM MAXIMUM 0.5% 8.0% FILE NAME: P:\CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS \06.00 DESIGN TASKS \06.02 - TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT \ENGINEERING & DESIGN \ CAD \ EXHIBITS \MISC REPORT FIGURES \PUD-STREETTYPSEC.D WG PLOT DATE/TIME: 1/17/2011 11:11 AM PLOTTED BY: DAVE HOPTA PLOT STYLE: 8140CAD MSTAN ARD.CT8 n 4•74 -< O a II !- ma d n r 3 1 m0 r 0 - -I O� zm m D 5.00' EASEMENT 4 5.00' SIDEWALK 5.00' 2% 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 RAW WATER 1 2.00' 53.00' - ROW 6.00' RAISED MEDIAN 5.00' EASEMENT 1 2.00' iMrsramxtrosampAratirearAsh.: m-= .l 1.50' 5.00' 5.00' SIDEWALK 2% 11 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 11 HOT MIX ASPHALT E • STORM SEWER 0.02 FT./FT Lri POTABLE y)WATER 10.00' MIN. COLLECTOR STREET TYPICAL SECTION 0 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON SOIL CONDITIONS DETAIL A SCALE: N.T.S n NOTES: 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 THIS STREET ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL ASPHALT CONCRETE ROAD SECTION. O SEE TABLE D-2 FOR SIDE SLOPE REQUIREMENTS. 3. GRADES: MINIMUM MAXIMUM 0.5% 8.0% DRY UTILITY TRENCH TYP. FILE NAME: P:\CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS \06.00 DESIGN TASKS \06.02 - TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT \ENGINEERING & DESIGN \ CAD \ EXHIBITS \MISC REPORT FIGURES \PUD-STREETTYPSEC.D WG PLOT DATE/TIME: 1/17/2011 11:11 AM PLOTTED BY: DAVE HOPTA PLOT STYLE: 8140CAD MSTAN ARD.CTB N cq -i m Ad Z Oa -0 —1 aD z rn c' m ✓ m N 0 boo ON z m cn m O Z d D 69.50' - ROW 6.00' ROADSIDE DITCH 4.00' PAVED SHOULDER 12.00' 1 2.00' RAISED MEDIAN 1 2.00' 4.00' PAVED SHOULDER 12.00' 6.00' ROADSIDE DITCH 4% 2% id 2% 4% Ti f� 11,56o ENTRANCE/SH82 INTERSECTION TYPICAL SECTION 0 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 0 HOT MIX ASPHALT 0.02 FT./FT km 0 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON SOIL CONDITIONS DETAIL A SCALE: N.T.S n NOTES: 11 THIS STREET ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL ASPHALT CONCRETE ROAD SECTION. O SEE TABLE D-2 FOR SIDE SLOPE REQUIREMENTS. 3. GRADES: MINIMUM MAXIMUM 0.5% 8.0% • DITCH SECTIONS AND/OR LOCATIONS MAY VARY TO MEET REQUIREMENTS. FILE NAME: P:\CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS \06.00 DESIGN TASKS \06.02 - TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT\ENGINEERING & DESIGN \ CAD \ EXHIBITS \MISC REPORT FIGURES \PUD-STREETTYPSEC.D WG PLOT DATE/TIME: 1/17/2011 11:11 AM PLOTTED BY: DAVE HOPTA PLOT STYLE: 8140CAD MSTAN ARD.CT8 N Ell -1 r O 0T -< 0 ' 60 C) aDr r v) ' m x 0 0z d D 5.00' ...EASEMENT 56.00' - ROW 5.00' EASEMENT 5.00' SIDEWALK 5.00' 8.00' 1 0.00' 10.00' 8.00' 5.00' 5.00' SIDEWALK 2% 1.5 0' 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Le e e eJ�DRY UTILITY TRENCH TYP ALTERNATE LOCATION WHEN ROAD CAN NOT ACCOMMODATE GAS BURY DEPTH TO BE DETERMINED BY GAS COMPANY TYP. GAS 22% 2% 1.50' CURB & GUTTER TYP. 2% illi pzer,apjfelfraireirAMPA_ W � SANITARY GASe1 SEWER I 5.00' MIN Ilk 10,00' MIN. w d STORM ()SEWER 10.00' MIN. 11 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 11 HOT MIX ASPHALT 0.02 FT./FT km 0 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON SOIL CONDITIONS DETAIL A SCALE: N.T.S LOCAL STREET TYPICAL SECTION n NOTES: 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 e e Z 11 THIS STREET ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL ASPHALT CONCRETE ROAD SECTION. O SEE TABLE D-2 FOR SIDE SLOPE REQUIREMENTS. 3. GRADES: MINIMUM MAXIMUM 0.5% 8.0% RAW 0WATER FILE NAME: P:\CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS \06.00 DESIGN TASKS \06.02 - TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT\ENGINEERING & DESIGN \ CAD \ EXHIBITS \MISC REPORT FIGURES \PUD-STREETTYPSEC.D WG PLOT DATE/TIME: 1/17/2011 11:11 AM PLOTTED BY: DAVE HOPTA PLOT STYLE: 8140CAD MSTAN ARD.CT8 Ell -1 > 0 CT -< r a -0 r -DaP. D-4 3 1- U) y m XI n rn 0 =-I O z D 5.00' EASEMENT 24.00' - ROW 5.00' EASEMENT 12.00' 12.00' L00_0_1 2% 5.00MIN 2% 11 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 0 HOT MIX ASPHALT SANITARY SEWER 10.00' MIN. POTABLE WATER ALLEY STREET TYPICAL SECTION 0.02 FT./FT km 0 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON SOIL CONDITIONS DETAIL A SCALE: N.T.S n NOTES: 11 THIS STREET ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL ASPHALT CONCRETE ROAD SECTION. O SEE TABLE D-2 FOR SIDE SLOPE REQUIREMENTS. 3. GRADES: MINIMUM MAXIMUM 0.5% 8.0% PUD Development Guide River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado APPENDIX C: DRIVEWAY CURB CUT TYPICAL AND SPECIFICATIONS All driveway curb cuts within the REC PUD shall be constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications contained in this appendix. c-1 Owner/Developer: _ e COLORADO Carbondale Investments, LLC 7999 HWY 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone No: 970.456.5325 VARIES 2'-6" CURB RADIUS -EL TO CROWN OF STREET OR 20', WHICHEVER IS LESS 20'— 0 PLAN VIEW SAW CUT OR COLD JOINT (TYP) 20'— 0" ", ro H BP ABC NOTES SECTION A—A CONCRETE 1. W — WIDTH SALL BE 6' FOR LOCAL, 8' FOR COLLECTORS, AND 10' FOR ARTERIAL ROADS. 2. T — SQUARED—OFF RETURN TO BE POURED MONOLITHIC 8" PCC OR 9" FOR COLLECTORS MINIMUM WITH 6x6 — 4.4 W.W.F. OR 44 @ 18 E.W. 2.1',:_:'1= 3" MINIMUM ASPHALT DEPTH (2 LIFTS). 3. DESIGN TO SPECIFY ELEVATIONS AT PI AND PCR Title: TYPICAL CROSS PAN LAYOUT DETAIL Prepared by: 8140 Partners, LLC Date: 01/14/2011 Exhibit: App. C-2 FILE NAME: \\DEN-SRV1\PROJECTS \CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS\06.00 DESIGN TASKS \06.02 - TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT \ENGINEERINGN&D NA 9968ISC REPORT FIGURES \PUD-CURBDETAILS.D WG PLOT DATE/TIME: 1/17/2011 9:59 AM PLOTTED BY: CHRIS LOWRY PLOT STYLE: 8140CAD MSTANDARD.CT8 0 m x 0 D 460Z/14/60 0 m MIA 1NOHA G HEM 1f1O 82J(1O NO11O3S SSOH3 4" THICK SIDEWALK PROPERTY OR EASEMENT LINE DRIVEWAY EDGE CONSTRUCTIO j .-.. OR TOOL JOINT TOOLS JOINT SPACING ALLEY/DRIVEWAY WIDTH A B 10' 6' 5 20' 10' 5 24' 8' 4 Owner/Developer: _ e COLORADO Carbondale Investments, LLC 7999 HWY 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone No: 970.456.5325 Yz" THICK EXPANSION JOINT FULL WIDTH OF DRIVEWAY PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 400 —1/2" NOTES 1. PROVIDE CENTERLINE CONSTRUCTION OR TOOL JOINT WHEN DRIVEWAY WIDTH (EDGE TO EDGE) IS 14' OR GREATER. 2. ALL TOOL JOINTS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1—)6" DEEP. 3. FLARED PORTION OF DRIVEWAY SHALL BE POURED MONOLITHIC WITH MAIN RECTANGULAR PORTION OF DRIVEWAY. CURB AND GUTTER SHALL NOT BE POURED MONOLITHIC WITH DRIVEWAY Title: DRIVEWAY DETAIL WITH DETACHED SIDEWALK Prepared by: 8140 Partners, LLC Date: 01/14/2011 Exhibit: App. C-4 MATCH FINISHED GRADE SLOPE FINISH APRON GRADE— MIN 3 ce 0 z 27 MIN - GUTTER 6" j -r -- I 4" 520—C-2500 CONCRETE LEYEL LL PER PLAN NOTE: MAINTAIN FLOW TO UNDERGROUND PIPES 30' BEVEL SECTION / 12" 3" 4" THICK CONCRETE NLET APRON W/ 6" DEEP 4" WIDE CUTOFF WALL AROUND PERIMETER. APRON & CUTOFF WALL REINFORCED W/ 1 1/2"x1 1/2" 17 GAGE STUCCO NETTING PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO CONCRETE INLET APRON (TYP.) STANDARD SIDEWALK SCOW— w z 3 1/2" MIN 2" MIN (TMP) (TYP) 4" L7N 0000 (NP) 4 (Typ)I 2" MIN (TYP) Owner/Developer: _ e COLORADO Carbondale Investments, LLC 7999 HWY 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone No: 970.456.5325 PLAN 1 1/2" SECTION B—B (4) 4" SCH-80 PVC PIPES (CONTINUOUS LENGTHS) m ce0 GUTTER z PIPE TO BE FINISHED FLUSH W/ CURB FACE 520—C-2500 CONCRETE TYPE G CURB & GUTTER SECTION C—C Title: SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN WITH CURB OUTLET DETAIL Prepared by: 8140 Partners, LLC Date: 01/14/2011 Exhibit: App. C-5 & 0ES!GN\CAD\PLAN SHEETS \ PUO- 01 -COVER DWG - TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT\ENGI LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: kEGN, 106SCRIPTION - PARE[L A (SOUTH PARCEL) - Fa1E15 EDGE FMD A TRACT a LAND 97507(9 N 1147 EAST FOL( a 5E5n04 17, 1711109P 7 SOUTH. RIN 4 89 INST. MO IN 7147 INV HALF a SECTNN 7 MO IN 187 NOUN HALT a SEG712N 19, T51198P 7 SOJ117. RANGE 68 FEST G 7147 6111 PI MIOPAL ME517AN, COUNTY OF GIRFELD, STALE OF COLORADO, DEIN[ MORE 71RPCUU7LY DECREED D A5 FatLOMS; 13E0NN:146 AT A 70447 CN THE LIE5TERL7 NIGHT Of MAY UNE 0T 00001470 STATE 71014AY 82, NNENCE A 2 1/7 GRASS co, raw W HAZE MEI CERRL5.117 NOMAD A5 14E 40411(451 COOE'R 0854101055.11084 7„ BEAR5 5 789020' ( A 1151444E a 215014 FEET: `rNCE. 0107 SAO 198047 U' 7441 UNE 5 09'7599 E A O15TAe,1C a 401,79 :NEE, 5 07115539 E A 015TA4CE OF 1545.57 FEET; A'.ENCE, 628.05 FEET NBC PE ARC 0' A CURVE TO THE ELFT 94YNC A RADOS (F 146250 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGE OF 2411'44' ARE. SUBiE4KN1C 4 (71(89 80040 a 5 21'4802' E A 745TM4CE OF 621.41 FEET; PENCE. 5 33'4054 E A 051004E Of 377.25 FEET: PENCE, 294.32 FEET ALONG 1F[ PAC OF A CLIME TO 851E RCNT, MANIC A RANO OF 271500 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGIE OF 55926' AND 5,41531440 A 7H4199 EARNS. CAr 5 301711 E A MANCE OF 294.19 RET; PENCE, 077111400 500 RIGi' CF NAY UNE N 895318 M A O57AINE OF 21867 FEET; 14491447. N 4053'30 N A 75-4504 15 6938 rah PENCE. 5 517879 w A 0151045.' ,O 34.35 £'EET: 1109445. 5 875212 w A. 5.4515445 0 1660 11E1; PENCE. N 587719 A A 05'ANCI a 41.45 F r1: 14(NCE. N 2951131 N A REF AREA' a! 5.21 3311; PENCE, M 241674 Al A ITISANCL I} 25.22 FTSE; PENCE, N 8920443 R A D.5 ANC( U 9.87 -ET; 1EMCE„ 5 8751'4 w A D5TANCE 22.60 MET; PENCE, N 572521 44 A DS -NCE. If 17.28 Fal; PENCE, N 5009'49 IAA 75 4444E If 26.07 FEET; 14ENCE. N /'2112 W A 015''4NCF OF 999 EEE; PENCE. N 442855 W A 05-4115.! 0: 21.45 MEI; 5E544E. N 555008 R A 0454941 4 49070 7(57; 11(19[.4. N 562510 *4 A 951ANC4 4 49.94 FEE1; 11424.1C7. N 6812'23 M A DS:MO, 4 38.45 FE/I; PENCE. N /5454 N A 715104[0 a 5518 FEET; PENCE, N 087951 *4 4 9sr4CE a 2544 rat; 7.44447. N 4741 S0 N A 057ANCE a 78.78 FEET; PENCE, N 30'26'40 N 4 05.4047E a 24.58 FEET; KNEE, N 25'4101 M A 04554184E OF 3008 FEEh PENCE, N 1811'38 N A DISTANCE OF 34.81 FEE(; PENCE, N 305721 M A 0O7IANCE OF 29.32 Fah; PENCE, N 215914 Al A ErsrAIICE OF 27.50 FEET; PENCE, N 3016107 N A NUANCE a 7297 FEET; THENCE. N 254178 R A 75TACE OF 109.44 FEET; PENCE. N 414139 E A 751AN7E a 02.65 FEET; 5(545.5. N 38'3452 E A 75514401 OF 1589 70E1; 14+7440. N 3476'44 M A 75741NCE a 262.10 PEET; WAGE. N 5758°19 W A 051ANCE a 102.47 FEET: PENCE„ N 53'43'31 M A 01534114E 4 105.38 FEET; 1ETCE, Al 555811 M A OSTANCE OF 128.43 FEET; PENCE, 81 561457 M A 045`04[.4 l7€ 118.42 FEET; PNCE. N 4918T4 M A 045TAN4E a 138.33 FEED; 1FENCE„ Al 4413031 A A D5'8NCE Cf 15006 FEET; WISE. N 271936 w A 714:ANCF w 102.14 FEED 4EN4€. N 37'81'19 18 A 651044E co 557.12 FEET; PENCE, N 161052 N A 051ANC1 Or 47.26 FEET; 8EN40, N 2758'19 M A 75111141 D 105.20 FEET; 114444E. N 355186 44 A 05'41141 O 71.09 FEET; 14(4440, N 41'32'17 N A 251AN4F a 157.25 FEET; PENCE, N 407224 *4 A 1(751ANCE a 339.82 FEET; 1HENCE, 4 6420"53 M A (STANCE (7 34.06 FEET; PENCE, N 452085 M A 757454E OF 5242 FEET; PENCE, N 445741 N A DSTANGE CE 45468 FEET; PENCF, N 3285'48 W A ISSTAN47 FF 8558 (FET; PENCE. N 5771'32 M A 05141847 a 44,89 FEE(: PENCE, N 373312 N A 757044E 4 85.72 57 t; PENCE, N 37'39'03 M A 4151444E OF 1999 700% PENCE, Al 37'3730 w A (WAKE OF 6532 FEET; 14+444E. M 200215 R A 750,47E OF 3398 FEET; PENCE, N 395225 M A (75TANLE a 42.92 FEET; PENCE, N 251654 M A &STANCE a 107.47 FEET; PENCE, N 30'3458 If A 5557ANti Er 184.72 FEET; 1ENCE, N 1139121 R A. 0ISTMICE Cf 107.96 FELT; 7ENCE, IN 245556E A INSTANCE OF 16355 FEET; .. r: NCE. N 6319033 E A (45T44CE a 17381 FEET: NCE, N 8314'19 E A 759064€ IN 393.54 FEET: NCE. N 021526 N A 5LSTANO a 21,79 rat ONCE. N 805111 I A 0514544E a 5890 FEET; PENCE. 14 891576 0 A O52A9C7 a 6556 FACT; 9E110E, N 5150'74 E A &STANCE OF 50.12 FEET; PENCE, 5 815115E A &STAND a 33.05 FEET; PENCE, 5 811950 E A DISTANCE OF 89.61 FEET; PEIlCE, N 569720 E A INSTANCE a 28.88 FEET; PENCE, N 073831E A 75:ANCA sF 27.93 FEAT; P47NCE, N 371157 A A OS'4NCr 4 28.46 FEET; PENCE. N 50420-15 ; A 75-4NCL. 4 2223 FEET; 7.4NCE. N 67111530 s A 053,464 a' 36.49 FEET; PEND, 5 63:2486 I A 01514516: OF 51.05 FEET; I4ENCI, 5 455936 4 A 0514144! OF 2695 FEET: PEND. 5 1414'20 E A 05T474CE a 28.18 FEET: 11(UNC(. 5 111111 M A D57AN4E Or 28.42 FEET; PEACE. 5 145811 E. A 051,04E 4 39.14 FEET; PENCE. 5 A71210 E A 051041% a 69.77 FEET; PEACE, 5 31'36'59 E 4 DISTANCE a 56.76 FEET; PENCE, 5 48'38'46 E 4 DISTANCE a 40.12 FEET; DENCE, 5 453055 E A. DISTANCE a 40.88 FEET; PENCE, S 0016'38 E A DISTANCE OF 43.39 FEET; PENCE, 5 731824 E A DISTANCE a 67.50 FEET; PENCE. 5 5312515 E A 75TANDT OF 15.85 FLET; PENCE. 9 843'5r20 E 4 051,14: OF 52.31 FEET; PENCE. 5 837811 E A 0514574 OF 46.95 FEET: PENCE. Al 867977E A 4SE415r 4 61.04 FEET: PEACE. N 3159'09 E A WANG( a 47.07 FEET: PENCE, N 055858 E A GSTACE a 37.16 FEE1; PENCE, N 729627 E A &STANCE a 7.96 RET; PENCE, 5 2457113 E A 1514NCE OF 72.35 MET; PENCE, 5 4152'47 E A UST4N70 OF 50.71 FEET; PENCE, 5 51'/471 E A 015TANG1 a 38.31 FEET; IEN4E, 5 82'39'39 E A 7215475. OF 47.15 1E1; 5(4470. 5 571172 E A 7514409" 79' 71.06 7EE1; PENCE, 5 415116E A 0510440 a 8665 FEET; PENCE. 5 573913 E A 051,74.4'0 or 65.60 FEET: PENCE. 5 495688 E 4 091AN4 Of 74,96 FEET: n(NCE, 5 670452 E A 78514547E OF 4314 FEET; PENCE, 5 741810.1 E A DISTANCE OF 55.45 FEET TO 184E PONT CF BECAw4NO, Ca4TM14445 AH AREA Of 65924 ACRES, MOPE CR LEES. RIVER EDGE COLORADO LA 10a5ME ICH, PARCEL B Omni PARaL1 A 18441 Q LANG 91561(8 N 015 EAST HALF a SECTION 12, 1900554 7 5041x. RAH4 49 NEST, AT4 IN THE !EST HALF OF 5EC11011( 7, 1019I7117 7 50217, RANGE A 7[51 a THE 6141 7884 141 MEPoOU5, WHIM 4 7527(104, STATE OF COLORADO, 5086 NONE PAR1GUL9RL7 8850181E9 55 FIN10I0; BEQNNWG GA RFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR'S 2 1/2- BRASS, FOAB IN RACE, NLD WRRE5147 YAANEO A5 Ili SOUTDEA9E OpN5P OF SAB 575.944 7, 114787E 5 1472'I5' E A 44514NCE a 547951 FEET TO THE WEE PON1 a 8.4044410 747865, 5 894377' E A 4451497E a 1015.44 fEET' TO A PONT CI THE 1(7104714 UNE a 14E R04R447 FORK 1751151 45/475117 1RANSPOR1Ai10N C98RDOR 54FEAEW1; PENCE. ALONG PTE MASTERLY LINE a 5051 (4074.441 5 19'3852 E 4 OI5TNKL OF 2814.53 FEET: 54744000. 454.31 FEET A.CMC THE ARC a 4 DANE TO THE OGHT, 4144947 A COWS GC 281500 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE a 009112 ARD WIDOW A CHORD MARK OF E 14570*' E 4 017185 £ a 093,70 FEEL; 11(845, 5 081557 E A 057694 or 120.78 7EE1; 7(NCE, ammo THE WESTERLY LINE CF 5NO E45ENEN1 N 8556'10' k A 751644E OF 80.16 FEET: PENCE. N 495410' w A DISTANCE OF 64.72 FEET; 11(9[7, N 4954'40' Ir 4 DISTANCE a 88.97 FEET; PENCE, N 481110' M A DISTANCE CF 54.20 FEET; 11-E ACE, N 5614717' w A 0151514(£ or 12397 FEET: 7(440, N 83'4774' w 4 0515144E a 93.00 FEET; PENCE, 9 29'35'31' w A DISTANCE OF 119.58 FEE1; 11419[1, N 789045 w A 445TANIE,FEF 53.84 FEE PENCE, 5 7991'48' Al A 0518547E a 31.60 FEET: PENCE. 5 2257'52' N A 01(141 (E 7F 56.05 FEET: PENCE, 5 591152' Al A 245144(6 OF 45.48 FEET; PENCE, N 853735- w A DISTANCE a 2123 FEET; PENCE. N 5957175 or Arms -Rua CF 9571 FEET' PENCE, N 71701' w 4 0515AC0 OF 85.73 FEET; PENCE, N 36'4310' w A DISTANCE OF 93.22 FEET; 1FE44E, N 2579'20' w A DISTANCE a 181,92 FEET; 11 -ENCS. N 551074' w A DISTANCE a 96.43 FEF(,' PENCE. 5 859283' M A 0451A7Cf OF 52.20 FEET: PENCE, 5 765757' W A 0131042E a 39.34 FEET: 1EN60. 5 509'33' N A 0151N< OF 42.96 FEET; 113E85.E, 5 5725'13' 0 A 0514815.E Or 2160 r601; 7ENCE, N 7792'57' w 4 05104.4E a 69.86 FEET; 0.494E, 5 7054'18' 44 A INSTANCE OF 70.95 FEET; PENCE, N 8859'39' w A 2451444E of 5535 FEET; PENCE, 5 815858- M A 051ANc7 a 4993 FEET; 11-ENCE, N 1471191 E A 751414C7 CF 8&20 FEET; 11 -6 -NCE, N 051816' w A (4515NCL a 17.59 RET; 1F#64E, N 187705' E A 0157044E Of 10.82 FEET; PENCE, N 2253'40- E 4 6STNICE OF 44.14 FEET; PENCE, H 191458- E 4 INSTANCE OF 35.71 FEET; PENCE. N 085481' E A DISTANCE OF 47.16 rat; PENCE, N 03'48'08' 4 4 75TAM40 Or 36.46 FEET; 14ENCC H 04'4052' E A DISTANCE OF 71.03 FEET; PENCE, N 073751' E 4 751065E OF 54.85 FEET; 1 041, N 292614" w A DISTANCE a 83,60 (CCT; THENCE, 11 3271044' w A 7514NCE OF 61.05 FEET,' 17ENCE, N 261729' w A INSTANCE a 55.52 FEET; 1FE4CC N 3814'36' w A DISTANCE OF 44.38 FEET; PENCE, N 5311'32' w A INSTANCE OF 37.73 FEET; PENCE, N 5954'48' WA 05TAICE a 51.16 FEET; SERGE. N 715I'35' w A DISTANCE a 36,77 FEET; 17ENCE, N 57334Y w A 051AICE a 68.70 FEET; PENCE, N 8156'23' w A 0515144E OF 65.02 FEET: 1EMC6, N 04109' w 4 DISTANCE a 158.05 FEET; 11-ENCL. N 3550'41' If A DISTANCE a 41.30 FEET; PENCE, N 5416413' w A DISTANCE 7F 24.70 FEET, PENCE, N 285745' w 4 057097E a 709.99 FEET: 5E.NCE, N 11073? w 4 051454E a 3282 FEET; PENCE, M 415546' E A 051411E OF 78.19 FEET; PENCE, N D679'01' w A 050454(5. OF 117.20 FEET: 14(866, N 300587' w A 05TAN4E Of 9424 FEET: P#44C, N 1187.83' If A 05T44C0 a 6383 FEET; PENCE, 14 07574' w A 2451AN0E a 111,45 FEET; PENCE, N 095614' 7 4 0575114E OF 50.76 FEET: 14(640, Al 1917'44' w 4 0514NCE a 91.04 FEET, 5(944, 9 44'4I'59' w 4 05145744 a 13465 70.01; 17864, N 197319' 1 A 55TANCE a 74.18 FEET; PENCE, N 19'33'06' w A INSTANCE CF 43.77 FEET-. PEACE, N 218701' w A DISTANCE a 72.23 PEEN PENCE, N 001670' E A DISTANCE OF 217.77 FEET; PENCE, N 291680' E A 7857044 OF 312.91 FEET 10 147 POINT OF 8001179(, 014140895 854 41EA a 73.007 ACRES, MORE CR LESS. 74TCE4 4: A IBC OF IND 41041.40 N n( SCOM N:ST QUARTER CA' 51711[N 7, 10417076 7 591714, RAINCE 8B HEST OF 114E 111(14 10611274L NEWMAN, 60LNIr a GNPELD 5TMTt OF (.91[41100. B€m5. ORE PAR14'ULNIL7 DE5aa7E0 AS (0440415 EOMIRNG AT A PORT ON THE 95.5TERLY 07-41 OF MAY UNE OF COLORADO STATE W HIM 82, 511FHCE A 2 I/2' BRASS CAP, FOUND 94 PACE AND PROPERLY TANNED AS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SNO SECTION 7, BEARS 5 1708'43' E A 0541545 OF 7654.86 FEET: THENCE, A10*C 520 WESTERLY RAitf OF 1442 UNE N 091510' M A PEIR CE OF 186,14 THENCE, 262.80 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 77194E TO PE LEFT MING A PADIII5 OF 2915.00 FEET. A CEN1M1 ANGLE OF 5'33'17- ALD 548TEFi0INC A CHORD f£AAINC or N 1221'49' M A 0851ANCE OF 2E2.49 FEET; THENCE. DEPARTING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LNE 5 9770'07- E A DISTANCE OF 49.74 FEET,, THENCE, 3 86'61'00- E A 757047E a 202.70 FEET; THENCE, 5 20'34'58' E A (*SLAKE a 260.20 FEET TO THE PoNF OF 077481800, 0 47 14 71 4 7, N4 AREA OF 0231 /On.45, 100E 019 LESS LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL MAP SCALE: N.T.S. PUD PLAN VICINITY MAP TABLE 1 - LAND USE SUMMARY TABLE Ms 10T4t AREA CP OPEN SPACE AND OTHER IX3,11I0141YSPACES WEN 1ACE477721(1 rows/ APER CF 4SEARL£MEN SPACE 4'204 eXPEI UNWED. USE OPg4 SPrOE f'YA S.CPE1 DETENTION A4EAS40840E1 d7;'r 40420 AC 344571;. 007 AC 2 DO AC PENGEHt G1'£N SPACE OTHER E/F%3 AND LYNAU11RY 57717E RECREATIONAL [PEN SPACE *PAR S4' COASCN AAFA7 LOEIERP4I' COAFIYr4NFAYLCRC744p04p4$1EN1 NEIGHBORHOOD CENT ER 445.4461E 71144111a1475 844.14'10 s1CPE1 PERCEN 1 OTHER OM/Murat Y SPACE T0T7A AREA* 48091- F-WaV NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER BUILDING AND PARI(B4G SUMMARY 15184.0EYE47PE030 nal TM/ DRIst:WA75 A10 Pgbi9CMEAS (420tPA44R TOTAL 14CN-RESIOENri*L FLOC( SPACE 4MAAMAIM4 UTILITY TRACT BUILOING.AND PARKING 651101971 15.14, 69(7 CF 0714117114474 8500440NASAI111MU1.1 O 755. WArs 440 1184 115 514E75 0.6.191/61 NON/RE 017fl1T A 51.578172411714147114161 302147 115.884 117340 5,0057 2900; 304084 2279% 4510 PC 1544704( N00051 4071:5 F 217AO MOWS, 72.0905 2195550 LOT AND TRACT COUPON' RE51060146_ U NEADANOP1ICOD CENTER USE UTARv4SE O PEN SPACE 8740(15140414,74144458754 COMMON AREA USE /GENERAL AND CRCH4RD44RO114 6454T.096at'USE OFF-STREET PARKING GRACES RESI0EN1U4' NNEENDO RH7CO CENTER' (AW;AAIM. OPEN SPACE PONS 54400O.7N MEAN INNwA1.11' Enure LAZA 44845 NUMBBROF °WILLIN8 UAL' GROSS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY PRAS Pisaco.obo411'REF FARED r0 AS ACIOACHN 0P4CE ' il0615EO ON PROF3E0 EASEMENTS FOR OETENrf941OND5 'VOL U0E54UTROGE9 RAW WATER SYSTEM DETENTEN PM)LOCATED RAW WATER 0EIENFY6N F17N0EA59rEl1T N TRACT AC ' NO4UCE5 TNOS:OTS PER 0YIEWIGVNIT Ow51REE1 PARRNG#L112P50M640D 4111657 ICLUOE5IN TOTAL 'ONE SPACE PER 4055OVIRE Faro( RIJN-01NG AREA. 1NSTREET PAPo4R4GALR3PRO,AOEa 7411140 NLLU0EO IN TOTN, (8107PEET PA44NG r#NE7A4AYOOt4510ERE0 A0EWAIE TO SERVICE P4ANSANO 00N44Y4 ANC/LS. OUT 57@IT47HAL DESI'4RATE7 PPYa419G NAY DIE MOWED ' 0NE5PA0E PER 29N0OV4RE FEET(( Boum AREAOWS0REE1 P4FR11NG NEPRLINDED 800772440711154011457#7EGSHAa ALSO EN PenNabE0 4049000751741404584884100207E AND PAVER A 4.451194TE9VTRITY T88470 NEE TAKE SARIN 25 LO7Ar101144012744064963 AT04509191626 2148 CP 7,4 R41EREOM 0445446'91100 RAN FOR MN Z7411NODt5T8(1 DE5Na84T1ONa EACH LOT AND TRACT AID THE 7467T7JCE sop LLlm 055. ALLoyoncEsaio stAN0A1r05 8PROMO(0 ASNEGESSARY1O GERvEPUY FAos. eouR1S ANDPLAY(RaJHOS 7NSTREE1 PARSING F(ENERyJ.YCd1s105177 44960UAI(7O SE*10E11116A9M10 CO16.1i4 AP186. 041 ,P1016.46000641,2(5 +4ATE0 PARge80021740 any721#944EO 70 SCGCACCATE USERS PUD APPROVALS AND CERTIFICATIONS 1. FCR THIS PUD PLAN, ACCO* wa'NG PUO DUDE AAD OTHER 7041CT DOCUMENTS, AS D n u N :li PO, MOE. IS FRET 040 147ER 019705E a 147 GINEL7 COMO' OWED LAID USE R 50 UINR4 Oi 2001 AS ANEMIC (51519]1 DIE 40640171 FOR ARTICLE N CF RIE uta 15 m0411X0 001 EN THE PLANNED LRIIT DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1922.(TITLE 24, ANODE 67. 074.5., A5 AIENDE0). SEWN tHE MORTON a 1415 PUD MON PASA NT Ti) 190146 Or rIRt1a0 COUPHY 40110S510fER5' 74S04011NON SAIL TWANG n1E 700505 NO DEMON OF THE 8078 0F 00194154.7 MAID CO4a455NRIERS THAT THIS PUO PIANS N 7FIEPAI COWCRIAU4CE 11774 TIE ONEIEL0 COUNTY OOYRRE4EN5NE PAN ANO NI 45471.150817, 710u66.5;E.7 5 Of ME 0.08 5147 T4A1 1145 PND PLA DOIPLE5 911H THE PUNNED UN11 DEYELOWU4F ACT OF 1972. ASEILEVIS APPRCW94, OF 1445 P1N4 SHALL CREATE A VESTED PROPERTY RICHT PURRING TO ARTICLE 88 OF TOLE 24, C.R.S. AS MIEICE0. THE TERNS OF SMO 175TE7 PRCPER0Y 196510 AIME DETAILED H4 THE RNER EDGE 6008460 PUD DEVELOPMENT ,Y;REENENT APPROVED 61' 442wD OF :WELD COUNTY COM*ASSOIER5 9l'50151919 ¢RTi1CAiE 81 DYI5 TSBP 111 11/40ER3a5415, 6.69130406 IINE51LEN15, LLD, BEN0 SOLI ONT47(s) 94 FEE 5101[ a ALL NKr PEPE PH:SWA T STRAFED N CARRELS 679129, (0.280475 LOOKED RO'HN 141E 00190006E OF FMS PEI) MEM tarmac 159.18 ACRE5. MORE OR LESS. HAS BY THESE PRESENTS CND CAN THIS PUO PINI ORDER TFE NINE OF BOER EDGE COLOR100 PUB. -EILEOY MORN THAT 1 AN THE DIMER CR NFE4NR12:D 91191754RA141E 1S 0147 087414518*L 48815 019154195441 804*E01 1* 0147 PROPERTY 8E0(843 0 472484. N *rues 141.419.44, 1 HAVE (01 MY 4440 5141 SEAL 1H0 -__ OAT a AD., 20_, CAR8047ALE NNESIIIetrs LLC 574TE OF Ca0R400 ) ra MAY or cAtnaD } THE 0844E NO FOREGOING. STATEMENT WAS ACIDO14LE4E0 MERE WE MG ___ DAY OF _ . 20,_ ADI., BY *MESS 6Y HMO 414D SEAL HOOP/ PUBIC NY 404N1590N LARKS' 4 RES0 t Ri 15. SE ff SEJR3Efft ,EFF TUTTLE, DO HEREBr 6E41E9 THAT 1 AM A» LAD 511144YLR LICENSED MIER THE IA85 OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, THAT 1445 RIO PLAN 15 TA1E, 4RRECT AID D9UPLETE, OACI TWIT SUCH PUO PLY4 WAS BASED UPON 41 4CCLRATE 5UREEY OF SND PROPERTY REPAEED BY NE, OR 58074 67 SWENSON, MN CORRECTLY 3M095 THE LOCATION Nil WEN510N5 CF 011 FEATURE AS SIOMN HFTEON. Ir w11YES1 59E4E01, N 415E Sp NY 4440 APD 304. 146 _ DAY (E 40., 20-, I'i'i FROFESSION61 PAN SURINAM 1416 BOARD Or COUNTY GOINESSON9R5 OP 54911045(7(411. COMM, 4.48081 APPROVES PHLS PAY/ PLAN THIS _,_ DAT a �,�___-,-___ , AD.. 20�, FOR RL947 MTH 141E CLERA AND IECIIRUER OF CANF1ELD COUNTY, SMD APP4018L BONG DOCUMENTED N BO495 OF WARGO COUNTY COMM1551011915 [19194514. BOND OF 03Uti76 604565070(85, 715 710 6004 7, 701010.53 51770511 [,'161 15 11.1I 801490 OF [019.1110 090;17 601000.5i0N1'R5 UN. AND RECORDER'S I4'E8!ICE>E 04115 070 PIN MG (LEO FOR RFCORO IN 1HE OFFICE OF 147 Qr. a( A1(4 RECORDER OF GV5EL0 (742X70. 4440095, AT _ O'CLOCK _-. ON 1485 _ RN OF 20_. 11C 15 44047 Ramo MON 9.E0EP11:61 NO. CLEW AND RECORDER 66: -_ 907450Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING IN SUPPORT OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY PUD (REZONING) AND SUBDIVISION (PRELIMINARY PLANI REVIEW PROCESS FOR RIVER EDGE COLORADO 71re sole purpose of these maps and drawings, and Ore associated plans and reports..4 to support !Ne 00/11450 Ccwmy PUD (Rex ,w) and 5562 411711narsary Plano r4wew. Pr00based on the reelLereemele Geefleld County Un1Red tared Uss Resolutipn 7006„ , ,mended. The maps and d awing', and MH. associated plan, and reports, present the 0erall des.pn ntent, layout, fac11114es coordination and operational configurations based en Gate4d County, alvmpnate mercy, and Industry standards The maps. and drawings, a1M the arsenate* plans and reports, are Intended to show p,aolc.Nllty and Nada anal design, Maw/wed, and are not Amended to provide the pre11n0nary or'E al design information necessary to support the permitting or approval proceHes of othee agencies. These maps and drawings. 441 Ow atrx5ated RTAm and repo. wens 94eparsd 67' 4e Nmdsr 4He Er1vCn a[ t regis1srsd Pro(esslen,t engineer 4 Wil11am 5. Otero, Stale of Co/Oradp Pro1is+0aR1 Engineer, Reeist0lloe R 32165]. LOPER; RiVrttige COLORADO Car0ormlale Investments, LLC 7999115NY 82 C67150O41810, CO 81623 Phone No: 170,456.5325 CI'V!L =NG N ER/PLANN,, F2: 8140 Partners, LLC PO Bax 0426 Eagle, CO 81 531-04 26 Phone No: 866.834.8140 www.0140partners.c0mm SURVEYOR: 15,55lS S(l44YSY/NL 8,FA1771!s 727 &Are .17441.* 6451.805 5714040, 450007491, 81601 (8302 828-419+8 47 948-9007) JR0210 er-Nu.evea LANDSCAPE ARCHIT£C Or ZEEHREN KEY MAP 0/3/11 avers of € 004700 CDLNIY SEA 1 1/14/11 RE20HNNG (PUO AND IU (PR(L4MINORY PPM) SU05111TA SSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT 1054104619: 10-001 PROJECT MANAGER: S. OTERO DRAWN BY: C. 57410! R CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE RiVER EDGE COLORADO PUD PLAN COVER SHEET (1 OF 8) 5 [' NUMBrR. PUDOI.O1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 & DESIGN \CAD\PLAN SHEETS\PUD-02 NGTESDWG - TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT\ENGI 2 3 4 10 TABLE 2A • LOT AND TRACT ZONING CATEGORIES AND ZONING DISTRICTS BY ZONING CATEGORY TABLE 2B • LOT AND TRACT ZONING DISTRICT BY FILING ZONNGCATEGCRIES AND 0151RICTSFILING* BLOCK LOTTIRACTI j PR SOF) AREA(AC) ASEERAGELOTAREA(SOFT} 015110E1E110, 20,111 NG CATEGORY 03 5713 1T1A}ED PONE 2CNN6 DO IRO 2 67 1323 IN - 613 EN 10 1'9,0 4 0416 263 155 112 0.10 6120 RLI 0LOG[1 LOINRACT1 SOINN3USIRI6 B3 _-.. 1 a ' 3710EDEOW 61 199 16 10811 91 ESTATE 2CNNGd51ROCI ExECIITN6 2131.0601tlTRC1 019 622 14 93 225 111427 WAD TOON NANO 001507 OS 116 BS 19 tS 174 Ts 61-813 35194 471316 101 136 1311 398 040 6098 SOW 662 nos N9 1 }M 2a 0116 PARI BI 3.16 7556 U Bn 616 1P 4 BIS 614 015 RI 611 8.316 1% 1b-- 6'110` 1.12 0138 219 ! le 472.601 5764 rir f t�6 r 02 3.9 62'1 3-13 5.} 241 7767 6,113 1106 1.21 0314007000E [CRC' 2 621 87 3.1 2100 05S 3.13 71707 152 IA A01 B .13 16100110 64 5,100 611 Coo 00100 912 14 •0001) 117 8 06. 915 67986 141 !-13 71581 161.. 13,3 1.11 011 51.00 141 GAMY FOIE WANG OS TROT IA 025 23 A IA '74 1 .1 1-19 175 517 141 8719 110 • BY 1325 3l714009(" 85 613 ATT PEW 2 AD 66 SUBTOTAL 7721,0341 5230 AVERAGE 6,344 %BF TOTAL 3.15 COMMUNITY SPACEA(I11NGCAIEGORY CM SPACE Mora 09TRCT -5 -5- ON 1300 AP 042 401 BS 944 046'3 1230 3597 �0N 09 163% 30360 37.944 042 676 193 266 30927 3424 WW. Do 574,6 tit %A% A0 IT 165 SE 70 1310 16 CE 637236 149 67286 601070TAL 96081 TOTAL 4L6d AVERAGE 169362 COWAN AREA 760493 1010 T 4 2 ( 1 0 AL 151+0 396 t Y3: 1045 042 ,'1,760 004 AY 1390 9397 021 64 705 018 U 003 e0 11181 ft 3514 AY 15010 039 008 610 037 BA AL 17560 092 5 937 014 00 113'9 IRR 4911 es 5193 011 017 3976 116 9a.. A 790 017 AT 29.96 0S 41.E 696 60 ffi mGA2LF. 68 9A DOT 00600 615 BU 00 W e PARC Br 01-I^-fNI1k1H NFA 41 611 113 RIA 'AIR 613 SW 1i RR RAR S. 7 R6, [(OMIYAN AREA ( 00120040{1 N 46 442 5 s1 -y 12644 � 13 A :s*w115`ri 400 104 SUBTOTAL 01;02 11.13 %LOF70TAL AVERAGE 22.714 :OENN]Rd490 BANG DISTRICT' 510,366 346 107.014 93 005.(6.1031 .j3--GNdfMF1ME 104 0.00 A4 51 OR 12870713 200330 %OF70TAL 13 62.621 51 CM 116 441 0 1.11 017 113 411153 564 3% AYERAI4: 13.400 14000011100) B4TER 201.110 MTRCTI 1 330 10'0199 SUBTOTAL %0P TOTAL TRIM zee 0% AVERAGE: 1000109 PMA 170013 PBTROT 243293 655 26$331 611 019 11 0511316 149 1CM A0 IOT348P661 Al AN LP CO *06111;6 AREA 216514+ 4A 81 Ax 65596 29 VMS CE 1104061 00 6960 915 SUBTOTAL 940F70TAL 741066 7166 11% AVERAGE 144014 RI9F1-ff.WAYTANNO CA 1431.TF A11Y 2C0ING CETRICT RC 221152 517 RF RR 00 RA 68011 19519 60410 aF09 304 3.40 9014 139,192 142,00 RR 19 /3195 71902 172 17:902 RE 1421 til 15091E H 504 1S,193 306 070 1231" 159316 34594 1LT� 661 0.68 2696 441 21(13 063 2400 90 004 1.9N AK; 0110 066 15319 SUBTOTAL yr7RL60 %6070013 11% AVP3AOE TAW UILITYZOMIWG CATEGORY MEAT04931,19;46131431001317130346':10N94510103.1 MTFR A107WS1EW4T81 411012600505T6127 AG 104 56272 5141 510 I15 043 5001 SUBTOTAL %AAF TOTAL 75$,646 161 9 AWER4GE SIAM TOTAL 6,433,010 'T( MING 001269Z0200041100100091ATxNS OENTV 0 WREN 0041951,41:9003 APR 1NG TAE 20/113YU OF TIE 5101000 NACCORDANCE YATH THE PU0 MOE TIE FAQ 11041300000 047 ALC LOTS AND TRACTS 6 FS1A&L01EO0PO! RECOfRD4T1p4 OF AN 009503EDFM. RAT FCR EACH FANG ' Tit 739301) 611140071 0113591159T 9 15011 0130031(P1916NN,l 93 0110E30 95/601/2 TIEP00110M1073 TIC PA WOO NA 250304E1RN RE. MCBEE 00191L 160030c1J1107F50F ILL LOTS 0)p TRAC1s6 T . 'SED:PON1EC0551103 CF AN APFRDAE5 FM/ RAT TGR 61CH10140 PUD NOTES L RW WORDS A) 00611J10 61NO3/15411/15 A 17192, OF 14459E 006860A2A 9313-564 1384) 646E11.101 23115 ANC 010110 WIHN 119 9341 R SBC* motor) PAID o5IR41. E) COHIRCWNG OOCUMENIS 1015 PLO PLN 15 S0PORIEB BY THE 010 DESEL0POENR WIDE fog 304ER EDGE COLORAWS537 GUIDE); THE DECVRATNN CF C01E0M610. 601015039 AW 020RM:ilON4 rte RNER EGGS 1352 63. (0 4) 0 OEM 91(430 CN N 0."1'46 G- 301100 AHO 10 717316 444 1519;51 64185 3.0613 15 41600 0.9• 12 114E R0A7 OHM 6119E 28 - 101 AV FTRACT L015 A 0151096 Of FRIIIG1 LOCATED 401200 EDGE 30,1120 16 YORK 4610930 OE37 0710E O1 0 LOIS 1110 *RAGS MHN NHL 510) EDGE CoRroRR 0 31 ALL o PLAN, 191 41625655.00 THE PROJECT 00.10311, AS 614 0 97 COH'0R4 19 MS No PLAN, PVD 02106, CLgS 910 PROJECt DOCDIN[M(S, AS DCf1K0 M THE PEA 1406 C) R-2:605514:1 TO OTHER REGULATIONS: THE PROFANE OF 011I5 PUO RAN, THE PUD GLIDE 0)p 6103113.' DOCUYENIS 531ML PREVAIL A140 C43SEN9 THE 01ELCF01D0 OF 1751 RIES EDGE 60.OR100 RJO, PROYOED, 16X11415, TI01 WHERE THE P100*31065 OF TNS PUD PIRA, THE POO Go 0E. AND 15014.(1 COCUY)F15 D0 001 ADDRESS A PARTICULAR SUBJECT, THE PRO05093 Of THE 13041140 (03400 Unr11'D LAO USE 5E50L2TIOI C81 2006 (U100 GR A#f GOER APAJC90E 1100,7443 CR 16"GULADONS OP WRVIELO =ref 37411 26 /FRl1d0L1 AS 5PEOFi60113 MORJfS BY THE p0O (00). O ) 51A0145C0 P10001140/P131'15146, 020DN00N N-15SN0/PU75NG 0433 T'OLLO1 0601419044 PINGS AS IOENT10ED HEREON AND PRVADEO FOR EN THE PLA CUBE. 2. RENDS A) RAY0TE ROADS Ni) ALLEYS. ALL ROADS AEA ALLEYS SF441 BE OARED, OPERATED AIW 44NINIAO A5 Moot ROADS 945 N-1ITSBr NF RNER EDGE 3/416/600 PROPERTY 6033655' 130064nDx_ INC. (Ku) (00 1155 1555400534. D). 10145(8707 13170 4: ACCESS ACROSS ALL 8100-cf-REY TRACTS SHALL BE WONTED TO • M• RC' NET Si NYCE PERSONINEI IN !117)0 10 MOADE 1341RGEIGY SERVICES 10 11E LOS AND TRACTS ,OWED WORN RMP EDGE COLORADO. ENERGETIC -1F 9EHIDi A6CL55 EEO EASEMENTS SyL BE PROVIDED TO STATE H1010640 82 ROTI -OF -NAY. EVA ROM5 DEPICTED HEREON 51441 BE 60NSTRU67E0 A5 PAR' or .THE PAII0M301 0002FE4EN15 A5 CONED N THE 00,11CR4171 AGREEMENT (TILING) AND APPLICABLE DURDN150N IIPROh1444T5 AGREEMENT (ESLN AND CONSTRUCTION DETAALs. S -' 1) 50,1445. 110 WATTAGE 1103/515 4NN194NEA ORAWCE NA ORIIN400 7A0U5Es LOCATED 411416 4440 40/OSS ALL LOTS 464 TRACTS. (WEPT DOSE 5ER404G M RAMWAL LOT 914L BE 4NN1ANE0 BX THE. PDA DR 05 4506230. T044 INICCERATEE O ALL OWNAG6 AAO 01/610GC ACLB55 5154160 AN NOMOLYL LOT IS THE RESPON1BLMTT O THE PROPERTY ;ASER. 18017 0TCN OF LERM GE FEATURES SHALL BE AOPROEO B0 THE POA Pi 5S A59CN5. E] OBSTRIIGUON OF OHMAGE AND 7311110 EASEMENTS. NO PROPBIIY DOTTER NUR THE PRW (OR ATS 4357315) 314131 065TRULT ANY 08144.6E UR 011TY EASEMENTS- 0!L0 INCH -MANAGE OR 001-421LBY RELATED F7QUTES SPEC -WALT AUTHORIZED BY Of COPS SIAL BE RACED OR LOOMED WHIN ANY ORAPRCE OR UTILITY EASEMENT. THE 9646/06171 ONIER 0R 9301 (OR R Ai 10)820 RESP0 452600 :OR 016100 A NOUN^pAPASE OR NON-,U1L171 MATED FAOLIY 64441 A Gk 01OR LEROY EASEMENT SHALT BE RESPOI9BLE FOR AB MACE TO 00041E OR MLRE5 44425510 OA S140N LOGCi1046. A 4751131 416AIPANY 0R P'O4 (OR 05 1551605) 0144.1. 4401 pf Rt0P0038.1 FOR EWAAGE 10 No ICM -004141101 OR NON -283113 REATEO 11113111 LOCITEO 3011118 A 3381116E 410 01161111 EAS09370B RERUNS PROM THE PLACE1EN1 CO WIN15N4NCE OF U111%5 OP coma 7961/1365 931316 A roma 410 Dour+ EASERENT Br A 011770 6019410 OR INE POA (EMR TM 460000). 0) GENERA, 0RMN40E 91079310 ALL OPEN SPREE. C0610C11 NEA RWM, 017604/O034460, Ano R16ti1-GF-147 TRACTS LAO CRE UTILIZED 00 113E PGA (OR RS 4S51O45 10 1104491 SIORM1U70 ACROSS 41470 EDGE 6010RAIJ0 AS 8516(55053 11) PROYIOE r00 510TEC21*5 0000CE 814HIN IMTER EDGE (01O0A40 ASL PRt/PER1g5 401ULC/LL1 005MRG146 STORmA00E5 1X51314* MIR ED0'E COLORADO. A.G1TWIE5 111100 THESE MEAS 30 *L NOT 0517267 OR k1ER TE¢ 7101 I15SON OF 510180A13.0 94 090 BORER UNLESS 9404 monad OR ALTERATION IS WPROVED BY 701E PEAR (OR OS ASSIGNS) AND SMO CHANGES CONFORM TO GM01EW COUNTY 06O1wENEN15 AND APPLICABLE LAN, 4. COEER02011 FAYlD6 0.) 59N714 046404,l1NS. 130+. 1231 643091467 711811. 44 1841413131 11) NJ. 41597110.4.4 4031R4E110N5 9046 REOARE409TS 63641 115 ei THE (RANI Of CNEER164T)08 EA564661 RCCOR5EO N BOOR 1171 AT PAGE 025 Al 1 (013274 1 559436 N 16€ OPP4E OF NE 0301310 QiwITY 0101 NA RECORP111 (C00511wT0 FASE4E1Rj 6) PSI R1S106200: 114E WEEP*A O PETS 5X01 BE N ACCAAO4HCE 11014 13+0 PFA PIAN, THE PUO 9006, 16)5 940 5E6Tx7N 5.8 OF THE CO5EReT1gH EASE4 )41, C) HERON PROTECTOR AREA: PROPERTY LOCOED SWIM OF CATTLE GREEN 100 OTHER THE 'HEAO0 PROTECTION AREA' AS DEFACED 1E4ECN 5011 RE REINED LAID MOO1111 SCREENED N N%YWON111 11111 S7.T6:N 713(1) OF IEE 6(NIFR9204 FA$F4FM 116 RF51R;110469 ASSOCIA1F0 4416 THE TIERON PROMOTER AREA' ME 04700611910 S5 THE Ramo FOO( 130 ahorro7 oR POA (OR 115 4554145). 0027001) tower SRO{ RARE 3A 1301010011110 TO ERF24E, TABLE 3 - DEDICATIONS BY FILING D) CONSERVATION E72AENI ACCESS 60003. ARTA AREAS OEACTED HEREON AS 6CONSER441T411 EASENEME 4666155 444464. 6REL' 5X911. B: P_,w#0 PND 815460 A5 APPRt7 94216 AHO N 664621 WON MTH 10) RWRNS 1 DRE 221451 RVA147 10 R.ELP TO DSCOURAGE ACCESS 010 710 650ERV1196 EA264E61 SCRII HNC ANO BU'I IR1N0 9219004100 PURSLWRI 10 THE MP4GlB151 000036043 144.. 620LRYAION iAS4 NI 51611 BE C120&E7{0 01 MCOANCC 10H THE SCHEDULE 62 IICROPEY1145 010.11110 N II DiY1.OP4E40 100E_10LM. ArANTOuPACI 01 MESE 52403343 AND PLAYERS SIAL BE 020,010 BY 116 RTA OR RS 1555x030) 116O THE SPECIFIC 1T 1'1 AREAS SRA... 0 TRESS RESTRICTIONS IONS SHA. BE AEN IF IED ON EACH ANAL 411619. IR ADMIN.150 SOLACE '1 BE D LAN, MINNi °Aw4°101 Y ACC Swti_ 1 10001. AAA AXED +E 1500 EASE EER 155 Br IN1l NFSI' DILA IO4015 055 THF, 60 A0p 0 4 SOCA 010 504 17415 "CONSERVATORACCESS AREOIRRLD 1 01 tdONTROL AREA' SHAL1. iEE R:OBL7 DM POD T61H 136 70)91R 4107)1 41 151999 E 440510 BC 78.ENFORCEABLE7100 BY 1441E RELATE 1 {OR 11'5159047 0).p RdMHC I OWA 11(0110 (350447`. .0)t A0 FPO R2 SHAN_ H 330ES ONSEIL AY 103 6 3 6 CONSERVATION DEMENT. CAUNlRO COUNTY Stwt1 HAVE 110 RESPDNSB147' TO ENFORCE. E) COETRITC1DH SEASON 060906 011 CAHSiRIJCPO6 011-01 TRE HERON PROTECTOR ZONE SHALL EE RESTRICTED IN ACCORDANCE MR Of 604)500 104 EASEMENT (SEE ALSO NOTE W). 1411¢STR419R5 AS50QATE0 MIN TEE 'HERON PRETED590 70E° SPAR BE ENFORMABIE B'1' OE ROMANO 1010 (li014140A2RCY AND POW {OR 7T$ 15551144). CM1cua (060)13 5021 481E IID R65PONSB1L11Y TO ENFORCE_ S. IGGC111901 LOf 4401 iwRCl Buw0I05 LCC47016 • EMMETT LOCATORS 139300 014TE. EHE FLING 0' 21-10 PU61 011114 DOES NOT ESTABLISH EASOPERES, EA5DJEN15 9 -AL C46.Y HE ESTAB:J5HE0 BY DEED, FINAL RAT, 6CR5, WRITTEN GRANT EF (45EYl'N7, CR AS 00?€RWI55 040010EO BY 01. PROPOSED EASEMENT LOCAMINS I£PCTES HEREON REFIESB4T THE APPH0WIAVIE LOCATION ARO EXTENT OF 711E EASEMENTS 01401431-6- TO BE NECESSARY TO SERVICE TOE 134ER URGE COLORADO PIAT AND SORRO UNG PROPERTIES. 1TE SPECIFIC EASE0EN15 siva 8E 10090E6'E0 BR THE REAL PIAT 05SOCI0IED WITH EACH FM, THE REYOVAL OR A000ON O 441 EASELENI AS SHOWN PRM& Al TRE 01 *MR. PUTT SHALL 1101 BE 639400510 A 520571041 WO17720101E 81 40T ANO TRACT 000NO46E5 APPR00N901€: 134 114010 07 11.115 1110 FAN 30E5 NO *1911114 1015 OR PRAM. LOIS 010 TRACTS 514011 0134]' BE i51ABUS4E0 BY 781k RUN. LOT AND TRACT 181.0 ARIE5. AS 0E7A6LE0 H:7a0N REPRESENT 1HE 4PPROSTAIE 41144640 LOT MRO TRICE BDIAOMAE5, LOT ANO TRACT BOUNDARIES SHALL 81 CREATED BY 1016 FINAL PLAT ASSOCIATED MTH EACH FUNS. THE NNW 4DJU5T51141 O LOT OR TRACT 000NDARI LRIES AS CEFTED. BY THE Pl0 DUDE AT 111.46 OF RWL arc 643 NOT OE COI90(0(0 A StBOTARTAL 1,1901FICAT034. d 'BASE 501616 A) -12820 141033 MLA AT 1133 1136 O' 115 PIA. 101 HERON 11615171 ARTA' NNE BE ES11682E0 ON 0C TACT Or TIE FINAL RAT B3 RA NOTE ;3105 30NO WrUCH 1011 ARE 491ECI 7O 6SN5180D]Kf, O (*TING 605103.1095 141 1311044 4C10110 1030' 9+41 CF 1579315015 Bf A 544E V40 TO 4611E 01006 NESTING TREES Bf AN KCREOI5(0 1L017( 8010615 011279: 115 SPRING WRITES PROW TO FILING OF ANY R%k PLAT. EMPTY 07 004531 NESTS OR ROOST TRIES SHALL NOT BE CONSCF0(0 ACF7E HERON TESTING TREES. MIT L05 ON ME FOA_ PLAT LOCATED YAT170 200 METERS OF 144 ACRLE FF_BON 9154,NC TREES A5 035GRATE0 ON 15.E FRY. PUT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A C0N5IIJCTION SEASON REST -REPOT MOE M(1 04111 FROADE FOR NO 601(3000. C060OICI4ON AC11311E5 FOR NEW BOOM ERECTION 64.4110 WIEC.73 1 31-4000H MOIST L. AFTER THE 184111/11 CO9DMCTAH OF 5LIBOVSION *01 9TRUCRRE REGIME, LNDER ANY 511061504 NPROIEMEHT 45061MEN1 MA' 01141. ACNE OONS071460 N 440-4* 101 800401RES OF A FINAL RAT, 111 16485110421 4 RESTRICTION 5601 NO LONGER IH APPLICABLE. THE POD PAY DEN2RES THE BOUNDARES tF THE "PE1011 AMITY MEA' BAT WOOD EXIST A5 07 THE ELATE GT THE 11LI C OF 1015 POO RAFT FOR 5150310 07 LLUSIRATO). 00907446 HAS ALSO IBEX 031607(0 05 A TITANS DF 6571641/90 9000696 1001375 1D 14150055 111)41) OPEN 51966 106(15 483146 OR IN AR 116 (030 413 71416011 46/6/011 49E46' 944773155 ON DE PFFD PLAN. THESE RATINGS 040.1 BE.16T9LE0 A5 PARI O RECL44010F1 AIA 4/41/199600 BY TPE PO1 (OR ITS 155500) N ACCCRDANA7 NOH TNI. 4165$ 5C41NNG 5ENmoros ARE SPECIFICALLY PROMOEO IN THE 1AND0GO`1' 506TUN ($0(7108 Ix Of 171.5 PU0 1210() REN TED 010(76 Cl1x7EUNE5. TRAIL 6LD0AE5 SAE BE 150 Pi. MMNTMHED A5 /0011050 FDR BY T141 CCM. A11MOES 0X97U WAY BE NECE500A' 70 MUM S O:SS:RA_ REY1GETA1A06 ,817 S3S1AN PLANTS 111X14 THE '41504 ACTIVITY_ 4613'' NONCENNLL 1E:AAMRLS NECI3SAR0 10 RSOTEC1 NATER 0991171 ARD 4417 1555510 141 ICCO0004C WIN LOCA, SIAM ALO 1)0(1'9, RAW, *4 910 (4(05,NCY ACM:03 5100 A5 *0105 ROAMS 510L4 dE 1:01600 KNOUT RES1R(T106, 144E RESTRICTIONS ASSOCIATED 111111 Of 'HERON AC IPPV AREA' ARE COLT ENFORCEABLE BN 111E PGA (CR RS 455NM5. 0465162 COUNTY SHALL HAVE NO RESP0N0BN]I'r TO ENFORCE 811 SHALL 3144E THE EIGHT TO VITMCE 1113. *10314616645 414)40 D 111'00 TIC THAL MAT. B) 4042 c MHMG1E LG41T40 OP THE OPEM $1710 TRACTS 15 0)]I PER4111E0 UG(TNG CF All 3015 4140 RACES 5541 WET 146 LGH1 516/60371 40074050 16 THE PITO WOE ANO (OOPS, CI POCK ROAM FENCES 44.046 0)q puma TO RoA95 ARE PROISTED 006000 AS NECESSARY FOR 51FEIY IN ACCBADMCE 11111* 93(0961, 07401, NB LOCAL TANS AA SWORDS AND GENERALLY ACCEPTED 51MN.WA5 11171J044F0 BY THE Mt -RCM AS5OCA010 OF STAT: X1008113 4N01NM1PORAIAN 0070:9/.5. 7. =GYM 1113111:1016 Aj FIOODP1MNk 16, SIROC1005 CR 151:5. SIA: 03 102123 101100 AREAS 0E5014LTE0 A5 11000PWN5 0,36(11 THAT A 4D1Cll E0!S-MAN BRDCI NM 3/4/1015 ACROSS C41RE CREED 54441 2rt 000071 0 45 50108101 KP004 B, OEOHA540 44115 .501-0.001)95,1.5 IDEN14171 AT THE 110E OF P50 0393930061 ARE S101% 034(44. TIE AREAS Moist EA40 FINAL OUT 91141 BE 22.75104174 PROP TO 0911101 NC A97 'G€O4AINE1 AREAS- MIMEO AT NAT TAPE SHALL 9 SHOW. ON THE TWA! PUT. 1C•" 1481 PLAT 90.1 NCLUD4 A PUT NOTE'. 5EOU41NG 11 -LAT FA 55NC100.S SIul1. BE LOCATED WITHIN 065014ATE0 '79004RAR0 AREAS' UNLESS I0151(5CATAN5 ARE C0011E0 MO APPROPRI1!'.: Y T A FF 4 H 4010106 17106 100 DFASAAAR ARE (010106 ! OIL D 116411 C ARD SLAC K. IMPLEMENTED AS PART OF DNSfRLI(1 DSS. KILLED NRIGAIId1 RAH" O UTNEfS AND e ROAD C P 6 1 (5Fl G H RfCN 114 N 1 FWDVG: ROSSNGS. q 'of AREAS 64 E E , OR 6,N E 044. P9 SHALL 851 AT TOE OF EMIL PUT ANA ANNIMENTED AT TIDE OF C(R1511WICiD19. 8 31111ns EASEMENTS AHD 9GHI-OF-WAY1WGT5: ALL WIRY FA$EAFNES ANO RIGHT-OF-WAY TRACTS ARE 04111440(0 FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE R9ER EDGE PROPERTY DINERS AND 5X111 8: U0LI7ED ?f 551311 moan FOR 114E PARDO OP 551541X0 744E LAVER MX 001010000 POC WRH DRONES, LORRY /51710055 440 03LIC4100 TO 1009w4E THE PLACE8ENC OF 863705 94:» THE PGA (0R TTS ASSIGNS) PRIOR TO PIp7N0 OR LOCATING (INURES 15100 59,10 2F1UT7 (ASERENTS NA ROH1-07-WAY TRACTS. 3 0100 55116E RIO 1516 OEMICTEI6 A) 1110 TRAILA) NO CO65ERVA160 EASEY61R ACCE55: ACCESS 5O ROOM FERN nON52 AINHORTY RESTRIC1E0TATN05E 10(417346 5PE0FIUL1.71 awn HrWON. MOST. 13625515 SHA,1 BE BOLT OR ARMED WITHOUT THE 015#5555 COSEN0 OF THE 6210 OR R11, AS KfR09113, AOA THE OWRIER OF 140 PROPERTY OVER WHICH SLICK ACCESS &ALL CROSS. THE RESTRICTIONS ASSOCIATED WAR ACCESS TO 114E BHA TRW OR CO45ER4AT1)N EMMET 7 SN44LL BE (AFORCE.6 _E BN RFTA OR 5401413 Rau CONSERVANCY. A5 57006ABLE, 44[1 101 (OR NS ASSOM). GARFIELD C0U341T 514413 NAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO ENFORCE. B) TRNL CLOSURES: 1RRL5 81114134 OPEN SPACE TRACTS SPU, BE CLOSED DURING 011 SENBTA1 DEER E1DRC4Ag{E 07OK ELK RANTER SEASON L PIA (OR T15159GHS).004971 0 404410 9MARCH 1 ) 4 HML 000 so S40N601.55 10 1x1010((" 14 PnI3111.1 101911 coma HONE TRACTS 92, AU, ANA BC ARE SESR0C7ED 10 AFFORDr3:E 11DU5NC AS UFRED BY ARTICLE 4111 OF 115 OLUR AEA 114E LASER EDGE MCGRA 0 PFFEIPOAEL HOUSING PLN AIB AE2EE0EM. 11. 1 AIG 111MF%'*fl Of 1OIQ& IN ACCORQWCE WITH 1113133.18* LAN 910 0605, ALL OPEN SPACE, 0004036 AREA CAREEN/ORC0WA, PNM, NEIGHBORHOOD 191003. 0(HT-O -WAY, EWER 46 0401100178, 990 660/3500 6 134831(11070 10.1015 5340.1. SE 3E10 8r THE P01 OR ITS A53104s) TDR 1HE %w.02 OF 114E PROPERTY LINERS 1111111 014E RN5R 510GF COLORADO PUO. 17. Immo 09O s00991 coon. IAIABOARNG Alp =Wet EROSION 4010 5154EN1 GONER% 1115555 0194111 CC0F0644 10 144E ERO9O4 MO 56044'Nr COMIC( 14ASACS 001680 N THE 1315100 ANO SEDIMENT c041001 PLAN ASSOCIA190 10TH EACH FAN PUT ARA IRE PLA 0401. ALL LOTS AIA TRACTS SHALL BE LAHO56APE0 N ACCORDANCE 111)0 11-E LANDSCAPE ST04051,105 CON01AWE0 N THE PLM 0.40E ANN 0551001 556111NES. 511/1097011 5HA1 1999009 R THE 7310 810E MA 109, SURV_EY N9TES REARMS ARE RELATN6E TO A BENING OF H 89521'4711r ON THE UHE 9506481 0030)0➢ coma. MASS CAP' AT 5E COINER SECTION 7 400 GARFIEID COUNTY BRASS CAP 1D 111115S CORER 30 5 1/4 CORNER OF 53.0140 7. +401110041 0UR4ET 1411MEN14104. PNS. 055 0)q OTHER SLMET CONTROL NFORYAIGN d01 BE FOUND ON THE PROJECT ALTA SURVEY OMP. DATA SOURCES • CAAFlEL0 COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC 31/ORYATICH SYSTEM. 2010, W815'11 (WN7) (4166480 SNAKES) • GEO1EOMCk 134085EMNG 511103, NOIEYBER 3010. HP GE0IECH • CATTLE PEER AND CARBONDALE 13440FAP04 OYORNCIE. 194300 STATES 0(0130501 0426117 • 105181E AIA 96000TO6.1023754EHT 0(PDR1, 0EC18MER 2010, ROCU* MOA410A ECOLOGICAL SEHNCE5 (VARIOUS SOURCES) UTILITY SOURCES POTABLE 11115:1 RO4tl440 EUI( WATER 446 51141100/ 01VAC 40 AL1ERIg1NE 50070/111 SERER' ROARING FORK WATER 406, 55141407 DISTRICT OR &IMITA IVE ELECTRICITY: 3643 CROSS NATURAL GAS SOURCE GAS TELEPHONE_ NEST C34614042*1 NS CABLE C0415AST RAW WALTER RRGA1)0lt NEER EDGE HNWERTY COMERS ASGR, IN4 "LOU 1, B22 NAY 9 510110 BY CENTRAL .WATER, SMEARY SEWER, RAW WATER IRRIGATION AM 5r111ACE LINES OR IND ROMAIL WELL AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM'. THE PURCHASER IS 41260NsEBLE 1-06 CONSTRUCTION OF ANY 5"RYCE LOU 97 NOVOM41 SYSTEM5. FILING OPEN SPACE OTHER COMMUNITY SPACES' CUMULATE4E COMMUNITY AREA(%) OPEN SPACE AREA (AC.) OPEN SPACE (%) CUMULATIVE OPEN SPACE AREA(AC.) CUMULATIVE OPEN SPACE (%) COMMON AREA (AC.? COMMON AREA (%) CUMULATIVE COMMON AREA (ACjl CUMULATIVE COMMON AREA(%) PARKS(AC.) PARKS(%) CUMULATIVE PARKS MC.) CUMULATIVE PARKS(%) 1 3.07 8.8% 3.07 88% 7.18 20.59. 1.18 20.5% 559 16.0% 5.59 180% 45.2% 18 500 00% 307 8416 0.00 0.014 7.18 09.6% 000 0.016 5.59 153% 43.396 2 3.69 14.0% 4.76 9.8% 2.27 11.093 9.45 19.493 000 00% 5.59 11.9% 40.7% 2A 0.00 00% 4.76 9294 0.00 0.054 945 18.2% 0.00 0.016 5.59 10.864 54.253 TA ODD 00% 476 8.730 0.00 00% 9.45 17.2% 000 0.0% 5.59 102% 38 1,.; 3 703 35.0% r 11.79 75.794 053 2616 9.97 13.3% 489 24.4% 10.48 140% 187 4 9.45 34.3% 21.23 20.7% 1.71 64% 11.74 11.5% 248 8.956 12.93 12.610 -• ... 4A 000 00% 21.23 20.1% 0.00 0.506 1174 11.1% 030 0.0% 42.93 12.3% 43.531 S 3.75 22.3% 24.38 20.4% 3.51 249% 1525 12.8% 0.00 0.0% 12.93 10.899. 44.0% 0A 0.00 _ 90% 24,09 20.714 0:00 8993 1025 _ 12 e14 050 0093 82.93 10701. 43.506 4 16.12' 422% 40.50 25.4% 1.64 43% 16.89 10.0% 4.15 10.9% 17.08 10.7% 46.606 'EXCLUDES NEIGH BLRHO00 CENTER 'INCLUDES GOTH GENERAL AND GAR0EN1ORCHARD COMMON AREA TABLE 4 - LANDSCAPE AREAS AND STANDARDS TRACT TYPE TRACT IDENTIFICATION LANDSCAPE STANDARD" OPEN SPACE AH, AN, AP, A0, AU. B.B. B111, 13112, BR, 00, OE ',(PEI'R SPADE LANDSCAPE STANDARD OANM7t1AREA AC, AE, AL, AT, AV, AY, AZ, 80, 8E, 8F, BG, BE, BO, BR, 83, 8T, BU, BV, CD COA1 MON AREA LANDSCAPE STANDARD GAROENTORCHARO AR, AM, BA GARDENIORCHARD LANDSCAPE STANDARD UI AG, AO, AR UTILIYLANDSCAPE STANDARD N(1GH0011000 2ESTER AA NE6C.H0004000 0EFITEN LANDSCAPE STANDARD DARN AI, AKB4, BJ PARI{ LANDSCAPE STANDARD RIGHT -OF -SPY RA, RB,11C.RD2,1SE, RF, RC, RH (A1-55761, 431, Axl, ROI, EMT,. 0432) RICHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPE STANDARD 'LANDSCAPE PLAN5 BEEFING THE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE CC RS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO GARFIELD COUNTY WITH EACH APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT DETAILING HOW EACH TRACT WILL BE LANDSCAPE0 AS PART OF THE 3000NISIOH IL9ROVEMEN7S REQUIRED. 'TRACT RD SHALL BE LANDSCAPED IN ACCORDANCE 11TH OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS SSFIEN PLATTED UNLESS ROAD EXTENSIONS TOTHE NORTH ARE RAIINED AND APPROVED, MID SAID EXTENSIONS WILL RE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF THE 0000101810E1 INPR04EAENTS AS PART OF SU80h0810N 611ING. 112.1001 ROADS ARE EXTENDED TO THE NCRTH THROUGH TRACT RD, TRACT RD SHALL BE LANDSCAPED CR RE°IANOSCAPED NR ACCORDANCE WITH THE R'CART°EIF•YAY LANDSCAPE STANDARD. 'INCLUDES 100.1GATION & MAINTENANCE AND WRYER 6 3RSTEW0TER. UTILITY TRACTS. TABLE 5 - LOTS BY FILING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FILING 1 LOTS -DY ELL NG AFFORDABLE LOT SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF PLATTING' ESTATE' TOWN 'PILLAGE ATTACHED GARDEN HOMES AFFORDABLE CUTAULAY1VE AFFORDABLE (30) 1 0 39 0 20 0 0 13 0 11 0.094 2044 10 0 0 0 1 1% 2014 2 0 5 12 10 0 O 12.0% 2016 2A 0 0 0 0 28 28 301% 2716 13, 0 0 0 0 21 0' 261% 212% 2011 _.-moi 3 6 35 1 0 0 0 4 0 44 _ 0 0 0 0 167942023 461. 0 0 0 0 19 0 155%- 5 0 27 9 0 0 0 141°9 2026 5A 6. 0 9 0 11 0 - 36 1 --a-- 14 14 180% 15055 2020 2530 0 6 9 187 58 24 9 Ff 15.0% 2014-2731 'INCLUDES EXECUTIVE LOT 'APPR1RI4AATE PROPOSED FLAT-TINo 0EQUENCE AND 06HE506E. 0UB,ECT TO CHANCE BASED on 1AA41EE71 CO101T1414$. OWNER/DEVELOPER: �J�er 4444 J �J e COLORADO CarIo,ldele 114rest11101111s, LLC 7999 HWY82 Carbondale, CO 61623 Phone No: 170.456.5325 CIVIL- LNG N LR/PLANN6: R: 8140 Partners, LLC PO Bax 0426 Eagle, CO B1531-0426 Phone No: 866.934.8140 w16w.8140partners.c001 URVEYOR: 116051'! SFIRY'Y/NL S1f1117C!s 727 8,244 1000,30 121001441403 644030, 20)e031 81601 (970% 0128-45+8 7350. 947-40071 39400330-14136100, LANDSCAPE ARCH ITEC ZEHREN KEY MAP: 0/3/11 CMOS BT E05EL6 6514411 SIA 1 REZONING (PINI) AND .0930 54[)0 (PRELIMINARY PIAN) SU®1111TA: SUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER: 10-001 PROJECT MANAGER: 3. 01E80 DRAWN 0Y: C. SNYO1 R CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE RiVER EDGE COLORADO PUD PLAN GENERAL NOTES (2 OF 8) PUDO2.O1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 1 9 10 & 0ES!GN\CAD\PLAN SHEETS\PUO-03-SITEPLANMAP.DWG - TASK: 02 PRELIM PLAT\£NGI 9 0 RURAL (SINCLL. PAWL)" HOME) 03390.. 40' 03"6,17'5 8 • 0l .in' 8950121791 R 15000 1217 PAGE 410 RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (VACANT) iy 10401 Derr.."..7'1- 2'149.44ai i 11 53213108 we 1 1 21938. 50' 0PEi1 sPAco 50554353 BOON 1te3 AI 1 PAGE 1 MEWED 8Y BOOK 1217 PAGE 59 706415t11P LRS DM. 20' OPEN SPALL CONSERVATION EA0UENF, DOCK _ X1143 AT PAGE 1 MOOED BY BOOK 1217 PALE 543 '1 EKISf. WARM CORRIDOR BEEVEE9 SNEERS PARCH NORTH y, P9053010 114E [IP 3873) 4410 51400625 RANCH SOUTH P8OPERIY N!E (4P 368.77) I. SUBJECT 00 LICENSE 190212 ODOR 1912 AT 108E 993 AND 74401434ENT THERETO BOOK 1217 Al PAGE 596 000.4 as �aY� 41,933',9.' NOV RU Mr 381 60. 'r' 01151. BASE 4FJR. 6604 1142 PACE 963 AND 0005044541 BOOK 1217 PAGE 988 63051. BIKE TRAL IX 12 10305 Sf. RURAL (, (SINGLE PAMI.) HOME) #1 �lr 100 0 100 200. SCALE IN FEET RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (VACANT) EVA CROSSING RFTA ( cE9Ta PROP, 20' EW RFT ;twos) CROSSING EASCAEN7 OA EASEMENT 00 91E2 1(10 BE 0305219 AT TATE 6 09L PIAT) N0. 718016 PLAIINOD UNIT 1,1 DE `E4PME:N7' (OP Ni PAGE SI EAMIL},- R S E"NTIAL) r 5 MT. 1k1LMCS yf I TYP. ff; PLANA! D UNIT DEVELOPMENT (r'O14 RVATION) 3a Cl-1ERT COURT 290 41,108 131908 l PROIEFTN84 IKEA REC. 140, 854209 109-6" 14151, . {-PCP '€1 141) ,'� '1• 4377 SF.8340 2'54 IM ▪ IM MATCHLINE SEE SHEET PUD03.02 1. PREP. 15' 19750.3/433 8 OIE2M1 EASE1g5. 2. PROP. mom 538005EN51 KASS 00E910T 00184453 tom) LOT 394E TYPICAL LOT UTILITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SCP 51 S. NO-=: 'Pa440 0®149045 ARE TERCEL3 MOP•.. M OMERNASE IN TRL P.,Ni5 .•. '5' (AST445NT NICK KM 301 U83 IS 8542' N-0E-JNY. CURVE TABLE NNE 440. 1 040;JS LENGTH 1 DELTA WVMENf 3"110210 211 13.50' 15.19' 642800'8,51 4.40' C2 44.54' 180 87' 242800' 7057 75.28' C3 176.10 42 40' 79553'19- 31.32 62.08' G4 0401' 091.31' 221.31.4.5" . 17b.TN' 1.36.4E0 CS 97.00' 380' 21435' , 1.00 3.80' 06 97.0 104.52' 614413 91.93' _ 99.54' C7 850' 1243' 034522` 702 1135' 076 328.00' 7919 13'5705' 3869' 19,20' 219 328.99° 62.51' I3955'11' 31.35 62.42' CIO 320.00' 00.34' 103325' 2036' 6025' 011 17940' 1.55 1'2243 227' 4,50' 2122 178.00' 57.49' 183016' 29,00' 51.24' 2113 178.00' 60.99' 153718' 30.80' 60.49' C14 7491' 56.63 45'3243' 3101 57.29 2145 177.07 95.10' 44'39'46' 50,11' 92.71' 016 272.00' 8562' 1802'11' 43.17 85.27' C17 271.00' 86.45' 1 181236' 4359 86.48' 018 272.00' 60,19' 1 I3'055'98' 31233" 6205' 014 223.03,' 21.40' 03379' 13.21 26.39' C20 378..00' 28.66' 52322' 1436' 28.65' 021 ,338•53,' 66,09 11'30'47' 33.14' 05,96' (22 33.00' 1357' 212"16' 679' 1157' G21 722.0W 61.10' 43.3'43' 3000 01:67' 2124 722.09' 75.59' 559°54' 3783' 75.55' 075 771.09" 7559' 7'17'9"34' 3783 7535' 028 733,1002' 78,75' 6'12180• 3942 0627' C27 722.00' 22,38' 1'1813- 1119 22.39' C20 830 1838' 80190100' 640' 1202. C29 28800' 108.78' 23'25'39' 95.15' 108.01' 030 830' 13,35' 900090' 830' 12,02' 0,31 1746.00' 45.41' 1'29'27' 22,72' 45.43' C32 8 50' '9 30' 9020990' 6..50' 12.07 (33. 734,03' 95.68' 2323'39' 46.53' 95.3•1' 034 3.50' '3.25' 85'17'02` 6.39' 11.93 C35 178.09 26.12' 203"15` '1.06' 26.12' O36 778.00' 45.09' 44929' 37.96' 65.72 037 77809' 15.08' 447'33' 32.58' 65 CO' 038 770.00' 05.00' 4'47'33' 32.54' 65.06' 039 776.08[ 85.08' 04333' 32.58' 05.06' 040 720.0o" 40.10' 260'14' 2040' 39.19' (14 122.00' 3'.39' 3501'25 10.09' 31.90' 042 80.00' 43.1.2 31'14'25" 23.57' _- 45.83' 2143 272.00' 0999' 18'55'20' - 45.93 85.92' C44 328.00' 3° 55' 5'54'39` 19.91' 39.54' (48 8.50' '2.33 83'06'22' 7.02' 11.35' C47 153.00' 17001 655601" 95.50' 102.11' r LEGEND GENERALIZED LAND USES Y 31: N'. 9.0 014ER Ca4442(1Y siva U551 119L01 850 OPEN SPACE USE ENVLRONMENTAL FEATURES 0051. 3.00E6 02481104 14211 2010 R4LSP. SLOPES CNE3IER 2420 209 GEOFW2430 WEER MEA. SLOPE 061-78091Y AREA 5x61, CONSERADO1 035E9E41 4E908 80015(5494 NEA HERON 0005422 AREA 20' 901150901109 .60101214E 408035 30011973 AKA CAST, VOLVOS CAST. FLOODP.JJ8 UIITS OTHER FEATURES OR PLAN INFORMATION PROP. LOT/TRACT LIE PROP. LUCK 00.868tr 5x61. k PROP. EASEMENT LIE CAST, PROPERTY UNE (PROJECF L4RS) - - CAST. PROPERTY I3NE CAST. TOIR494P UNE FUST. SECTOR 0445 car. 2aa3C 9001+0131 C] 6053. CLOT 12-0-'R 59842090/ B CAIN. 03046332 PIN, NO. 5 NEW & 010 (LS. 20133) Q CAST. PROPERTY PIN, N0. 5 RF.0145 a CAP (LS. 221010 ONO.) • DST. (38051'4' SUR4099R BRASS CAP I FOR (014094ERCE Alp EASE OF PRESENTA9a6, 18041 -OF -9145 6 SHOED AS ODER ECIAMN119 SPACE USE. BUT SHALL BE REOUF.AIE2 AS R4H1'48-992. 120440 Or EAO•I 301 A445 TRACT 15 10083049 IN .600E 2A AND 20 ON PAGE Or 8 CR THE IROR EDGE 000 PENS, 4 O0AR01MEN153 (5419855 REPRESENT 8E7 99460110E515,024050E041426 15041 SHALL 6E 001450E5E0 9491 4539800, 55 PIAT 4421E 01539(6059 ON HCs FOAL RN.. AS APPIKPR04TE SEE PUO NOTES ON PACE 2 30' 0 OF FRE BSER 0090 PUD PLAN 900 5313E 1421021945104. OWNER/DEVELOPER: RiVrEc1ge COLORADO Carho8dale 1RVes0Tnellts, LLC 7999 HWY 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone N01 970,456.0325 CIVIL =NG NaR/PLANNE: R: 8140 Partners, LLC PO Box 0426 Eagle, CO 81 631-04 26 Phone No: 866.934.8140 www.814Opartners.c3cn 1JRVEYOR: ILO !I TOWS S(/74YSYJNC 823317CSS 727 Broke 01.6,4 044440,1 Springs, Sam 81601 (977) 028-9778 07' 947-9007) NO PE ARCHITECT: ZEH REN ASIN ASSOCIATES. ISO 6,....4 ... ,196,41 6/3/11 RCYffi0N caws or MFRS CUT 51A,1 REZONING (PW)} AN U9DN51[044 (PR(UNIN0RY PUN) SU9NIITA SSUE DATE 1 DESCR1PT10N PROJECT FVUAUOEII 10-001 PROJECT MANAGER: S. 0TER0 DRAWN BY: C. 37471' R CHECKED BY: SHEET TITLE RIVER EDGE COLORADO PUD PLAN (3 OF 8) S' -'f NUMBCR_ PUDG3.G1 3 4 6 39 9 10 2 a 4 7 0 UST. 90111/100 IIIIIIN� ^ - www 77---1111547 44'66 01:4J79/D 7'w '9 99510944 G MATCHLINE SEE SHEET PUD03.01 I1t a I1a1111_IIIII� 4 ,99197 8111 COST. 20' OPEN SPADE CON5ERY61106 400!17F1a7 EASEMENS, BOOK 113 7F 9430 I 194374 � 97'6/1/137 87' BOOK 1357 ME 593 all 1 06ISS, RAI04443 00479 9 09411)H ■ 19006195 099743+ MAIN PROPEAM L4E Il+ G 511* ER71} 9 1' 36647 00019 1 1009 , 10 '099 LINE (4A' 092 1 1 2 9291697 99 099115[ 944!47 800K 1192 O 4 1 993 AND 4609 I14EN5 77190670 WOK 4- 1 PAM 4247 AT 4909 51 T.1S 'E 11 1 i'10P. 8' IRM 144 401,'1 R' (6446, 71X52 3 WINED ' UNI• T DEVELOPMENT (CONSERVATION) gCL, czL-11 EXIST. 109-19 • 11 9 0 6 0 1914 TYR FILING 24 RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN \ (VACANT) .F• 1 I F0 11 ' UST BINE \111 :74 ll 7)7 51 C'919 SE PROP.:0.5`4:4'. (10 B. binN:O7- '0: 0. '1504. 418 9632 P00 11.6.4000 011-011 EASEMENT � - ENV.�75' E966NEK, 1,5' L'ASrIRLr 0' ' l� NAY 8' AESEER15 OE DESCRIBED CFN�{IE16JNE WOK 360 PACE 234 E>.0 RMNIFM WOOF E 3• B AS 5499414 ON OPT. OR 819141 0E UT MAPS IM PLAT \ENGINEER! - TAS( 02 PR (70 BE 0651168 AT / 11111 OF 01431 0,41} 1 - T00 METER HCROH F r fP 000779115 AREA REC. 149. 804208 T911145P.F. _HE '► IMS' 3 � �.` L 111 P. 20' N 5100E 15114'1)' 'DRIVE al COMMERCIAL (LIMITED) • 1 1 CrMERCIAL j ROW 1 EXIST. LICENSE (PANT 41 W 3651.343, BOOK 1142 PALE 979AMENDMENTAMENDM117 LICENSE GRANT BOOK 1217 PAGE 901 TO BE 916007 FOR ACCESS ACROSS BETA ROM AT THIS 2.(1931)05 1061. P993'-" 51 551000 91911 (10 BE Rt1CC4199) 6770 529 CO CO T.] ACI 165101111 0004 1143 9141 RIZBr BOOK 1211 593 60006SN0 RESER44:911 C6819ERNA51048 670€14091 0394 1171 0697 929 (40011NAL EASEMENT TO BE RECORDED AT RIE OP 51614_P1 -AT) 100 7 0 100 2CC' SCALE IN FEET MATCHLINE SEE SHEET PUD03,03 7990'. RAR 4411R 441644114094 PRL I18A1854:/ 061€11411644 P1H0 EASEI,CH1 ON r CURVE TABS PROP. a' TRA.94804040 COMMER I L (LIMITED) 9141E NO 9194115 )LER6151 00100 1940E6110 HORD 9194 113. 490101 11X4:6111 0111*6AHOF11101HOsh 9115 178.00'7545' 3;4101'' 9115 . 8?50' 129' 891657' enr • 3'808 4.62'C 7 9'42'71' 0110 712-00'' 70.59 • 180443' ..8.97 74.38' 749' 1191' 2?t' 463' 35.53'. 70.27 91,45, NO. 0130 0131 9432 0433 RAOa4S. 1/9/9MIA IA j19949)61 9!-CR0 197•+0' 151.19' 29'0538" 51.73' 10007 138.07 '7.99' 4-1317' 877" 1.'1.53": 7.'.S.C�.J` 6439 i�'19 e1' 67.64' 63'31' 720.07 21.15' 517522 10.513 21.15 • 2247'1 NO.. 499405 0145 9.50' LENGTH 13.36• 061,19 9011000" 2906541 0S0' 91064 17.07' 36.911" 6556' 130.70- 01604 40 0160 9141 -.-.22 9162 990145 70,50 176:'5- .-,._i 276590 2! ,710717 5626' 170.07 __es 31517' 09.19 44'5443" 35"433' �_ 03714' 19907961 79-14' 6782' . 57..1 751,97" 06060 5355' 167.41' ,__,. 31530' C0#0$ 110. C175 0176 ...�a 0177 449105 20800' 8.50 _ 6.9' 1617314 13.29• 13.35' :,_.a. 13.36' 30,76 13870" 9000'00'1. ._ ....n... 900000" 1/449611 1 6.65 8.50' _- BSO' 0-40 2' 13.28' 12.02' 13:02' 13.01' 049 0101 0102 9102 ,03090'' 4y, 30 74451' 14.65' 49.29' 1028.00165.04' 737'31' 3253' 65.03' 1028.63.1-05_31" Y:E'13' 31.66 65.39' 1008.47' 4091' 713'40' 20.01' 4401' 9146 6803" 147 5501' 9146 6200' 37.37' 94.55' 144.65 31.39'07` S�3558' 90-0505' 19.17' 38.15' 92.14 0163 261590' 306,07 413'43' 153.16' 305,57' C178 472.00' 13.01' 1'31'47' 5-51' 0101 1026.00' 05.18' 73895' 32.69' 65.16 0119 212.00' 46.49' 432819' 23.17' 40.06' 0134 856' 13.35' 89'59'58'1 050' 12.02' 0149 37940' 25.61• 818913' 1382' 75.60' 9164 2915.00' 29260' 513'17" 141,41' 267.49` 9100 157.90' 51.55' 1632'36' 76,18' 51.00' 0195 1020.00' 61.42' 323'24' 30.22' 81.41' 0120 767.00 21,34 4'3344' 20,44 21,34 9135 392,00' 43,53' 0.3107' 71,01' 43,48' 0950 27649 87,4' 1864'57' 47.86` 96.06' 9158 261500' 117,97' 9.2342' 5884 117,6E 0181 152.00' 44,64' 16'49'35' 27,46' 44.44' 9100 12880' 140.18' 0252'50' 7836' 133,53' 9121 260.00" 61.37' 120789' 36.62' 61.24' 0136 262,00' 51.90' 11'7054' 2603' 61,31' 9151 61,55' 50.50' 47'00'25' 26.77' 40.40' 0146 200.00' 45,10' 1726'46' 22.68' 4509' 0182 152.00' 99.45' 339304' 44.06' 80.14' 0107 92,9 54.51' .34'059 75.34' 54510'' 6132 268.00' 9,71' 2004'31' 495' 9.71' 9137 262,00' 40.07' 0.45'47' ' 78.08' 40113' 0152 63,55' 51.58' 49'2227 29.10' 52.92' 9197 208.00' 15.25' 412'91" 7.13' 15.24' 9183 157,00' 100,81' 175517' 52.23' 90.78' 9100 0 0709 97200' 4 5550' 3-16'35' 25,34' 97202" 73.36' 4.19'78' 3670 5559' 73.159'' 0123 253.00' 15351' 34'16'20' 79.37 151.21' 272.26' 0138 _.. (139 70.50' 30.4404 ' 58.02' 6655 b5 M' 4000'56' 53'54'16" 317-76' 35.83' 55.39' 61.87' 9153 1555._ 9151 276545 223.55 114571' 139.34' 711'29" 35'82'48' 52.47 72.62' 155.73' 535 7)7.,11 9' C765 256,11' 01.11' 14'56'50' 30.18' 60.59' C161 1529' 53,60' 2012'11' 753'03' 27.08' 32.84' . 53.37' 65.52' 6 0174 322.00' 381.10' 5093'07' 150.21' C169 208,00' 69.39' 16'54'38' 30.92' 61.17 9'185 476.50' 95.57' C110 9111 972.9' 7379' 4-2558' 3599' 7371' 972.00' 74 E5' 4'2402' 57.39' 74.943' 9171 26600' 55.15' 11'4728' 27,67' 55.06' 14,94' 9140 9E41 70.46' 723514' 0.61' 5284, 0.30' 0.61' 53.99' 1335'05" 2667 5797 0155 70.50' 9156 70,50' 0157 68.50' 35.11 16.28' 2031'59' 131756' 1791 8.18' 50.6E 34.75' 15.25' 55.97" 9670 20090' 55,58' 151614' 27.96' 65.41' 9106 52350' 18.95' 1.56'55' 9.03' 70704" 32.18 10.06' 54,73' 917E 6.57' 17.55' 6414'52" 7.73' 9171 20619' 6399' 17'2725" 32.97 6125' 9157 523.50' 54,27 9192 972.00' 5500' 756'51' 25.01' 5000' 0127 318.00' 253.66' 3829'56' 131,91' 249.14' 0142 21200' 20,64' 81841-- 10.33' 7554' $7.66' 14'13'31' 0172 209,90` 3,26' 733954' 1,83' 3.26" 0113 72750'31:.4 15"05-5760"• 31.29' 9128 197.9' 141,11' 41103'36" 73.77 138.47' 41 54' 9143 60)00'0054' 31'06,90" 26.88' 3991' 9155 253,9' 9159 70.56 19208' 74.68 3710'31 49149'4:7' 72.97" 37.28' 14272' 57,19' 0173 20043' 5265'1410"17. 26,47' 52.51' 0174 206,9' 66,10' 141214' 33,53 45,52' 9111 7200' I97_24 777749' 5766' 00.02' 0129 72,00' 1 42.46' 33°47'01' 21,85' 0144 128.90' 64.43' 29150120` 32,91' 63.75' OWN_R/D-_VELOPER: r" L Rh7rttige COLORADO Carboe3157, 10501160/6 ns, LLC 7999 HWY 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone No: 070.456.5325 CIVIL `_NG N_ER/PLANNER: 8140 Partners, LLC PO Box 0426 Eagle, CO 81 631-04 26 Phone No: 866.934.814)0 www.8140partners.cacn SURVEYOR: BM! =Mt 96N7S17117C sze97415 727 9429e 4,98±4 pen.ea4 564996 Cdcrrn5a 87601 (970) 928-9153 41/6,4. 927-943771 -RAcom LANDSCAPE CH ITE ZEH REN K -Y MAP; 3/1 COMMITS 49 WIRED Miff )197 R92044159 [PINI 590(PRCLIIIINA36Y PLAN) .51JOMITTA: 55 CISCRIP 71051 00(71997 NUMOCR: 10-001 PROJECT MANAGER: S, OTERO DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: S. SNYOEF? SAWYER SHEE` 'TILE: RIVER EDGE COLORADO PUD PLAN (4 OF 8) 4EET NUMBER PUDD3.02 4 5 6 7 a 10 LAN SHEETS \PUO-03-SITEPLANMAP.OWG 427 0,5 - TASK 02 PRELIM PLAT\ PPRP. 20' 672640E a OTI13 198:61 174114 AK 510 sI (1'f 6717 06.02) Of£O 7E379T'0II 467081190 r. vfJ!TLTA rG MATCHLINE SEE SHEET PUD03.02 MCI 00FILING /227 3901 9504.92) PROP. RAW WATER 776107100 PRE -100410011( 04101596 P000 6646511481 0050. 0' 1901 5111 0 E-1 099 19 2210sr. ' 4105 7W8740 177 d 6051113114 777711 47357 07 FILING 1'7? PROP. 80.LN0 E67E.6420 kt(1203597 1 CO 90 2001000 41 4E OC Fl7ML 801') 5 11 1Df f1 IMO if. . 81111045 77264 07, • (70'x40'; CEO 9r 01^X3'0 Al "01 0f 11144 ix:A11 PLANNED (INIT DEVELOPMENT (CONSERVATION) 1 045, 00119059 780. 10.» 49x3 7, CURVE TABLES 17,41. 45. 4,4201 1760'7 0 A 19145 0 11-131+0 02P4, 40. PAD 68 '742171. 67114 161,424 far 25090. 1200 21327 49.84' ,724'27 2504 49.73' 5255 0.50 12.77' 86321556' 7.94 41.60' 11201 8.50' 11.90" 91'37'55' 7.22 40.99' 1259 247.00 .17427 4024'50' 90.91' 170.63' 11204 9.50' 11.94 2.06255" 1.25 10.99 1260 122.59' 1100.22' 90212368` 102,00' 144.25' 1205 213.2' 3.15.14 894719' 094.40' 287.18' 0261 78.00' 91676' 05.49148' 7246' 000,471 0206 572:044' 04.77 82915' 32.42' 5.73' 1262 7040' 5.74' 413123' 247" 5.74' 2207 577.67 77.13' 7'13'29__95.11' 1 77.10' 6263 866.26' 24,76' 2365-4 12.38' 24.16' 1205. 572.02' 12.10 11742' 6.05' 12.29' 2244 428.00 18111' 729'27' 9I3 18.41' 11209 266.67 19.79 40126' 9.65' 19.29' 1265 508.00 09.44'_ 75019' 29.76' 59.46' 8210 258.07' 20.13' 410'09' 10.07' 20.17' 626_6 478.00' 50.00` 9'41'36' 25.133' 49,97' 11311 2{.8,2' 92.69' 1723'19' 4571' ^00.26' 0261 629.00' 56.39' .739'10' 28.11' 56.36' 1212 8.54 17.79' 8.73.957_,,..7 44" 11.20' 6268 426.00' 20.02' 8'41'36' 2543' 10.77' 4 260.00' 5843' 12'28'31'j 21333' 58,32' 0269 668.00' 56.46` 736'34' 26.24' 58.45` 4 266.60' 661635 171301 1140.57' 8].23 0270 428.09' 50.00 6'41"30` 2503' 49.17 2215 266.00' 62.02 1375'33" 31.15 61.66' 1271 668"00' 18.1.9' 1'4025' 1 810' 11819' 0216 28900' 3'52' 04506' , 76 3.52' 1272 428.00' 50.110' 541.36' 25.03' 49.97' 1217 772.130' 167.66' 759'26' 53:77 107.56' 2273 428,0' 30.67 5'4136' 7501 49.97' 2218 150.01' 5135 723752 3707 56.87 1274 1223,99' _501;0' 641 34 25.0' 49.92_ 1219 150.01 61.61 23'32'41' 31.26' 61.21' 0275 163.09' 34.65' 171045' 17.330' , 34.56 2.220 150,91' 53.22 251406" 29.49' 52.6.5' C276 163,00' 8176' 2854'49' 47.02' 61,37 6221 150.01' 6102' 2.23650' 31.36' 61.31' 6777 428,0' 8.00' ' 1+9318' 1-00' 8.00' 1.222 150.01' 61.55' 733011" 31.21' 11.16' 2276163.210' 53.13' 1549'17' 26.20 57.92' 1223 150.01' 05 .46' 25'0706' 33.2 4 64.14' C27795 1 181 3.00.0' 73.27 .110` 15'41'17' 37.46` 32 ,47' 11224 15001' 64.32 7433400 37.66' 63.73' 1280 6.52 13.75' 907007 6.50' 12.02' 1225 150,01' 61.10' 722016' 3096' 50.611' C28' 91200' 112.4' 44457' 1,02' 11,64' 2226 208.00' 84.59' 250522' 40.13' 93.76' 0257 912.00' 50.20 .79029` 25.01' 49.99' 2221 70:0' 72.74' 220711' 3474' 12.31' 1283 912.00'50.00' 50626 25.01 49.99` 0228 51-99'_71QA7' 211'29'26 704.44' 103.81' 1284 912.00' .30.0+2' 3'43525 25.01' 49,96' 1229 126.01' 112.08' 187'4.3'25' 1826.73' 257.45' 2285 922.80' � 1.26' 004'44' 0.83' 1,26' 1232 772.00' 4327' 312'55' 21.67' 4332' 6286 167,0 122.61' 6'5971' 11.42' 22,80' 2231 208.170 38,66' 100933 11.49'-.3863' 2287 ]87,00' 5000 151711' 25,15' 48.85' 6232 152.0 51,18' 1269.708 17,16' 34.11' 6288 187.00' 511.60' 15'1911' 25,15' 4945` 0233 028.00' 36.12 23016' 19.09 38111 6290 163.03 6996' ,2253'60' 39,09' 64.67' 12734 870.00' 65.46' 41153' 132.76' 86.47' 2240 187.00 72.26` 122102'26' 36,59' 7101' 6235 826.0` 55.97' 35223' 2800' 55.96' 4291 163.07 57.73 260943' 2893' 56.97 ' 6236 212,60 1906 5038 9.52 12.3' 6292 528.80' 0544 122790 5300' 106.17 11237 212.09 12156' 3751'22' 61.51' 149.92' 0293 303.00' 210 39 39'4659 100.93' 20819' 1238 6.50 1774 022432 7.48- 11.20 0294 303.00 2349 14'26'26 17755.0691" 1234 268,00 110.54' 253754' 51.07' 109.75' 0295 157.07 20816 7557'52 12257 19324 12432 213.2' 113.93' 373951' 5836' 112.58' 1296 212.00 9325' 251270 4739' 92.50' 6241 8.50 11.97' 674045' 722_ 11.09 6297 1500 .30777' 11719'05' 231.18' 260.80' 1242 107.00 164.38' 880109 i 10316' 146.68' 11265 3200' 1.14.52' 65975 22.29' 44.49' 52.13. 57.09 21.00 7107.26' 15.89' .50.62' 0209 172.0 43.75' 183756 34.72' 66.15' C244 15700 131.54' 293507' 7021' 12796' 6300 372.0' 81.36' 1731'50' 40.01' 61,19' 1245 828.33' 30.06' 70148' 15.03' 30,06' 6371 372.00' 19.47" 104956' 34.84' 09.27 6246 212.07' 7067' 5'2529` 12.04' 20.06' 6302 372.00 ]19.28' 35614` 9.66' 19.39' 6247 266.77' 50.39' 175435' 37.32' 50.26 6383 232.00' ,07,71' 2719'38' 51.54 100.16' 11240 268.0' 21.93 4'41 17 10.17` 21.92' 0304 212.00' 4043 1' 221938' 51.51' 19916' C240 713.07 10.86' 75832' 5.44" 10.67" 6305 2,7.00 16.13' 4'21'31` 647 16.12' 1360 213.20' 82.82' 162140 30.82' 60.62' 0334 627.00' ' 55.3e 50757' 27.69' 55.32' 0251 213.90' 02.12' 16'4333 3121' 61,90 1307 628.00' .60.03' 570'36` 30.54' 60.91' 0252 107.00 52.95' 267025' 21.07 52.29' 6308 620.00 16.70' 42552' 124.11' 49.19' 0253 163.00 51.65' 162725' 2005' 5144' 1309 157,00 .20.79' 735190' 10.41' 2977' 0251 103.00' 59.91' 71'03`29' 30..20' 59.57' 2310 157.00 .77.99' 25'2617' 37,17 22.34 1255 472.00 157.1] 1904'42' 1927' 155.44' 1311 912.00' 3'30'41' 28.62' 56,61' _ 213.2 109.27' 29'2535' 55.87' 106.09' 15662' ,6i 4 Lv77 if, 1019 . 53.+61 63 Ar 487613 5. 151 7 S 5500 03. 9 4mr_- • • ' rtL^NHi, 4177 1964 S.. O 01!'. O 01111 NEC. H0. 798016 PROF uiL'1` !449 4101 I 0 01 UL 1':J A I:NE �p'9�01 W 7.44°J iA. ` 1 PLANNED 01'1''].1. (OPEN SPACE & 9 �1 SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 4i 5 8651,261 CGH57.0,9"1011 ..05' 011111 8114 1171 PAGE 925 RESIDENTIAL) Tao SCALE IN FEET 0 100 200 PUBLIC LAND (RESOURCE/ RECREATIONAL) 19474 35' 056710000 071611 LA00911 251. 50' OPEN SPICE EASEME E BOOK 1143 AT 920.40ED (74 BOOK 1217 PAGE 593 EXIST. 042150100 CCRRID(0 BETWEEN 6NEER'S RANCH NORTH PROPERTY EINE (MP 367.3) NU 5461765 RANO 501118 PROVERB' LINE (07 368.77) 6 ABJECT TO LICENSE CANT: 04K 1142 AT NAGE 983 AND AMOBMENI THERETO BOOK 1217 AT PAGE 596 007 7 98331 66 r r I. - 04,r PROP.112,11 (-00(009 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET PUD03.04 r - 11111 ri RM. 32' 1K2756 a 60031T EASEMENT r - OWN_R/D-_VELOPER: r � Rh7rttige COLORADO Carbondale Investments, LLC 7999 HON 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone No: 479.456.5325 CIVIL LNG N_ER/PLANNER: 8140 Fanners, LLC 00 Bax 0426 Eagle, CO 81 631-04 26 Phone No: 866.134.8140 www.O14Opartners.cacn SURVEYOR: BM! 17/171.7f 86RA 'J74(2 SSR77CAS 727 81 4e Aram,e 4909Ne04 30t49.o 12140,000 87607 (017) 028-9108 (ray 027-06611 so-w.com LANDSCAPE ARCHI7E ZEH REN APID ASSOCIATES. KEY MAO 3/1 C01I1811IS 6f WIRED 0053117 2IAT REZONING [Pun 09050112090 (1712[L01Irv6RY PLAN) 51J9NITTA: SSUE DAT DESCRIPTION 20002007 70LJMOCR: 10-001 PROJECT MANAGER: S. OTERO 2 CHECKED BY: C SNYOER SAWYER SHEET TITLE: RIVER EDGE COLORADO PUD PLAN (5 OF 8) SHEET NUMBER PUDO3.03 2 1 4 5 6 8 1 9 10 & DESIGN \CAD\PLAN SI-IEETS\PUD-03-SITEPiANMAP.DWG PRELIM PLAT\ENGI 0 0 A 2 5 6 7 a 9 1 10 PROP. 0 11W& MATCHLINE SEE SHEET PUD03.03 ME ME 50 49!9 SPIN [.45[.4[61 BOOR 1143 41 1 040.6111.0 6E 8006 7217 PARE 693 • 04151. 9ALF08 CCRRAYR 6EIWEE4 304400RS RANpa 10714 PROPERTY LINE (uP 367,3} A04 9243603 RANCH SOUTH 4986ER19 41( 36&70) 6 s.EVECT TO 06090E Mawr 9236 1142 AT P400 993 ANO ANE1E41E91 THERETO 16000 1217 AT PAGE 596 PL4NNEt UNIT DEVELO[,V?ENT (CONSERVATION) PROP. 8;,.0160 &0 610P5 (70140) !,0 F1 00 'N<:0 4; -;µ 764 PROP. 25' OU40.000 91ICH (+66g Y ' DAP. 25' 0101441000 76149 593E1041 OBA711 REC. PO. 798016 co 1'4 PUBLIC LAND (RESOURCE/ 1 RECREATIONAL) [ Y � Y t k0: %4t,\'1 RPap EXIST. WETLANDS, PLANNED UNIT DE'VELOIPMENT (OPEN SPACE) t. RURAL (AGRICULTURAL) 100 0 100 204 SCALE IN FEET CURVE TABLES 0104 e0 1111,00 1116001 0(161 0.460.41! CN 04110 234,47 104.22' 25'5052' 52.98 105.34 CMS 866.00 .106.67 22'5632' 54.96' 106,95' 0402 1482.50' 74"11'45' 517.76' 621.41' 2015.09 294,32' 559'26' 147.30' 294.18' 5404 3765.09' 6620' 1'21'10' 53.65' 66.06 Carbondale. Investments, LLC 7999 HWY 82 Carbondale, CO 61623 Phone No: 670.456.5325 CIVIL LNG. NER/PLANNER: 8140 Fanners, LLC PO Box 0426 Eagle, CO 81 631-04 28 Phone No: 866.934.8140 www.8140partners.corn SURVEYOR: Nan TY/lTLE' Sf7R6'E'YJNC SERYJCAS 727 80e ,avenue annwooa Springs, Gorarado 81601 (970) 928-9708 N 947-9007) ,jh,044,-1.e4ena LANDSCAPE ARCH Inn ZEH REN KEY MAP: 9/3/11 CW961IS 99 566W C11061Y 5042 1/14/11 REZONING (9110) AN0 9090 5206 (PRELIMINARY PLAN) SUBMITTAL ISSUE DATE 1 DESCRIPTION PROJECT 941)59008: 10-001 PROJECT MANAGER: S. OTERO DRAWN Br CHECKED BY: C. 562088 M. SAWrR SHEET TITLE; RIVER EDGE COLORADO PUD PLAN (6 OF 8) S••. -E- NU Ma R, PUDO3.04 2 4 5 7 s 9 10