Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21.0 PC Staff Report 01.10.2018Planning Commission - Public Hearing Exhibits TCI Lane Ranch PUD Amendment January 10, 2018 Exhibit Number Exhibit 1 Public Hearing Notice Information Form 2 Mail receipts 3 Proof of posting 4 Proof of publication 5 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended 6 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 7 Email from Stephanie Lewis, dated November 24, 2017 8 Referral Comments from Black Hills Corporation, dated December 4, 2017 9 Referral Comments from Garfield County Road and Bridge, dated December 5, 2017 10 Letter from Ronald Norman, dated December 12, 2017 11 Referral Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, dated December 21, 2017 12 Referral Comments from Garfield County Public Health, dated December 21, 2017 13 Referral Comments from Chris Hale of Mountain Cross Engineering, dated December 27, 2017 14 Land Use Change Permit for Development in the Floodplain for TCI Lane Ranch (Reception Number 786310), dated May 21, 2010 15 a r4�: z? -r_. 1 C;.-..�,�-�^ l3 f� : A C:JC�T . ce,./ed NC10-7. - '2 01P 16 614.1 fire -n 4 f ied Pty (( cicPr,/ N 64. 9, zoik (P✓blit t:4117 �V � L f-i�jr-s-Pies,—, 1. /A. 1 CC, AI A det Ile el �I ., • in, `?r, a(``I�,',e1t rt . '' k') 18 `,,,,rr _crn.n LMfr sindv a.i `1'-t kimle o, f Ci.L�p/,Oror VSA. /d1 ZU/q 19 ., �3- r,. 4 0 o/lG/ !d' 20 rr, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PC January 10, 2018 DP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: OWNER/APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: PROPERTY SIZE: WATER/SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: PUD Amendment Aspen Polo Partners, LLP Landwest Colorado, LLC — Jon Fredericks Approximately 4 miles east of the Town of Carbondale off the State Highway 82 Access Road and known as Parcel Number 239131100033. The property has an address of 16411 Highway 82, Carbondale. ±100.44 -acres Onsite well / Onsite septic and/or centralized wastewater system State Highway 82 / Old Highway 82 PUD PUD, Commercial Limited, Rural, Public Land Future Land Use Map - Residential High Density I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION A. Property Location The property is generally located 4 miles east of the Town of Carbondale and adjacent to State Highway 82 (SH 82). The proposed primary access point is to be located on the Highway 82 frontage road (Old Highway 82) approximately 0.5 miles east of the County Road 100 / Highway 82 intersection. Properties to the north include agriculture and residential. Properties to the west include a Waldorf School and residential uses. Properties to the south include the Roaring Fork River and public land. Properties to the east include residential and open space. 1 PC January 10, 2018 DP Vicinity Map 103 10( r1 190LiT o �slFiBge Ali Cerise Ram TCI Lane Ranch EtglundMoore reek! CR 100 RatkI, Ranch at Roaring F rk "% C `Y , TO Ranch Te•Ifsa(1y Town of Carbondale Subject Parcel B. General Property Description The property contains approximately 100.44 -acres. The subject site is located on the floor of the Roaring Fork Valley and is currently developed with an agricultural greenhouse and food growing operation. Physically the property gradually slopes down north to south towards the Roaring Fork River. The north portion of the property is generally range with vegetation becoming thicker to the south with mature cottonwood galleries along the Roaring Fork River. C. Property History The Applicant has provided the following description and chronology of approvals for the property. The property was the subject of many prior applications and approvals by the County, starting in 2007 with approvals for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Sketch Plan. In 2009, the BoCC granted Preliminary Plan and PUD approval, which was followed by the approvals of several minor revisions and Preliminary Plan extensions. The Preliminary Plan has since expired as of September 8, 2017. However, the prior PUD zoning approvals and Floodplain Development Permit remain in effect. Table 1 provides a chronological history of prior actions by the County for the subject property. 2 PC January 10, 2018 DP Table 1. History of Prior County Actions. Type Resolution/ Permit # PC -2007-05 Date 7/11/2007 Description Designation of "Residential High Density" for property. Comprehensive Plan Am=endment Preliminary Plan/ PUD 2009-71 9/8/2009 Original approval. Preliminary Plan/PUD 2009-81 12/7/2009 Retract and replace Resolution 2009-71 to correct scrivener's error. PUD Amendment Lang ase Change Perm i: PDA46269 2/9/2010 Administrative approval of text amendment of PUD Guide to allow "greenhouse" as a Use by Right. Floodplain Development Permit Land Use Change perm r. FDPA6264 5/21/2010 Administrative approval of development in floodplain. Preliminary Plan Extension 2010-57 7/19/2010 To allow a 1 -year extension until 9/8/2011, with the opportunity to request additional extensions. PUD Amendment 2010-101 :2/20/2010 To convert five (5) voluntary employee units to free market units due to market conditions. Preliminary Plan Extension TBD 7/11/11 To allow a 2 -year extension until September 8, 2013. Preliminary Plan Extension 2013-58 9/3/2013 To allow a 2 -year extension until September 8, 2015. Preliminary. ='an Exters'cn 2015-49 9/8/2015 To allow a 1 -year extension until September 8, 2016_ PUD Glide Correctior 2016-37 5/2/2016 To allow for a correction to Resolution 2010-101. Preliminary Plan Extension 2016-59 9/12/2016 To allow. a 1 -year extension until Septerrber 8, 2017. Preliminary Plan Expiration n/a 9/8/2017 The Preliminary Plan approval has expired. 3 PC January 10, 2018 DP Approved PUD Zoning 4 PC January 10, 2018 DP Approved PUD Land Use Summary " I f• TCI LANE RANCH 5 PC January 10, 2018 DP II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PUD AMENDMENTS The previous owner of the site, TCI Lane Ranch, LLC, was approved to rezone the parcel discussed above, from Agricultural Rural Residential Density (ARRD) to PUD to allow for development of 89 residential lots (including 9 affordable units), open space and recreation in 2009. The owner was also approved for a Preliminary Plan Application in 2009 to allow for subdivision of the site. The Preliminary Plan approval expired in September 2017, however. The owner is now seeking to amend the original PUD approval and has represented that should the PUD amendment be approved, it would be followed up by a new Preliminary Plan consistent with the amended PUD. The Applicant has provided the following description of the proposed amendments. The Applicant is seeking a PUD Amendment for the property formerly known as TCI Lane Ranch in eastern Garfield County near Catherine Store. The property is now being referred to as the `Aspen Valley Polo Club PUD". The subject property is 100.44 acres in size, and is currently zoned PUD with an approved PUD Guide and PUD Site Plan. This application seeks to replace the existing PUD Guide and PUD Site Plan with the proposed PUD Plan, including a new PUD Guide and PUD Plan Map. This PUD Amendment as proposed will allow the owners to develop the property with their envisioned land uses and dimensional standards, consistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. This application provides pertinent information for a PUD Amendment (Substantial Modification) as required by the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) Section 6-301. As proposed, the PUD consists of two distinct Zone Districts. In order to create efficiencies in the review process, County staff has directed the Applicant to also include many of the typical requirements of a Preliminary Plan submittal for the area encompassing Zone District 1. These supplemental submittal materials will allow the County to evaluate the improvements that are planned for Phase 1. This report demonstrates conformance with all applicable submittal requirements, County Codes, Goals and Policies. This PUD Amendment will be the first step in a three-part review process for the subject property, as follows: 1) PUD Amendment— to confirm certain allowed uses and dimensional standards, which will allow the Applicant to commence construction of facilities within Zone District 1 in the early spring of 2018. 2) Preliminary Plan — to obtain approval for subdivision of the property based upon approved allowed uses and dimensional standards. The Preliminary Plan application is intended to be submitted for review in 2018, after approval of the PUD Amendment. 3) Final Plat — to subdivide the property, following the terms and conditions of a Preliminary Plan approval. It is anticipated that Final Plat will occur in 2019. 6 PC January 10, 2018 DP In addition, the Applicant has provided the following descriptions of the proposed amendments. 5.1. Proposed Zoning As proposed, the Aspen Valley Polo Club PUD is comprised of two distinct Zone Districts as depicted on the PUD Zone District Map (Figure 9) below. Each Zone District is intended to provide specific consistency in allowed land uses, development standards and densities. Zone District 1 primarily contains agricultural uses and includes 49.23 acres in the northern portion of the PUD. Zone District 2 primarily contains residential and open space uses and includes 51.21 acres in the southern portion of the PUD. Figure 9: PUD Zone District Map (full size version located in Appendix F). ZONE/DISTRICT 49,23 Acres i�////////f (refer/to/PUD Guide'for allowed / //,// /W/ /4/,'/V// and/uses/standardsandensities ZO:N:E\DJSTRfCT\2\ �\ 54..21 Acres (refer to P•l1D;Guide for allowed \\\\\\\\\\\\\\�\\\\\\\\\ and uses; standards.and\densities) \\\ \\ \.\\\ \\\. 5.2. Allowed Land Uses The proposed land uses for the Aspen Valley Polo Club PUD are very similar to those approved for the former TCI Lane Ranch, with a few exceptions. Similar to the existing zoning, proposed land uses include agricultural, residential, parks, open space, trails, utilities, and water storage. Where the current proposal differs is that the proposed uses include provisions for additional agricultural uses with 7 PC January 10, 2018 DP equestrian facilities. This includes any agricultural building, structure, or improvement for the purpose of accommodating, breeding, raising, training or competing equids (primarily horses). Associated agricultural facilities may include barns, stables, riding halls, riding rings, paddocks, polo fields, corrals, tracks, or trails. The complete list of proposed "Uses by Right" is included in Section 4 of the PUD Guide, Appendix N. 5.3. Land Use Summary The PUD Guide (Appendix N) provides detail on various dimensional and development standards, open space requirements, and also includes limitations on density. The following PUD Summary Table details the minimum standards and limitations for the proposed PUD. 5.3.1. Table 3: PUD Summary Table ITEM OVERALL PUD ZONE DISTRICT 1 ZONE DISTRICT 2 Total Acres 100.44 —;`- 49.23 +/- 51.21 +/- Minimum Open Space Percent 50% 21% (of tote' PUO) 29% (of total PUD) Minimum Open Space Acres 50.22 -(- 21.03 +1- 29.13 +/- Minimum Lot Size -- 0.75 acres 0.25 acres Maximum Number of Dwelling Units 54 _2 42 Maximum Dwelling Units per Lot -- up to 4 1 Maximum Overall Density (Acres per Dwelling Unit) 19 AC/DU 4.1 AC,+D,. _.2 AC/DU 5.4. Community Design The design for the PUD blends the unique facilities of a horse breeding and training center with provisions for a compact and well-amenitized residential neighborhood, while maintaining the integrity of an important natural environment adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. The northern portion of the property (Zone District 1) contains the agricultural and equestrian -related uses of the PUD. These facilities include barns and stables, paddocks, an exercise track for horses, two regulation -sized polo fields, ponds for the storage of irrigation water, a clubhouse, up to 12 dwelling units, and the necessary provisions of dual road access and appropriate wet and dry utilities. The southern portion of the property (Zone District 2) has a configuration that is very similar to the former PUD Site Plan for TCI Lane Ranch. This includes a community center, greenhouse and gardens, park, open space, trails, up to 42 residential units, and appropriate access and utilities. 8 PC January 10, 2018 DP Proposed PUD Map 9 PC January 10, 2018 DP Site Plan III. REFERRAL AGENCIES The Amended 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 and Bridge: (Exhibit 9) - Noted that the development will put some additional impacts on the Catherine Store intersection which is controlled by CDOT. As a result, "Road and Bridge does not require any permits for this proposal." 10 PC January 10, 2018 DP b. Mountain Cross Engineering: (Exhibit 13) - Noted the following comments: o The Applicant states that water for fire protection will come from hydrants connected to the ponds. The Applicant should provide more information concerning how the volume in the ponds is allotted between fire protection, irrigation, and aesthetics. Pond surface areas for evaporation should be verified. It should also be verified that fire protection is an allowed use for the water from the irrigation ditches. o The Applicant should work with the Fire District to determine hydrant locations and spacing and how these would connect to the ponds. o The Applicant should describe how the onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) setbacks from the water features will be achieved. Some of the OWTS are shown very near ponds and streams. o Conveyances for storm drainage should be sized as necessary for the 25 -year event per the LUDC. The Applicant states that they will be sized for the 10 -year. The Applicant should verify the adequacy for a 25 -year event or a variance may be required. o Future phases propose smaller, residential lots that likely would not be feasible for OWTS. A reasonable alternative is a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). The application materials do not evaluate feasibility or future connections. The Applicant should connect the commercial buildings to a WWTF should one be constructed in the future. o The Applicant should describe the potable water treatment that is proposed and where the equipment will be located. o The Applicant should provide design drawings for the accesses proposed with CDOT permits. c. Garfield County Public Health: (Exhibitl2) - Noted the following comments: o Area has potential for radiation hazard. Radon Resistant New Construction recommended. o Air Pollution Emissions Notification (APEN) may be required by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) as a result of the scale of the construction. o Noted that the drinking water system utilizing 1 well could be classified as a public water system by CDPHE Regulation 22. o Noted that the flows for each of the septic systems are near the threshold of 2,000 gallons per day based on CDPHE's Regulation 43 and could be considered a public water system according to CDPHE regulations. o Noted that due to the location of the site adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and adjacency to the Town of Carbondale's drinking water protection area, care should be taken to apply fertilizer and pesticides properly. In addition, these materials need to be stored properly. d. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW): (Exhibit 11) - CPW provided similar comments to their referral from 2009. These comments include encouraging wildlife friendly fencing; discourage bear attractant landscaping, discourage storage of trash, horse grain / feed in locations where they could attract bears and other wildlife; construct all ponds with wildlife friendly escape slopes; and keep trails in riparian areas to a minimum. The comments also recommend an anglers easement. e. Black Hills Corporation: (Exhibit 8) - Indicated that Black Hills Energy has the ability serve the development with natural gas. 11 PC January 10, 2018 DP No comments were received from the following agencies: f. Garfield County Vegetation Management g. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) h. Department of Water Resources (DWR) i. Army Corps of Engineers j. Town of Carbondale k. Carbondale Fire Protection District I. Mid -Valley Metropolitan District IV. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN One component of the Comprehensive Plan is the Future Land Use Map which designates density ranges and uses that may be considered appropriate for an area. The TCI Lane Ranch PUD was approved in 2009 under Resolution 2009-71 (corrected under Resolution 2009-81). As a part of this approval it was determined that the TCI Lane Ranch PUD and Preliminary Plan complied with the Comprehensive Plan of 2000, which designated the property Residential High Density. This density designation carried forward to the Comprehensive Plan of 2030 which was adopted in 2010. Comprehensive Plan of 2030 I j / 1�. • Subject Parcel: Residential High Density (3 DU / Acre) ljrx >>s 100�.^-- c:00.6%.„...,II1111I . Urban Growth Area _ L[" --"IP". Industrial Mixed Use • Commercial 0 Res H (1/3 TO <2 Ac/Du)* Res MH (2 TO <6 Ac/Du)' Res M (6 TO <10 Ac/Du) Res L (10+ Ac/Du) Resource Production/Natural 12 PC January 10, 2018 DP Sections of the Comprehensive Plan that are relevant to the application are excerpted below. 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 from 3 du per acre (301 units on the TCI Land Ranch parcel) to 1 du per < 2 acres (50 units on the TCI Lane Ranch 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. Residential High Land Use Designation Description LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION COMPATIBLE ZONING Residential High (RH) Criteria for determining RH density within the allowed range will be specifically determined by the Planning Commission and will be based on "degree of public benefit", considering factors such as amount of affordable housing including a mix of housing types, amount of parks/trails/ open space, energy conservation, fiscal impacts on the County, preservation of views, providing for schools and other public needs, etc Residential Suburban (RS) Residential Urban (RU) Residential Mobile Home Park (RMHP) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Density of residential Example uses 3 du per acre to 1 du per <2 acres 4, r; ` 4411. 'fit VX. 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: 13 PC January 10, 2018 DP 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. Chapter 3 -Plan Elements This chapter analyzes plan elements that include: 1. Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination - The nearest property boundary of the PUD is located 4.00 miles from the Carbondale Urban Growth Area and sits just outside the Town of Carbondale 3 mile area of influence. The FLUM designates the property Residential High (1/3 acre to less than 2 acres per dwelling unit). 2. Housing - The Applicant proposes to provide 5 affordable units. This is a ratio of 10%. As the amendment reduces the number of overall dwelling units from 89 to 55, the number of proposed affordable units has been represented to be reduced from 9 units to 5 units while still maintaining a ratio of 10%. 3. Transportation — The development is proposed to have 2 access points onto Old Highway 82, which is maintained by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The traffic study predicts the development will generate 482 weekday daily trips with 49 trips occurring in the AM peak hour and 56 trips occurring in the PM peak hour at build -out. During special events, this volume is expected to be 914 weekend daily trips with 195 trips occurring in the midday peak hour. The traffic study concludes that "it was determined that the majority of the existing roadway and intersection network can serve the added traffic volumes in the short-term and long-term scenarios" with the following improvements. - SH 82 at Catherine Store Road / County Road 100: Construct right -turn lane (storage back to Highway 82 Access Road, about 120 feet). Adjust the signal timing to increase the green for the westbound left -turn lane. - Highway 82 Access Road at Chukka Trail (west access): construct with one entering lane and one exiting lane (full -movement) and site -street stop -controlled. Highway 82 Access Road at Riverstone Drive (east access): Construct with one entering lane and one exiting lane (full -movement) and side -street stop -controlled. As both the access road and the intersection of CR 100 / Highway 82 are controlled by CDOT, improvements at these locations will require CDOT access permits and approval for those improvements. 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/equestrian/event facilities may generate several on-going service industry positions. Overall property maintenance of the development may also create several positions, though a specific number of positions has not been provided. 14 PC January 10, 2018 DP 5. Recreation, Open Space and Trails — The development provides internal trails and areas for recreation. In addition, the north section of the property is to be developed as a private polo facility. The application states that "A minimum of 50% of the PUD will be maintained as Open Space, and includes a corridor along the Roaring Fork River which will preserve the public river experience for floaters, fishermen, and bicyclists on the Rio Grande Trail." 6. Agriculture — Limited agriculture may be conducted within the PUD. An existing food production facility with a year round greenhouse currently operates on the property. This facility is expected to continue with the proposed amendments to the PUD. 7. Water and Sewer Services — The application is proposing to serve Zone 1 (polo fields, facilities and club house) with an onsite well and Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS). Zone 2 is proposed to be served by a central onsite well and either individual OWTSs or a centralized community system. It is understood that the development is currently over 400 feet from an existing water or sewer service line for a special district. The application provides the following explanation: "The project proposes to develop a Central Water Distribution System utilizing a newly constructed well. The property owner has significant raw water rights from several ditches, including the Basin Ditch, Middle Ditch, and Lower Ditch. These water rights will be maintained and utilized to provide irrigation support for the property. A public sewer extension is not currently practical or economically feasible, therefore the project will utilize Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS), which will be designed in accordance with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Regulation 43 and Garfield County regulations." 8. Natural Resources — Preservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources is proposed, particularly along the Roaring Fork River. Protection of the riparian corridor and open space areas are proposed. The application includes the following explanation: "The Roaring Fork River corridor is an important natural environment on the south side of the subject property. Within this area are floodplains, wetlands, and mixed forests which create wildlife habitat and serve important ecological functions. These areas will largely be preserved as Open Space within the PUD. The drainage plan has been designed to allow for proper infiltration and groundwater recharge. Inlet structures, piping, swales, infiltration depressions and overflow structures will convey runoff through the site. Proposed roads will drain into grass -lined swales and will convey runoff to localized depressions via storm inlets and piping when necessary. Localized depressions will be the main form of retention to provide water quality and promote infiltration, while larger depressions will be used for retention. Drainage and erosion control of the site during construction activities will be managed under the authority of a Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) discharge permit and associated Stormwater Management Plan. 9. Mineral Extraction — No mineral extraction has been proposed for the site. 10. Renewable Energy — The application states that "This PUD Amendment creates specific allowances for renewable energy production at an appropriate neighborhood scale. The PUD Guide (Appendix N) allows for the use of both Accessory and Small Solar Energy Systems. Accessory Solar Energy Systems are those rated less than 15 kilowatts, and are allowed in both Zone District 1 and 2 of the PUD. Small Solar Energy Systems are those rated 15 to 500 kilowatts, and are allowed in Zone District 1 of the PUD." 15 PC January 10, 2018 DP V. REVIEW STANDARDS & PUD CRITERIA SECTION 6-202 PUD APPROVAL STANDARDS. Substantial Amendments to PUDs are required to meet the Standards as outlined in Section 6-202(C) of the Land Use and Development Code. 1. Purpose and Applicability. The PUD meets the purpose and applicability of this Code, as provided in section 6-101.A. and B. A. Purpose. The general purpose of PUD zoning is to permit greater design flexibility than is allowed by the base zone district or Subdivision regulations, as those objectives are identified in the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972, C.R.S. § 24-67-101, et seq. PUDs must be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comments: The proposed PUD amendment is intended to provide greater flexibility to allow for more intensive recreational uses along with residential and entertainment uses. These uses and design flexibility are outlined in the proposed PUD Guide. B. Applicability. 1. Any single parcel of land or contiguous parcels of land comprising a minimum of 2 acres, sufficient to accommodate an integrally planned environment to be developed through a unified plan, is eligible for PUD zoning. 2. Applications for PUD zoning may be made for land located in any zone district. Staff Comments: The TCI Lane Ranch parcel was previously approved as a PUD in 2009. The eligibility of the parcel was determined by the BOCC at that time. Specifically, however, the parcel is larger than 2 acres and is sufficient to accommodate an integrated planned environment. 2. Development Standards. The PUD meets the Development Standards as provided in section 6-401. A. Permitted Uses. Staff Comments: The uses proposed add some agricultural and equestrian facilities to those already approved in the current PUD. In addition, all of the uses are allowable with proper permits in the underlying Rural zone district. In addition, upon review of the PUD Guide and the Comprehensive Plan, it is Staffs opinion that the proposed uses are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. It is understood that, upon approval, the uses that are to be permitted are those that are permitted by the PUD Guide. The Applicant describes the proposed changes as follows: The proposed land uses for the Aspen Valley Polo Club PUD are very similar to those approved for the former TCI Lane Ranch, with a few exceptions. Similar to the existing zoning, proposed land uses include agricultural, residential, parks, open space, trails, utilities, and water storage. Where the current proposal differs is that the proposed uses include provisions for additional agricultural uses with equestrian facilities. This includes any agricultural building, structure, or 16 PC January 10, 2018 DP improvement for the purpose of accommodating, breeding, raising, training or competing equids (primarily horses). Associated agricultural facilities may include barns, stables, riding halls, riding rings, paddocks, polo fields, corrals, tracks, or trails. B. Off -Street Parking. Staff Comments: The site plan for Zone 1 appears to provide adequate paved parking for normal operations of the proposed facilities. In addition, event parking on appropriately graded grass surfaces which are also to be used for tailgating during events are strategically positioned around the polo fields. In Zone 2, off street parking is identified at the proposed trail head. Other parking is to be handled onsite with each residence. To this extent, it appears that adequate provisions for off-street parking will be available for the proposed uses. This proposal was also reviewed by the Garfield County designated engineer who did not identify any issues with the proposed parking. C. Density. Staff Comments: All of the new agricultural and event uses are contained within Zone 1 while the existing agricultural uses will be a part of Zone 2. The two polo fields, clubhouse, barns, and dwelling units (including cabins and units above the barns) are to be situated on a 49.23 acre district. 12 dwelling units total are proposed in this Zone 1. The applicant has provided evidence that these facilities are to be served by a central well and 3 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS). Some items have been identified with the design and rights for certain systems by the Garfield County designated engineer and Public Health which are discussed later this Report. Provided these items are addressed, it is Staff's Opinion that the nonresidential density within the PUD will not exceed a level that can be adequately served by utilities. The overall residential density of the development is proposed to decrease from 0.886 dwelling units per acre (89 units on 100.44 acres) to 0.537 dwelling units per acre (54 units on 100.44 acres). As the development is no longer proposed to be served by a special district for water and sewer service, the Code limits the density of the development to 2 dwelling units per acre. Based on this calculation, the proposed residential density is significantly below this allowable threshold. D. Housing Types. Staff Comments: The overall development is proposing a total of 54 dwelling units, 12 units within Zone 1 and 42 units within Zone 2. Zone 1: No subdivision of the units are proposed within Zone 1 and all of these units are anticipated to remain in common ownership. Single -Unit, 2 -Unit, and Mixed -Use Dwellings (defined in PUD Guide) are proposed as a Use by Right within this Zone. These units are to be used for employee housing or as short term rentals during events or certain seasons. Four of the units are to be considered single family dwelling units (identified as "cabins") while the rest are to be second story apartments above the proposed barns. The application also indicates that up to 2 Affordable Housing Units may be contained within the maintenance barn. Zone 2: Future subdivision is anticipated for Zone 2 to split the property into legally sellable parcels of no less than 0.25 acres each. Single -Unit and 2 -Unit Dwellings are proposed as a 17 PC January 10, 2018 DP Use by Right within this Zone. A maximum of 42 dwelling units are proposed within Zone 2. The remaining Affordable Housing Units are to be located within this Zone. Affordable Housing: The application proposes provisions for 10% of the dwelling units as deed restricted affordable units. With the 54 total dwelling units, the applicant is proposing a total of 5 units with a total of 9 bedrooms. The income categories for these units are disbursed as required with 1 unit as Category I, 2 units in Category II, 2 units in Category III. The following schedule was provided for the Affordable Housing Units: "Following the completion and issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for every nine (9) dwelling units within the PUD, no building permits for additional dwelling units shall be issued until the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for one Affordable Housing Unit within the PUD, OR the provision of one Off - Site Affordable Housing Unit." While the Affordable Housing provisions are included within the PUD Guide, an Affordable Housing Plan is not required until subdivision of the property into 15 or more lots. As a result, at the time of subdivision an Affordable Housing Plan will be required. Regarding Affordable Housing eligibility, the proposed PUD Guide identifies in Section 7.7, Eligibility that "Eligibility for Affordable Housing Units will be determined by the Garfield County Housing Authority. Priority for Affordable Housing Units will be given to on-site employees who meet Eligibility requirements." Meanwhile the intent of the County inclusionary zoning is to "contribute to the Affordable Housing supply in the County, as reasonable and appropriate with consideration to the development's impact on the supply of Affordable Housing available to the local labor force." To this end, the purpose of the deed restricted Affordable Housing is to mitigate County -wide needs, not specific needs to the development as is desired by the applicant to provide priority to onsite employees. It is Staffs opinion that the Affordable Housing created through Article 8 of the LUDC should be available to all eligible residents of the County and should not be in any way restricted or prioritized to those who work onsite. Should the developer feel that additional housing is necessary for onsite workers, then that housing should be developed separately and should not count toward compliance with the County inclusionary zoning standards from the LUDC. E. Transportation and Circulation System. Staff Comments: The overall transportation network remains similar to that approved for the existing TCI Lane Ranch PUD, particularly for Zone 2. The internal road network was reviewed by the County designated engineer who did not identify any issues. In addition, the application was referred to the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District who did not provide any comments. The two access points to the development are onto Old Highway 82 which is owned and managed by CDOT. At the time of writing this Report, access permits to CDOT had been submitted, however neither permits nor a Notice to Proceed have been issued. The Applicant provided the below description of the internal road network. Two access points are proposed for the Aspen Valley Polo Club PUD, and both are from Old Highway 82 (frontage road) on the north of the property. As of this writing, access permit applications have been submitted to CDOT and are included with the Traffic Impact Study in Appendix K. These two primary access points from Old Highway 82 help to distribute traffic throughout the community while also allowing for secondary emergency ingress and egress. It is presumed that some of the traffic generated by this project will utilize the County Road 100 signalized access to Hwy 82, while some will utilize Old Highway 82 to the east of the project, connecting to Hwy 82 at Valley Road. 18 PC January 10, 2018 DP All roads within the project have been designed per County standards to support Average Daily Traffic (ADT) at full build out, and meet minimum design criteria for emergency vehicles per County The Applicant will need to obtain a CDOT access permit and a Notice to Proceed prior to development of Zone 1. F. Recreational Amenities. Staff Comments: The development provides for open space and trails as recreational amenities. It is Staffs opinion that the level of recreational amenities provided to residences in relation to the number of units anticipated is high. The applicant has provided the following description of the parks, open space and trails within the development. The proposed PUD Amendment includes the provision of internal recreational opportunities; including a community center, parks, open space, and trails. A minimum of 50% of the PUD will be maintained as Open Space, and includes a corridor along the Roaring Fork River which will preserve the public river experience for floaters, fishermen, and bicyclists on the Rio Grande Trail. Associated with the Community Center and Greenhouse is a planned community park that will provide for informal and passive recreation opportunities and a gathering place for community events. This park will likely contain ponds, playground facilities, open turf areas, and landscaping. Open Space lands are envisioned for the southern and western portions of Zone District 2. These lands are primarily forested, and contain wetland areas, floodplain areas, and include the Roaring Fork River corridor. A hierarchy of trails is envisioned including paved asphalt trails, compacted soft - surface trails, and natural surface primitive trails. The low-volume street system within the community will also serve as a secondary trails system for both bicycles and pedestrians. G. Building Height. Staff Comments: The maximum proposed building height in both Zone 1 and Zone 2 is 28 feet. The existing and approved TCI Lane Ranch PUD has a maximum building height of 25 feet. While the amendment does propose a 3 foot increase in the maximum building heights within the development, provided its fairly low density of development, it is Staffs opinion that the increase will not result in "unreasonable adverse effect on adjacent sites or other areas in the immediate vicinity in regard to shadows, loss of air circulation, or loss of view." H. Lots. Staff Comments: Subdivision of the current -100 acre parcel is not proposed at this time. The application represents a timeframe for future subdivision, however, and the PUD Guide does outline minimum lot sizes, setbacks, and maximum lot coverage for both Zone 1 and Zone 2. These parameters appear to be reasonable although the anticipated lot configuration has not yet been represented. 19 PC January 10, 2018 DP 1. Phasing. Staff Comments: The Applicant has proposed the following Phasing Plan. Construction for the project will occur in two primary Phases, as described below: Phase 1: (Early Spring 2018 — Late 2018) The first Phase of construction will include improvements within Zone District 1. Earthwork is planned to begin in the early spring of 2018, and will include grading and construction of the polo fields, roads, ponds, and building sites. This Phase will also include the installation of all necessary wet and dry utilities. Upon completion of grading, drainage and utilities, vertical building construction and installation of all necessary landscaping, irrigation and revegetation will occur. Completion for Phase 1 is planned for late 2018, not including vertical build -out. Phase 2: (2019 - 2020) The second Phase of construction will encompass all necessary grading, drainage, and infrastructure for Zone District 2, which is currently designed to a conceptual level of detail. It is anticipated that Phase 2 infrastructure construction will start in 2019 with completion in 2020, not including residential build -out. As proposed, Phase 1 can be built and operational without having adverse impacts on the future Phase 2 or the surrounding. Prior to construction in Phase 2, the property will also require subdivision. 3. Standards, Article 7. The PUD meets the standards within Article 7, Division 1, excluding 7-101. 7-102. Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements. Staff Comments: Please see Section IV, above regarding an analysis of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. There are no known Intergovernmental Agreements impacting this development. The application was referred to the Town of Carbondale as the development sits at the edge of the Town 3 mile area of influence, however no comments were received. 7-103. Compatibility. Staff Comments: This amendment reduces the overall residential density of the development in favor of 2 regulation size polo fields, 5 barns, a maintenance barn, and a clubhouse in Zone 1 along Highway 82. The south portion of the property along the Roaring Fork River is to remain primarily as proposed in the existing PUD, as one and two unit residential dwellings. The overall impact to neighboring property owners in Blue Creek PUD and the Waldorf School are expected to be reduced as these developments will now be adjacent to polo fields instead of residential units. With the commercial, entertainment and recreational uses directly adjacent to Old Highway 82 in Zone 1, it appears that the brunt of those impacts would be offset by the traffic, noise, and pollution impacts from Highway 82. The more intensive entertainment and recreational uses (clubhouse, barns, tailgating areas, and dwelling units) are proposed to be located interior to the site which will further help mitigate those impacts to surrounding property owners. 20 PC January 10, 2018 DP 7-104. Source of Water. Staff Comments: The PUD as approved under Resolution 2009-81 requires connection of the development to Mid -Valley Water and Sanitation District. As a part of this amendment, the application proposes to serve the development with an onsite well. The application states that there are currently 4 decreed domestic wells on the property. Staff understands the property owners are working with a water attorney to sort through the water rights with the property and have submitted applications for both a new well permit to provide water to both the domestic and commercial uses on the property as well as an augmentation plan with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. As of the writing of this report, it is understood that those applications have been submitted but have not yet been approved. Prior to any development on the property, the applicant will need to demonstrate legal rights through an approved well permit(s) to serve the full buildout of the development, including both Zone 1 and Zone 2. In addition, if an augmentation plan is required by the Division of Water Resources, then the approved augmentation plan will need to be submitted as well. Regarding irrigation water, it is understood that the property has rights to several ditches. Below is a description from the application regarding irrigation water. The property owner has significant raw water rights from several ditches, including the Basin Ditch, Middle Ditch, and Lower Ditch. These water rights will be maintained and utilized to provide irrigation support for polo fields, common areas, constructed wetlands and building lots within the community. Irrigation water will be provided by a raw water irrigation system with pond storage and a centralized wet well and pressurized pump station from one or more of the project's ditches. The Design Guidelines will prescribe maximum areas for spray irrigation within each lot. The preliminary engineering report conducted by Roaring Fork Engineering indicates that the well pump tested at 50-60 gallons per minute over a 24 hour test. The author of the report, Richard Goulding, PE, indicates that "50 gpm was used in the water supply analysis since it was more conservative. This level of production is enough to meet the water demands and storage for both Zone Districts 1 and 2." As a result of this water quantity test and analysis, it is Staff's opinion that the water supply quantity is adequate for full build out of Zone 1 and Zone 2. Regarding water quality, the preliminary engineering report conducted by Roaring Fork Engineering states the following. According to the Well Water Quality Analysis memo written by Resource Engineering, the results indicate the well water meets the basic EPA primary and secondary drinking water standards. Radionuclide testing results are still pending. If the results indicate the need to treat for radionuclides, the system will be designed, permitted and construction according to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) standards. Prior to construction the applicant will need to submit an analysis of the radionuclide test results and whether any additional treatment is proposed should the results be elevated. 21 PC January 10, 2018 DP For future water treatment, the preliminary engineering report states the following. The Owner may choose to install a water softener to treat the hard water. The water softener discharge would be sent to a drywell and not the septic systems. The Owners will also install a sodium hypochlorite injection system to provide disinfection and maintain a chlorine concentration in accordance with local and state requirements. Chlorine contact time would be provided using the buried potable water tank. As previously discussed, no other treatment is needed or being considered at this time. If treatment was needed in the future it would be designed, permitted and constructed according to the CDPHE standards. Comments from the Garfield County designated engineer (Exhibit 13), indicated that "The applicant should describe the potable water treatment that is proposed and where the equipment will be located." Prior to construction on the site, Staff recommends that the applicant provide additional detail on the potable water treatment and depict where it is to be located. Comments received from the Garfield County Public Health Department (Exhibit 12), note the following. The use of this drinking water system in Zone 1 indicates that it might meet the criteria of being a public water system under CDPHE's Regulation 22 if it "regularly serves an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days per year. " If these conditions are met, the operator should ensure that the system is in compliance with drinking water standards. Alternatively, if connection to another public water and sanitation district's facilities becomes available, it is recommended that the Aspen Valley Polo Club PUD utilize that connection. Prior to construction on the site, Staff recommends that the applicant address whether the proposed water supply meets the requirements for a public water system under CDPHE's Regulation 22 and if so, any changes to the system that are necessary. It is worth noting that the application was referred to the Division of Water Resources, however no comments were received. 7-105. Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems. Staff Comments: As noted previously, this amendment proposes to no longer serve the development with water and wastewater service from Mid -Valley Metro District. Instead, the developer would like to serve the newly reconfigured development with an onsite well and OWTSs and/or an onsite centralized wastewater treatment system. The applicant has represented that the nearest water and sewer lines for Mid Valley Metro District are approximately 3600 feet and 2800 feet to the east, respectively. As a result, the LUDC does not require connection to a centralized system since the available lines are in excess of 400 feet from the development. As the development is in excess of 15 dwelling units, the applicant is proposing a central water system served by an onsite well (See Section 7-104 for more detail on the water supply). The preliminary engineering report provided by Roaring Fork Engineering provided the following overview of the wastewater disposal for Zone 1. As previously discussed in the domestic water section not all of the water used in Zone District 1 is directed to the O WTSs. All of the water, approximately 5,500 22 PC January 10, 2018 DP gallons, from the barn ADUs and bathrooms and the clubhouse will be sent to the onsite systems for treatment. Approximately 3,900 gallons will be directed to drywells onsite for infiltration. This includes water from horse washing, additional washing machine in each barn (ADU washing machine water is sent to the OWTSs), sinks and some of the hose bib water. No chemicals or hazardous material will be placed into the drywells from any of the previously mentioned sources that could contaminate the groundwater. Approximately 2,600 gallons will be land applied (hose bibs, etc.) or consumed by the horses. Three septic fields will be used in Zone District 1 to mitigate the development's wastewater and will be designed in accordance with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Regulation 43 and Garfield County regulations. The preliminary engineering report also provides the following explanation for the wastewater disposal in Zone 2. Zone District 2 would either treat its wastewater using OWTS's, if the lot sizes were large enough, or use a centralized wastewater collection and treatment facility. If OWTS's were used they would be designed according to Garfield County requirements. Any centralized collection and treatment system would be permitted through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and adhere to all of their applicable standards/requirements. Comments received from the Garfield County Public Health Department (Exhibit 12) notes that "The total flows for each of the septic systems is near or at the threshold of 2,000 gallons per day based on CDPHE's Regulation 43." As a result, the Department recommends that the flows be monitored to determine if the flows exceed the CDPHE regulations for a public system. Staff recommends that the OWTSs within Zone 1 be installed with a monitoring device with records to be made available to Garfield County upon request. Comments from the Garfield County designated engineer (Exhibit 13) noted that "The Applicant should describe how the onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) setbacks from the water features will be achieved. Some of the OWTS are shown very near ponds and streams." Staff recommends that the applicant provide an evaluation of the distances of the OWTSs from water features and whether those distances comply with applicable regulations. This should be reviewed and accepted by the County designated engineer prior to construction on the site. In addition, the Garfield County designated engineer noted that "Future phases propose smaller, residential Tots that likely would not be feasible for OWTS. A reasonable alternative is a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). The application materials do not evaluate feasibility or future connections. The Applicant should connect the commercial buildings to a WWTF should one be constructed in the future." Table 7-105 of the LUDC requires that lots in new developments be at least 1 acre in size in order to allow for an OWTS on that parcel. While Zone 2 is to allow for a minimum lot size down to 0.25 acre, any parcel less than 1 acre and is to be developed with a use that requires water and wastewater facilities, then the lots will need to be served by a WWTF. Staff recommends that a condition be added requiring a WWTF should lots be created less than 1 acre that would require water and wastewater facilities. In addition, Staff recommends that should a WWTF be installed that the commercial facilities be connected to the system. 23 PC January 10, 2018 DP 7-106. Public Utilities. Staff Comments: Adequate utilities appear to be available to serve the development. It is understood that the applicant will underground existing power lines serving the development. 7-107. Access and Roadways. Staff Comments: See Section E. Transportation and Circulation System, above for a description of the internal road network and accesses. The internal road designs and dimensions were reviewed by the County designated engineer who did not provide any comments on the proposal. It is understood that the applicant has applied for an access permit from CDOT, however the permit is not yet been issued nor has a Notice to Proceed. The application was referred to CDOT, however no comments were received. Staff recommends a condition that prior to construction the applicant obtain a CDOT Access Permit and a Notice to Proceed from CDOT. Comments from the Garfield County designated engineer on the access indicate that design drawings for the accesses and other improvements were not included with the application package. Design drawings for the access points as well as any other required improvements to roads owned and / managed by CDOT under this permit should be submitted for review by the Garfield County designated engineer. 7-108. Use of Land Subject To Natural Hazards. Staff Comments: The property has not been identified to be within any noted slope or soils hazard areas. In addition, the application provides the following overview of the geotechnical report conducted in 2008. In 2008 a Geotechnical report was produced by HP Geotech (Appendix G). This site was determined to be in the western Colorado evaporite region within the Carbondale collapse center. The report indicates that this creates a long term settling or subsidence rate between 0.5 and 1.6 inches every 100 years, which should have little significant impact on the proposed project. Twelve test pits were dug with a trackhoe with most depths ranging between 8 and 10 feet deep. The soil profile determined by the field exploration conducted on January 10, 2008 shows 0.5 to 3 feet of topsoil overlaying 2 feet of silty sand in Pit 1 and relatively dense, silty sandy gravel containing cobbles and boulders in the remaining pits. This is said to be alluvial deposits. Logs of these exploratory pits and their locations can be found within the Geotech Report. The report also states that judging from Colorado State Engineer's well records this river alluvium consists of rounded gravel -to boulder size rocks in a relatively clean matrix extends to depths of 40 to 50 feet. Free water was encountered in some of the pits and groundwater has been known to elevate during seasonal runoff and times of heavy irrigation. Any below grade areas may require an underdrain system and water proofing. The lower portion of the property is within the 100 -year floodplain and also includes some jurisdictional wetlands. In 2010, the property owner received a Floodplain Development Permit from Garfield County for development in the floodplain within Zone 2 (Reception Number 24 PC January 10, 2018 DP 786310). As long as the development site plan remains as is approved in this permit for this area of the development, this Floodplain Permit remains valid. As some of the property is located within the floodplain, much of the parcel can be vulnerable to flooding. Considering this in light of the proposed storm drainage, the Garfield County designated engineer noted that "Conveyances for storm drainage should be sized as necessary for the 25 -year event per the LUDC. The Applicant states that they will be sized for the 10 -year. The Applicant should verify the adequacy for a 25 -year event or a variance may be required." Staff recommends that the applicant address the sizing of the culverts for a 25 - year storm instead of a 10 -year storm in order to meet the requirements of the LUDC. Similarly, some development is proposed to occur within jurisdictional wetlands. It is understood that permits from the Army Corps of Engineers were received with the prior approval, but have since expired. Should it be necessary to obtain new permits for disturbance of jurisdictional wetlands, then these permits will need to be obtained prior to development of Zone 2. Comments received from the Garfield County Public Health Department express concern regarding the potential use of pesticides and fertilizers within close proximity to the Roaring Fork River and the Town of Carbondale's drinking water protection area. As a result, Staff recommends condition that requires proper storage and application of these chemicals in order to preserve the quality of the Roaring Fork River and the Town of Carbondale's drinking water supply. In addition, comments received from the Garfield County Public Health Department noted that while it was noted that there are no abnormal radiation levels on the property, all of Garfield County is considered at high risk for radon in buildings. As a result, Staff recommends a condition that all buildings with full-time enclosed conditioned space on ground level including residences, the clubhouse, cabins, and any meeting / gathering facilities be built with Radon Resistant New Construction (RRNC). 7-109. Fire Protection. Staff Comments: The application includes the following description of the proposed fire protection. The design team has coordinated with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District regarding proper fire and life safety design for the project. The barns with included dwelling units will require sprinkler systems within the dwelling units as well as fire separation from the barns. It was estimated that one 1000 -gallon tank will be required for each barn. This will provide 50 gallons per minute for a 20 minute duration. If the clubhouse is under 5,000 square feet or 100 occupants it will not require sprinklers, but if it exceeds either it will need to be sprinkled. Required fire flows and volume will be calculated and utilized to determine the final design. Dry hydrants will be placed around the site and connected to the onsite ponds for fire suppression. The application was referred to the Carbondale Fire Protection District, however no comments were received. The Garfield County designated engineer noted that "The Applicant states that water for fire protection will come from hydrants connected to the ponds. The Applicant should provide more information concerning how the volume in the ponds is allotted between fire 25 PC January 10, 2018 DP protection, irrigation, and aesthetics. Pond surface areas for evaporation should be verified. It should also be verified that fire protection is an allowed use for the water from the irrigation ditches." Staff recommends a condition that the applicant evaluate the legal availability of the ditch water for fire protection purposes as well as information on the physical availability of the water to the ponds for the proposed uses of irrigation, aesthetics and irrigation. In addition, the Garfield County designated engineer noted that "The Applicant should work with the Fire District to determine hydrant locations and spacing and how these would connect to the ponds." Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant meet with the fire protection district to determine appropriate fire hydrant locations and provide an updated location sighting map with hydrant locations. 4. Rezoning Criteria. The PUD meets the Rezoning Review Criteria in section 4-113.C. 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. B. Rezoning Criteria. An application for rezoning shall demonstrate that the following criteria has been met: 1. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and would not constitute spot zoning; Staff Comments: The PUD was approved in 2009. The proposed amendment would increase the recreational and event uses while decreasing the number of dwelling units from 89 to 54. The property is located in an area that is characterized by recreational, agricultural and suburban level development. 2. 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: The PUD was approved in 2009. While it was determined that this standard was satisfied as part of the original approval to establish the PUD, this application is only an amendment to the previously approved zoning. The amendment will result in an overall decrease in the number of units from 89 to 54 while increasing the amount and intensity of recreational and event uses. Provided the prior development approvals for this parcel and the proposed uses reduced density residential and recreational / event uses, it appears that this amendment is consistent with this standard. 3. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities, services, or housing; and Staff Comments: While the original 89 unit housing development was approved in 2009, the Roaring Fork Valley remains in need of housing. The proposal reduces the number of housing units to 54 (including 5 affordable deed restricted units) while increasing the size and intensity of the recreational and event uses. The proposed recreational uses, 2 regulation sized polo field and associated infrastructure, do not currently exist within the Valley and will increase the need for affordable housing in the valley. To this extent, while the proposed amendment may still help work toward the housing needs within the 26 PC January 10, 2018 DP County, it will also provide a recreational amenity not currently available within Garfield County. 4. The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement. Staff Comments: The PUD was approved in 2009. While it was determined that this standard was satisfied as part of the original approval to establish the PUD, this application is only an amendment to the previously approved zoning. 5. Established Zoning Standards. The PUD Plan adequately establishes uses and standards governing the development, density, and intensity of land use by means of dimensional or other standards. Staff Comments: The provided PUD Plan, including the proposed PUD Map and PUD Guide appear to adequately establish uses and standards for the development. This PUD Map and Guide appear to meet the requirements of the LUDC, specifically Section 6-302(A), PUD Plan. VI. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION POINTS AND ISSUES Due to the complexity of this application and number of issues addressed, this section of the Staff Report is intended to summarize those issues raised in the individual Standards discussions, above. 1. PUD Substantial Amendment Memorialization: Based on the complexity of the proposed amendment to the TCI Lane Ranch PUD, Staff recommends memorializing this amendment, if approved, as a Resolution which supersedes the previous TCI Lane Ranch Resolution of approval with Reception Number 2009-81. This said, some provisions within Resolution 2009-81 are still applicable and should be carried forward. For instance, CPW provided comments that are, for the most part, a summary of their recommendations in 2009. As a result, Staff would recommend carrying those recommendations forward to the new Resolution of approval with the updates provided in their comments. 2. Development of Zone 1 prior to Subdivision: While the LUDC allows for the development of a PUD without concurrent subdivision, there are certain provisions that need to be memorialized differently than if the PUD and subdivision were approved concurrently. In this case, as is discussed previously in this Staff Report, the property owner is looking to develop what is described as Zone 1 (2 polo fields, 5 barns, a maintenance barn, 12 dwelling units, a clubhouse, tailgating areas, 3 ponds, parking lots, and trails along with supporting road, water, and wastewater infrastructure) prior to subdivision of the property and the development of Zone 2 (42 dwelling units). As a result, final approvals and securities typically found in the Preliminary Plan and/or Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) are not available at this point. Staff recommends that the parameters for the development of Zone 1 be captured within the Resolution of Approval for the PUD. This form is standard for approvals of Land Use Change Permits, however it is Staff's opinion that this form can also be utilized in this case to ensure conformance with certain development standards tagged to the issuance of building permits within Zone 1. 3. Wildlife: CPW provided comments indicating that certain measures should be taken to protect wildlife in the area. As a part of Resolution 2009-81, these requirements were to be included within Covenants of the subdivision. Since subdivision is not occurring 27 PC January 10, 2018 DP concurrently with the PUD, Staff recommends that these requirements be ongoing conditions of approval for the development of Zone 1 and be incorporated into the covenants at the time the property is subdivided. 4. Access and Roadways: a) Internal Roads: The internal roadways have been reviewed and appear to meet the dimensional requirements of Section 7-107. As the development is occurring with development in Zone 1 occurring first and prior to subdivision, it is understood the internal roads that will eventually be the access roads to Zone 2 were designed to accommodate the full build out traffic demands. It is expected that these roads will be built to the standards in Section 7-107 and as represented in the application. This said, since subdivision is not occurring until Zone 2, the roads are considered private until that time when the will need to be dedicated to the public via the plat and used to serve the residential development in Zone 2. b) Access Points and Offsite Improvements: The accesses are required to obtain a permit from CDOT. It is understood that CDOT will likely require offsite improvements at the intersection of CR 100 and SH 82, although since the CDOT permit has not yet been issued, the extent of those improvements are currently unknown. Staff recommends that no building permits be issued within the development until the access permit is issued, the applicant has received the Notice to Proceed, and has completed all offsite work. 5. Phasing / Timing: The applicant has indicated that the phasing schedule is generally as follows: 2018-2019 — Zone 1 2019-2020 — Zone 2 Based on this schedule and the representation that the development timeframe is less than 3 years, a Development Agreement is not required at this time for vested rights. Staff would recommend that a deadline of 3 years from the date of PUD approval be added as a condition for the deadline to file a complete Preliminary Plan application for Zone 2. Once the Subdivision is submitted, a new phasing schedule, if necessary, may be presented and reviewed for that subdivision buildout. 6. Water: a) Quality: The application indicates that all primary drinking water requirements have been met. However, it is understood that the results for radionuclides have not yet been received. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant submit these results along with any proposed treatment measures, if necessary. The application notes that some initial water treatment will occur, however did not provide a location for that treatment or details on the system. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant provide the location where that equipment will be located along with details on the system to be used for review by the County designated engineer. b) Legal: The application notes that the well permit has been submitted to the DWR and the application have been submitted to Basalt Water Conservancy District but neither have yet been approved. Staff recommends a conditions that the applicant submit final 28 PC January 10, 2018 DP approved copies of the well permit and Basalt Water Conservancy District permit prior to issuance of a building permit. It has been noted that the well could be considered a public water supply in accordance with CDPHE's Regulation 22. The applicant should provide an analysis as to whether this well will be considered a public water supply by CDPHE and provide any necessary permitting. Staff recommends that this be done prior to issuance of a building permit. The well to be used for the development is proposed to be shared. At the time of subdivision a legal mechanism will need to be executed to allow for the physical and financial sharing of the well. 7. Wastewater: a) Flow Monitoring: It has been noted that the size of the proposed OWTSs are very close to the 2000 gallon per day limit for a public water system under CDPHE. As a result, Staff recommends a condition that the flow into the OTWSs within Zone 1 be equipped with a flow meter. The records from this flow meter should be available for inspection to verify that the Systems are handling 2000 gallons per day or less. b) Setbacks: Prior to issuance of a building permit on the property for Zone 1, Staff recommends a condition that the setbacks from the OWTSs be verified from all surrounding water features. c) Future Subdivision: The LUDC prohibits OWTSs on lots that are 1 acre or less in size. As a result, should the future subdivision consist of residential and/or commercial lots that are 1 acre or less in size, then the development should be required to be accommodated by a centralized Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). In addition, should a WWTF be developed within the PUD, then the Facility should be sized appropriately to accommodate residential and commercial uses from Zone 1. At the time the Facility is available, the residential and commercial uses from Zone 1 should be required to connect to that WWTF. 8. Affordable Housing: a) Affordable Housing Agreement / Plan: As the development is not proposed to be subdivided at this time (PUD), an Affordable Housing Agreement / Plan is not required. However, at the time when 15 or more lots are created, the development is required to provide affordable housing per the LUDC. It is understood that the future subdivision on Zone 2 will create more than 15 Tots. As a result, an Affordable Housing Agreement / Plan will be required at that time. The general parameters for the affordable housing has been proposed within the PUD Guide and the future Affordable Housing Agreement / Plan is expected to conform to the PUD and LUDC guidelines. Staff recommends a condition of approval that at the time of subdivision the property owner submit an Affordable Housing Agreement / Plan in conformance with the PUD Guide and LUDC that is to be reviewed and executed by the property owner and BOCC. b) PUD Guide: The proposed PUD Guide identifies in Section 7.7, Eligibility that "Eligibility for Affordable Housing Units will be determined by the Garfield County Housing Authority. Priority for Affordable Housing Units will be given to on-site 29 PC January 10, 2018 DP employees who meet Eligibility requirements." Meanwhile the intent of the County inclusionary zoning is to "contribute to the Affordable Housing supply in the County, as reasonable and appropriate with consideration to the development's impact on the supply of Affordable Housing available to the local labor force." To this end, the purpose of the deed restricted Affordable Housing is to mitigate County -wide needs, not specific needs to the development as is desired by the applicant. It is Staffs opinion that the Affordable Housing created through Article 8 of the LUDC should be available to all eligible residents of the County and should not be in any way restricted or prioritized to those who work onsite. Should the developer feel that additional housing is necessary for onsite workers, then that housing should be developed separately and should not count toward compliance with the County inclusionary zoning standards from the LUDC. 9. Wetlands: It is understood that disturbance to some jurisdictional wetlands will occur at the time of development of Zone 2. In addition, while it is understood that these required permits from the Army Corps of Engineers were obtained previously, these permits have since expired. Staff suggests a condition of approval that the Applicant update the wetland determination for the properties prior to final plat as required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 10. Chemical Runoff: It has been noted by the Garfield County Public Health Department that due to the proximity of the residential development and large fields to the wetlands and Roaring Fork River, that the property owner(s) and managers need to be sure to apply all fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals in accordance with manufacturer recommendations in order to prevent contamination of public water resources. In addition, these chemicals need to be stored appropriately and in accordance with all laws and regulations. Staff recommends an ongoing condition of approval requiring responsible application and storage of pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals and recommends that such a requirement be added to the CCRs at the time of subdivision. 11. Radon: The application notes that radon levels appear to be normal for the area. However, Garfield County Public Health noted that all of Garfield County is considered at high risk. As a result, Staff recommends a condition of approval that any building with ground floor residential and / or commercial occupancy be designed and built with Radon Resistant Construction. 12. Drainage: A review of the drainage plan by the Garfield County designated engineer noted that the drainage culverts in Zone 1 appear to have been designed for a 10 -year storm while the LUDC requires that they be designed for a 25 -year storm. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the size of the culverts either be verified for a 25 -year storm or the infrastructure be designed to accommodate a 25 -year storm as required. 13. Fire Protection: a) Irrigation Ponds: The application states that the ponds which are to be filled with irrigation water are also to be used for fire protection. The legal and physical ability of this irrigation water to be used for fire protection does not appear to have been addressed in the application, however. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the legal and physical ability of the irrigation water to be used for fire protection be verified prior to issuance of a building permit. 30 PC January 10, 2018 DP b) Fire Hydrants: The fire hydrant locations have not been identified. As is noted by the Garfield County designated engineer, the property owner should meet with the fire protection district to verify the hydrant locations. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the developer meet with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District to agree upon hydrant locations and provide a site plan for these locations to be reviewed by the Garfield County designated engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is Staff's opinion that while there are still outstanding technical issues to be resolved with this PUD submittal, these items may be resolved through Conditions of Approval. Should these items be resolved in such a way that demonstrates conformance with the LUDO and Comprehensive Plan, then it is Staffs Opinion that the PUD can satisfy the requirements for approval. As a result, Staff recommends approval of the Substantial Modification to the TCI Lane Ranch PUD with the below recommend conditions. VIII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was 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. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Substantial Modification to the TCI Lane Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD) is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 5. That the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. IX. PLANNING COMMISSION OPTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS Should the Planning Commission consider a recommendation of approval the following conditions are recommended by Staff. As is discussed previously, since this Substantial Modification to the TCI Lane Ranch PUD significantly changes the character and nature of the PUD, Staff recommends a full restatement and replacement of the latest PUD approval, memorialized by Resolution 2009-81. Please Note: Applicable conditions of approval were carried forward from Resolution 2009- 81. However, as the Preliminary Plan that was approved under Resolution 2009-81 has since expired, future subdivision will require submittal of a new Preliminary Plan to be reviewed and approved under the current LUDC. As a result, conditions of approval that are no longer applicable due to the expiration of the Preliminary Plan such as impact fees, affordable 31 PC January 10, 2018 DP housing details, plat notes, noxious weed and revegetation securities, and specific engineering and drainage requirements for Zone 2 were not included unless otherwise identified through this PUD review. These items will be reviewed again at the time of Preliminary Plan with updated comments and conditions provided at that time. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditions Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit within the PUD 1. Access Permit and Improvements: The accesses to the development from Old Highway 82 are required to obtain a permit from CDOT. It is understood that CDOT will likely require offsite improvements. Prior to issuance of a building permit within the PUD, the property owner shall obtain an access permit from CDOT, receive a Notice to Proceed, and complete all required onsite and offsite improvements. Copies of the design drawings, access permit, notice to proceed, and demonstration that the work has been completed shall be submitted to the Garfield County Community Development Department and accepted by the County designated engineer. 2. Well — Water Quality: Prior to issuance of a building permit within the PUD, the well shall be water quality tested for radionuclides. The results for radionuclides shall be analyzed by a qualified professional and submitted to the Community Development department and accepted by the County designated engineer. Should the results be high for radionuclides, then the analysis shall include a proposal for water treatment to bring the quality within Primary Drinking Water Standards. 3. Well — Initial Water Treatment: The application notes that some initial water treatment will occur, however did it not provide a location for that treatment or details on the system. The applicant shall provide the location where that equipment will be located along with details on the system to be used. This site plan and system details shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and accepted by the County designated engineer. 4. Well — Permit and Augmentation Plan: The application notes that the well permit has been submitted to the DWR and the application has been submitted to Basalt Water Conservancy District but neither have yet been approved. Prior to issuance of any building permit within the PUD, the applicant shall submit final approved copies of the well permit and Basalt Water Conservancy District augmentation plan. These shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County Community Development Department and the County Attorney's Office. 5. Well — Public Water Supply: It has been noted that the well could be considered a public water supply in accordance with CDPHE's Regulation 22. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the PUD, the applicant shall provide an analysis as to whether this well will be considered a public water supply by CDPHE and, if it is a public water system, provide copies of any necessary approved permitting. This analysis and any necessary permitting from CDPHE shall be submitted to the Garfield County Community Development Department and accepted by the County Public Health Department. 6. OWTS Setbacks from Water Features: Prior to issuance of any building permits within the PUD, the applicant shall verify that the setbacks from the OWTSs from all surrounding water features meets applicable regulations. This verification and/or any necessary 32 PC January 10, 2018 DP amendments to the site plan shall be submitted to the Garfield County Community Development Department and accepted by the County designated engineer. 7. Drainage Culverts: A review of the drainage plan by the Garfield County designated engineer noted that the drainage culverts in Zone 1 appear to have been designed for a 10 -year storm while the LUDC requires that they be designed for a 25 -year storm. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the PUD, the applicant shall either verify the culverts are appropriately sized for a 25 -year storm or the infrastructure shall be designed to accommodate a 25 -year storm, as required. This verification and/or redesign shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and accepted by the County designated engineer. 8. Irrigation Water for Fire Protection: The application states that the ponds which are to be filled with irrigation water are also to be used for fire protection. The legal and physical ability of this irrigation water to be used for fire protection does not appear to have been addressed in the application, however. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the PUD, the applicant shall verify the legal and physical ability of the irrigation water to be used for fire protection. This verification shall be provided to the Community Development Department and accepted by the County designated engineer. 9. Fire Hydrants: The fire hydrant locations have not been identified. The property owner shall meet with the fire protection district to verify the hydrant locations. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the PUD, the developer shall meet with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District to agree upon hydrant locations and provide a site plan for these locations. This site plan shall be submitted to the Garfield County Community Development Department and accepted by County designated engineer. 10. Affordable Housing Eligibility — PUD Guide: Prior to issuance of any building permits within the PUD, Section 7.7 - Eligibility, of the PUD Guide shall be amended to remove reference to priority for on-site employees for Affordable Housing developed to comply with Article 8 of the LUDC, as amended. This updated PUD Guide shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County Community Development Department. Development and Ongoing Conditions 11. Local, State, and Federal Permits: The development of PUD shall comply with all applicable Local, State, and Federal rules and regulations and all necessary permits shall be obtained. 12. Wildlife: The property owner and / or operator of Zone 1 shall comply with the following requirements and recommendations by Colorado Parks and Wildlife: a) Fencing should be held to a minimum and any necessary fencing should be wildlife friendly. Details and specifications for wildlife friendly fencing can be found at: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/Fen cingWithWildlifelnMind.pdf 33 PC January 10, 2018 DP i. Additionally, CPW encourages the applicant to work with adjacent landowners to replace current perimeter fencing with wildlife friendly options. b) Landscaping designs should preclude berry, fruit, or nut producing trees and shrubs to reduce attractants for bears and other wildlife. Homeowners should be aware that CPW is not liable for any damage to landscaping from wildlife. c) All trash, horse grain/feed, and food -related items should be stored indoors or within bear -proof containers. Eliminating attractants for bears and other wildlife will reduce conflicts. This is especially relevant given that this property lies within the river corridor which is used heavily by various animal species. d) Proposed ponds should be constructed with at least one bank having a minimum slope of 3: 1, preferably 5: 1, to allow ingress and egress of wildlife. If plastic liners are to be used, a minimum of 18 inches of topsoil should be used on top of liners. e) Trails through riparian habitats should be minimized to the extent possible and provide adequate signage to keep users on designated routes. 13. Internal Roadway Design: The internal roadways shall be built to meet, at a minimum, the dimensional requirements of Section 7-107 of the LUDC, as amended, and as represented in the PUD Plan to accommodate full build -out of the PUD. 14. Phasing / Timing: Based on the proposed build out schedule (2018-2019 for Zone 1, and 2019-2020 for Zone 2) and this representation that the development timeframe is less than 3 years, a Development Agreement is not required at this time for vested rights. As a Development Agreement to vest rights in excess of 3 years has not been proposed, the Preliminary Plan for the subdivision of the PUD as proposed shall be submitted and deemed Complete within 3 years from the date of PUD approval by the BOCC. As a part of the Subdivision submittal a new phasing schedule, if necessary, may be presented and reviewed for the subdivision buildout. 15. Residential Development — Zone 2: No residential development shall occur in Zone 2 prior to approval of a subdivision Final Plat. 16. OWTS Flow Monitoring: The size of the proposed OWTSs within Zone 1 are very close to the 2000 gallon per day limit for a public water system under CDPHE. As a result, flow meters shall be installed on each OTWS within Zone 1. The records from these flow meters shall be available for inspection to verify that the Systems are handling 2000 gallons per day or less. 17. Storage and Application of Hazardous Materials: Due to the proximity of the residential development and Targe fields to the wetlands and Roaring Fork River, the property owner(s) and operators shall apply all fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals in accordance with manufacturer recommendations in order to prevent contamination of 34 PC January 10, 2018 DP public water resources. In addition, these chemicals shall be stored appropriately and in accordance with all laws and regulations. 18. Radon: All of Garfield County is considered at high risk for radon. As a result, all buildings with ground floor residential and / or commercial occupancy and are enclosed and conditioned (excluding barns, greenhouses, and storage/maintenance buildings) shall be designed and built with Radon Resistant Construction. Conditions Applicable at Time of Subdivision 19. Wildlife: The following recommendations by the CPW shall be added to the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions for the subdivision: a) Fencing should be held to a minimum and any necessary fencing should be wildlife friendly. Details and specifications for wildlife friendly fencing can be found at: https://cpw. state. co. us/Documents/LandWater/Private La nd Programs/Fen cingWithWildlifelnMind.pdf ii. Additionally, CPW encourages the applicant to work with adjacent landowners to replace current perimeter fencing with wildlife friendly options. b) Landscaping designs should preclude berry, fruit, or nut producing trees and shrubs to reduce attractants for bears and other wildlife. Homeowners should be aware that CPW is not liable for any damage to landscaping from wildlife. c) All trash, horse grain/feed, and food -related items should be stored indoors or within bear -proof containers. Eliminating attractants for bears and other wildlife will reduce conflicts. This is especially relevant given that this property lies within the river corridor which is used heavily by various animal species. d) Proposed ponds should be constructed with at least one bank having a minimum slope of 3: 1, preferably 5: 1, to allow ingress and egress of wildlife. If plastic liners are to be used, a minimum of 18 inches of topsoil should be used on top of liners. e) Trails through riparian habitats should be minimized to the extent possible and provide adequate signage to keep users on designated routes. 20. Public Road Dedication: At the time of subdivision, all roads within Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the PUD shall be dedicated to the public on the subdivision plat. 21. Well Sharing Agreement: The well to be used for the development is proposed to be shared. At the time of subdivision a legal mechanism shall be executed to allow for the physical and financial sharing of the well between all users. 35 PC January 10, 2018 DP 22. Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF): The LUDC prohibits OWTSs on lots that are 1 acre or less in size. As a result, should the future subdivision consist of residential and/or commercial lots that are 1 acre or less in size, then these uses shall be accommodated by a centralized Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). Should a WWTF be developed within the PUD, then the Facility shall be sized appropriately to accommodate all residential and commercial uses from Zone 1 and Zone 2. At the time the Facility is available, the residential and commercial uses from both Zone 1 and Zone 2 shall connect to the WWTF. 23. Affordable Housing Agreement / Plan: At the point 15 or more lots are created through subdivision, the development is required to provide Affordable Housing per Article 8 of the LUDC. As a result, at the time of Preliminary Plan submittal to create 15 or more Tots, the property owner shall submit an Affordable Housing Agreement / Plan in conformance with the PUD Guide and the LUDC and has been reviewed, accepted, and executed by the property owner and BOCC. 24. Wetlands: It is understood that disturbance to some jurisdictional wetlands will occur at the time of development of Zone 2. In addition, while it is understood that these required permits from the Army Corps of Engineers were obtained previously, these permits have since expired. As a result, the Applicant shall update the wetland delineation for the properties and obtain all necessary permits as required by the Army Corps of Engineers prior to submittal of the first Final Plat. 25. Storage and Application of Hazardous Materials: Due to the proximity of the residential development and Targe fields to the wetlands and Roaring Fork River, the property owner(s) and operators shall apply all fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals in accordance with manufacturer recommendations in order to prevent contamination of public water resources. In addition, these chemicals shall be stored appropriately and in accordance with all laws and regulations. Provisions requiring responsible application and storage of chemicals shall be incorporated into the Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions at the time of subdivision. 26. Anglers Easement: At the time of subdivision, the property owner shall provide a public fishing easement along the Roaring Fork River to extend the angler's easement at Blue Creek Ranch. 27. Southeast BLM Parcel: As part of the public improvements to be constructed by the Applicant and secured in the Improvements Agreement as part of the Final Plat Application, the Applicant shall construct a fence to a design specification consistent with the BLM's needs regarding preventing disturbance of the Ute's Ladies Tresses on the BLM parcel in the southeast portion of the development. 28. 100 -Year Floodplain: At the time of Preliminary Plan submittal, the applications shall include an analysis of the level of conformity with the proposed subdivision and the Floodplain Development Permit (Land Use Change Permit for Development within the Floodplain) issued under Resolution 786310. Should the proposed development conform with this Floodplain Development Permit, then this approval shall remain valid. Should the proposed subdivision not conform to this Floodplain Development Permit, then the applicant will be required to either obtain a new Floodplain Development Permit or amend the existing approval. 36 a EXHIBIT Garfield County PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. ® My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. Mailed notice was completed on the,..54-\day of r1,ecs?vv-.6.er , 2017. All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. �1,` • All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] ■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. • My application required Published notice. i X Notice was published on the ? day of,'eLevr..izr , 2017. ■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. ® My application required Posting of Notice. ( F. Notice was posted on the �th day of eLev.no„j , 20V7. J 1` Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. I testify that the above information is true and accurate. t � t Name: C.+`, Signature: Date: //1 Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 -MAI 1 1 1 7017 0660 0000 5675 0909 7017 0660 OQILI 5675 0909 6+E1(Z 'e7e75_'�14Q EZ9I8 03 'alepuogJej 0 g 5i a • to eft a Anne Menconi 63 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front if space permits. ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee u 1. Article Addressed to: Anne Menconi 63 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 11 1 111 1111111 11111 11 EIIII 111111 9590 9402 2370 6249 4947 45 c de 4' 2O;, a),: DIs livery address eent from item 1? 0 Yes Y enter decry address below: 0 No C. Date of Delivery 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7017 0660 0000 5675 0909 3. Service Type u Priority O Adult Signature ❑ Registe 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Registe Certified Mail® Delive IDCertified Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Return ❑Collect on Delivery Mercha ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signatu o Insured Mail 0 Signatu 0 insured Mail Restricted Delivery Restrict (over 5500) PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic tabbies Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 III IUII fl 7015 1520 0002 5400 1201 7015 1520 0002 5400 1201 r D a a a 0 0 0 W = 0 a 0 T 0 C 0. d O 7 2 00 0) a 00 N ash P pUep Aspen Waldorf Foundation 16543 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Aspen Waldorf Foundation 16543 Highway 82 arbondale, CO 81623 111 1111 'IIII I'I III II I II 11 11 1111 9590 9402 2597 6336 2259 12 2. Articie Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1201 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signa X ❑ Agent o Addressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery a•dress alfferent rom item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery add( s below: 0 No 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature o mutt Signature Restricted Delivery 2 Certified Mail® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Insured Mail ❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) ❑ Priority Mail Express® 0 Registered Mair. ❑ Registered Mall Restricted Dellvery ❑ Retum Receipt tor Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation'. ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 1 1 iu 1 1 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1249 7015 1520 0002 5400 1249 " y a00❑Er Z D 0 D D d J O 0 N T BLM United States of America 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 ER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: BLM United States of America 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 111 11111 III 111111111 111 11111 1111111111111 95909402 2597 6336 2259 29 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature g6e X J1 F e,� B. Received by (Printed Name) ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery 11-11-17 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 2 Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1249 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature ❑ll��uult Signature Restricted Delivery p�Certified Mail® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) ❑ Priority Mail Express® ❑ Registered Mai. ❑ Registered Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation"" 0 Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 OZ n ooee w,o 1 I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1263 7015 1520 0002 5400 1263 d2 a4v4S 41:) n 0 0 m n 0 ooN tT N W v UDDC�x w D Y 0 F F N Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners Assoc. 105 Ponderosa Pass, # 24 Carbondale, CO 81623 3 I ft it z SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Sign e B. Cl Agent / 'r--�--�---- CI Addressee f C. Date of Delivery Rgceived Idy (Pri t d Name) 1. Article Addressed to: Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners Assoc 105 Ponderosa Pass, # 24 Carbondale, CO 81623 - IIIIIIILIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 III 9590 9402 2597 6336 2270 15 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 126. erent from demi? 0 Yes address below: 0 No 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature ❑mult Signature Restricted Delivery Lr Certified Mail® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) ❑ Priority Ma.1 Express® ❑ Registered Mail""' 0 Registered Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation*"' 0 Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 b+diZ "aleDS ,00 9SZ-L£Z08 OJ 'Januaa 111 1 1illl 1111 111 7015 1520 0002 5400 7015 1520 0002 5400 1157 1157 C c 0 � i 00000'.11: D D 7 9 Z d a ' ` my 11 a `/ C m cn c —113 gmrn oma' �vm E r- 0 m m --i Carbondale Corporation 4582 S. Ulster St Suite 310 Denver, CO 80237-2565 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Carbondale_Corporation 4582 S. Ulster St Suite 310 Denver, CO 80237-2565 1111111111 111111II 111 11 11 11111111111 9590 9402 2597 6336 2270 46 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X B. Received by (Printed N me) D. ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date .f Qelivery Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1157 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 5itertified Mall® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) ❑ Priority Mail Express® ❑ Registered Mail. ❑ Registered Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation", 0 Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ,gib*dIZ'aJe)S 'APO £Z9T8 OJ 'alepuoq.iej 1 1 1 N 11 111 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1317 7015 1520 0002 5400 1317 /o ' �'� Qd � ON 'id y, oue Jaaq S aA O UOU!d Ot, o % d ° 000LI0?3 N N s MAI A - 9 a w w - d z & C N n ,i aDea9 3 Iaej N a. one mirn a1. Q F, M N z CLa - I) c CD -C D � r al `. m O .._ m --ll Carol E Grace 40 Pinon Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 1. Article Addressed to: Carol E Grace 40 Pinon Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 11 11 1 1 111 11111111 111 11 iii I I III 9590 9402 2597 6336 2269 71 A. Signa Ire i B. Received by (Printed Name) ❑ Agent Addressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 2. Article Number (transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1317 3. Service Type 3 Adutt Signature O Mutt Signature Restricted Delivery gittedified Mail® 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Insured Mail 0 Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) 0 Priority Mail Express® 0 Registered Mali" 0 Registered Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation,. 0 Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 7017 0660 0000 5675 0923 7017 0660 0000 5675 0923 -g _i000,, .'TI''. u'?v, °0 3 5. n w $ y - 2� Yl `P,W m k N O Q rN 0 ane min (4) 33 • —I 0 TIS... v0 E aC) To m - Catherine Court LLC 9723 W 83rd Avenue Arvada, CO 80005 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature Xe 8. Receiv d b (nnted Name) )Cf 45r ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee of Delivery C. Da 1, Article Addressed to: Catherine Court LLC 9723 W 83rd Avenue Arvada, CO 80005 IIII 111 11111111 1 11 1111111 11 9590 9402 2370 6249 4946 91 D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7017 0660 0000 5675 0923 3. Service Type LI Adult Signature V��VuIt Signature Restricted Delivery 6? 'Certified Mail® D Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑ Insured Mail o Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) J Priority Mail Express® ❑ Registered Mail'" O Registered Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation"' LI Signature Confirmation Restncted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 n+dJ 'aleJS 1 1 1 1 11 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1195 7015 1520 0002 5400 1195 Jdypie leao w,p cu O -0 fp O.. d 3 rD O T� ('1 j' 00)fD CO a N V1 W C 00r rD a0 oDDDDD r > n ]I a N ct0o a n 5 m ]7 5ryp. 5 m N v aaj PEW padPIJa N S/1 i41MM e f ISt M JOO /ISIA UOI BWJ .;' m Daniel Will Finney & Susan Anne King 313 Ponderosa Pass Carbondale, CO 31623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION 1 • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Daniel Will Finney & Susan-4nne King 313 Ponderosa Pass Carbondale, CO 81623 1111 'IIII IIIIFII ilii 11 iii 1111 11 9590 9402 2597 6336 2258 99 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature B. Received by (Printed Name) 0 Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1195 3. Service Type O Adult Signature O .duct Signature Restricted Delivery Certified Mail® O Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery O Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑ Insured Mail O Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) Cl Priority Mail Express® ❑ Registered Mall'"' O Registered Mail Restricted Delivery O Return Receipt for Merchandise O Signature Confirmation'" O Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 :14 Ildr71 ILL,/ 1 1 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1355 7015 1520 0002 5400 1355 xo8 Od JO Ory rdV pue aayg O a 3 m Jeffery & Cory Didier 81 Garnbel Oak Way Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1,t, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY Signature C'T.-Received t5y (Punted Ne 10 Agent 0,Addressee C. Date of Delivery 1. Article Addressed to: Jeffery & Cory Didier Gambel Oak Way iii'Aondale, CO 81623 t 11 111111 1111111 1 11111 VIII III 9590 9402 2370 6249 4947 14 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No =article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1355 3. Service Type O Adult Signature ❑ Qdult Signature Restricted Delivery Certified Mail® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery U Collect on Delivery O Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery U Insured Mail O Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) o Priority Mall Express® 0 Registered Mail'"" ❑ Registered Mail Restricted Delivery O Retum Receipt for Merchandise o Signature Confirmation"' ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 i 1 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1270 7015 1520 0002 5400 1270 x p.d1Z 'aietS £Z918 03'al epuoq.iep saad pue a6easod lelol ❑U[]D[J ?A. � Q m I i a 0 gnc .0171 '0) 7,-0 "i 0 DCI < 0 3 33 m m John C Charters & Amy F Griffith 270 Bristlecone Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X / 0 Agent ssee B. Received by (Prin -d Name) C. Date of Delivery John L Charters & Amy F Griffith 270 Br4stlecone Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 11111 11111111111 11 111 11 1 1111 9590 9402 2597 6336 2270 08 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1270 PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 3. Service Type 0 Adult Signature O_ Vet Signature Restricted Delivery t9'Certifled Mail® 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Insured Mail 0 Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (aver $500) ❑ Priority Mail Express® 0 Registered Mail"" 0 Registered Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Signature Confirmation"" 0 Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 7015 1520 0002 5400 1324 7015 1520 0002 5400 1324 o 0 a a D 0, 0 m OO'S•SIPMMM ie :j!sgeMJn°I!S Jose A & Diana Marie Alcantara 30 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. III Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. IN Attach thls card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Jose A & Diana Marie Alcantara 30 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 11 1111111 1111111111 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X Y' ))4"1,1 j < ti` B. Received by (PrivteqName) . {� 144- 11 ICA C4 .1 6 r& -N D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes "If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 111111111111111 1111 9590 9402 2370 6249 4948 20 ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1324 PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature ❑ Ijtluit Signature Restricted Delivery Certified Mail® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery L Insured Mail ❑ insured Mail Restncted Delivery (over $500) O Priority Mail Express® ❑ Registered Mail'. in Registered Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation,. ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Maiti Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 S40Z NJ V `0090 wJO iii 1 I 7015 1520 0002 5400 1409 7015 1520 0002 5400 1409 £Z9L8 OD `alepuogJep oN xnB lJd JO "oN 7dy pu -j1SgaM Jno psyt 'UOfjewJOjUi JGAI Joseph E Enzer 29 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature" /�)i . Recdfved by (Pni ❑ Agent 0 Addressee C. Date of Delivery Joseph E Enzer 29 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 1111 IIII III III 11111 1 11 III 1 111 111 111 9590 9402 2370 6249 4947 76 D. Is delivery address different from Rem 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1409 PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 3. Service Type C Adult Signature ❑ ult Signature Restricted Delivery fled Mail® C Certified Mali Restricted Delivery U Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery U Insured Mail C Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) C Priority Mall Express® C Registered Mail'"' ❑ Registered Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise O Signature Confirmation*" C Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery Domestic Retum Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 Wcst Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 12 8 9 wt' d12'aleiS 'Alt UZ9i8 03 'alepuogjep I I 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1393 7015 1520 0002 5400 1393 g❑❑DDD ' w n n �FRin _. e m w a 9 n n Street and Apt. No., or PO Box No auei uou!d 517 suen3 N 4unf l8 IlepuaN °nc Smin 33 6 —I O — oro vg ac, .rO mg 33 m Kendall & Judith K Evans 45 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Kendall & Judith K Evans 45 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 11 11 1111 1111111 11 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY II III II III I 111 9590 9402 2370 6249 4947 38 A. Sirature X 1ti B. Received by (Printed Name) ❑ Agent O Addressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address belbwi El No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1393 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature ❑ Agytt Signature Restricted Delivery Sd'rtified Mall® D Certified Mall Restricted Delivery o Collect on Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery Li Insured Mail o Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) ❑ Priority Mail Express® O Registered MaiI "' 0 Registered Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation^" C Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Retum Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 I I 1 FEDI I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1256 7015 1520 0002 5400 1256 b+d72 '01E1S n rv- r 00 o, Q a oN c c 00 0 3 3 c v 0 0 m c CU CU (D Lada 2005 Community Property Trust 2860 Augusta Drive Las Vegas, NV 89109 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signatu 0. Received by (Printed Name) ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee Date of Delivery 1. Article Addressed to: Lada 2005 Community Property Tit 2860 Augusta Drive Las Vegas, NV 89109 111111111111111111 iii I 111111 11 11111 9590 9402 2597 6336 2270 22 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1256 PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 3. Service Type D Adult Signature ppduit Signature Restricted Delivery Certified Mail® 0 Certified Mali Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery D Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Insured Mail 0 Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) 0 Priority Mail Express® 0 Registered Mail,. 0 Registered Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise D Signature ConfirmatlonTM' ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt 0 Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 7015 1520 0002 5400 1386 7015 1520 0002 5400 1386 N ro £Z918 OJ 'alepuogie: a CD 0 v1 d 90 K 03 rP CD i 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Da (] 31 It N yr yr a - '_ 2 a a° 0 3 tiJ 1) (fl aaj pa!;!ya, Louise B & Matthew D Hunt 245 Ponderosa Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature 'X ,-�, ❑ Agent xi 0 Addressee B: Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery Louise B & Matthew D Hunt 245. Ponderosa Carbondale, CO 81623 I VIII 111 111111111 1 111 1111 11111 9590 9402 2370 6249 4948 06 D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 _ 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature O /adult Signature Restricted Delivery ertified Mall® ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery O Collect on Delivery :7 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑ Insured Mail J Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) ❑ Priority Mall Express® ❑ Registered Mall,"' ❑ Registered Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation,. rJ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 1 R JE ►. 11 IN 11 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1294 7015 1520 0002 5400 1294 ,n+dZ a1e15 12918 OD Illeseg ,z obi o = X - n l!i O 2o 3 tT rD 70 (D rD ft) 0 d Randall Scott & Kimberly Renee Dahl P.O. Box 757 Basalt, CO 81621 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY B. Received by (Printed Name) )<t.t 0 Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery 1. Article Addressed to: Randall +tt & Kimberly Renee Dahl P O Bnx757 Basalt, C0 81621 1111 III 111 IIIIIIIII II iii VIII 9590 9402 2597 6336 2269 88 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1294 PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 3. Service Type 0 Adult Signature V0 AtlCt Signature Restricted Delivery Certified Mall® 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Insured Mail ❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) 0 Priority Mail Express® 0 Registered Mail.' ❑ Registered Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Retum Receipt for Merchandise 0 Signature Confirmation.' 0 Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 dIZ AEIS %(1FJ 03 'aiepuogJe: 00 C1 1 ESj 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1188 7015 1520 0002 5400 1188 a a gnc M. n 0:— '1D � - 00 G > f) F tD O 3 m n rn Robert & Karen Purdy 301 Ponderosa Pass Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Robert & Karen Purdy 3(17136nderosa Pass Ci* ndale, CO 81623 11111111 1111 11111 111 1 II I I II 11111 11 9590 9402 2597 6336 2270 39 COMP ETE THIS SECTION ON nELIVERY A. Signture D. 13 alitilyiery address diff Iferb6, enter delivery c. ..D Agent O Addressee C. Date of Delivery item 1? 0 Yes below: 0 No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1188 3. Service Type 0 Adult Signature ❑ /,duf Signature Restricted Delivery i 'Certified Mail® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑ Insured Mail 0 Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) 0 Priority Mail Express® 0 Registered Mail** 0 Registered Mall Restricted Delivery ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise 0 Signature Confirmation*"' ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 1 1 1 11 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1362 7015 1520 0002 5400 1362 b+d/Z.948G AP ,Qd:o'ON IdVPue;00,1S N d 0 0 0 • 00 X00 O c, X in 111.5 00) F. 00 to O Z 0) O 3 d ,aa tto Ronald R & Marian C Norman 808 Roaring Springs Road Fort Worth, TX 76114 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION IN Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY gnatu 1. Article Addressed to: Ronalivik & Marian C Norman 808 faring Springs Road Fortorth, TX 76114 r 11 111 111 1111111 11 111111111111 1 ilii 9590 9402 2370 6249 4948 13 0 Agent Addressee Date of Deliyery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 'No 2. Article Number OTransfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1362 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature O baluit Signature Restricted Delivery Nfied maim Cry Certified Mail Restricted Delive _ C Collect on Delivery G Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery G insured Mail o Insured Mall Restricted Delivery (over $500) O Priority Mail Express® O Registered Mall.' 0 Registered Mail Restricted Delivery O Retum Receipt for Merchandise O Signature Confirmation"' O Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 0 try N m O .a6+dIZ "ale7S AK) 1 -10 I I 1 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 7015 1520 0002 5400 a n[1u❑D', 1 n n 08 Od 10 'ON aej pen pa!py 1 1 1331 1331 Stacie Lynn Hixson 11 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. A. Signature ti ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery B. Received by (Pruned Nape) 1 -r6, -: v . Is delivery address different from item 17 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: D No 1. Article Addressed to: Stacie Lynn Hixson 11 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 IIII 11 111 1111111 11 1111111111111111111 9590 9402 2370 6249 4947 52 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1331 3. Service Type O Adult Signature o Fault Signature Restricted Delivery 6d'tertified Mail® O Certified Mall Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery Insured Mail ❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) 0 Priority Mal Express® 0 Registered Mail, 0 Registered Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation'. ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt i Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 1 1 h 1 11 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1287 7015 1520 0002 5400 1287 opo N a ❑❑❑❑❑a' 2 Titahotwo Limited Partnership RLLLP 4582 S. Ulster St Parkway Suite 410 Denver, CO 80237 ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. IN Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature B. Received by (Printed Name ❑ Agent 1 ❑ Addressee o Delivery Titahotwo Limited Partnership RLLLP 4582 S. UtsterSt Parkway Suite 410 Denver, CO 80237 11 111111 11111 11 11I 11 11111111 9590 9402 2597 6336 2269 95 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1287 PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 3. Service Type 0 Adult Signature ❑ ytldlt Signature Restricted Delivery Certified Mall® ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery over $500) 0 Priority Mail Express® O Registered Mail"" 0 Registered Mall Restricted Delivery ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature Contirmetioa". 0 Signatory Confirrnatlon Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 11 II 1 1 1 7017 0660 0000 5675 0916 7017 0660 0000 5675 0916 0 D 20 r0 m, G'1 7 N seej pue e8 uca❑❑ NdD D 0 a a a y 2 io $tea 0 0 8 Victor A & Jane E Giannelli 67 Gamble Oak Way Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION IN Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach thls card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY {7 Agent .11 Addressee Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery 1. Article Addressed to: Victor A & lane E Giannelli 67 Gamble Oak Way Carbttat7ale, CO 81623 111111 1 111 1111111 11 1 iiu III 11111 9590 9402 2370 6249 4947 07 D. Is delivery address different frormitern 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7017 0660 0000 5675 0916 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature ❑ 6duit Signature Restricted Delivery ertified Mail® 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Insured Mail 0 Insured Mail Restricted Delivery (over $500) El Priority Mall Express® 0 Registered Mail'. 0 Registered Mall Restricted Delivery O Retum Receipt for Merchandise 0 Signature Confirmation" O Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-8053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 11 11 7015 1520 7015 1520 M .6 o O m iu 1 0 d!Z '3tE S £Z9I8 OJ `alepuogaeD p, o 0 Ivt� o 3 n 0 rt, • m` a v = Cu — • n E.) (L ro 1 1 1 IN 11 0002 5400 1300 0002 5400 1300 ❑o❑❑o D D 7 D A 0 1j;1iutiu.1iu!/I.1S:Irj j William J Devers, III & Christian Michaels 277 Ponderosa Pass Carbondale, CO 81623 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature iX) B. R ceived by (Printed Name) 0 Agent 0 Addressee C. Date of Delivery 1. Article Addressed to: William 1 Devers, III & Christian Michaels 277 Ponderosa Pass Carbondale, CO 81623 IIII 11 1111 1111111 111111111 IIII 1111 111 9590 9402 2370 6249 4947 83 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7015 1520 0002 5400 1300 3. Service Type Adult Signature O &putt Signature Restricted Delivery ertified Mail® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery o Collect on Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 insured Mall ❑ Insured Mali Restricted Delivery (over $500) 0 Priority Mall Express® 0 Registered Mali"" 0 Registered Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for Merchancise O Signature Confirmation* ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 2.348 7015 1520 0002 5400 1348 Z (D 6 = m n CD Cu 0 00 W a -< W (D w 3 W N a m Scott & Mclean Bayens 33 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 USPS Tracking° FAQs >(http://faq.usps.com/?articleld=220900) Track Another Package 4 - Tracking Tracking Number: 70151520000254001348 Remove X This is a reminder to arrange for redelivery of your item or your item will be returned to sender. You may arrange redelivery by using the Schedule a Redelivery feature on this page or calling 800 -ASK - USPS, or may pick up the item at the Post Office indicated on the notice. Delivery Attempt: Action Needed REMINDER TO SCHEDULE REDELIVERY OF YOUR ITEM Get Updates \/ Text & Email Updates u Tracking History Reminder to Schedule Redelivery of your item This is a reminder to arrange for redelivery of your item or your item will be returned to sender. You may arrange redelivery by using the Schedule a Redelivery feature on this page or calling 800 -ASK -USPS, or may pick up the item at the Post Office indicated on the notice. December 9, 2017, 5:43 pm Notice Left (No Authorized Recipient Available) CARBONDALE, CO 81623 December 9, 2017, 10:47 am Out for Delivery CARBONDALE, CO 81623 n Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 01 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1218 7015 152N.Q.511/00 1218 •R'r riooDooP 3 N 5 5 gr e 22 ucit 3 (.) 0 2-j• 0z 0 - co 7r. i•-> CD .11 1-+ - 111 .0 3 Aspen Polo Partners. LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 530 E Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 A N E RA ) JUNCTION 311; . • " ; 000024'1496 DEL. MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 6 611 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 530 E Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 0 0 00 0 N 0 l0 1 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1225 7015 1520 0002 5400 1225 t7 OdJo 'ON IdyP 1aaa1S glageZ!I] S Sb6 70 a a 0 N G ,(;%, a L a,, v m » ® = m h F gm Richard P & Terri L Slivka 945 S Elizabeth Street Denver, CO 80209 USPS Tracking® FAQs > (http://faq.usps.com/?articleld=220900) Track Another Package + Tracking Number: 70151520000254001225 Remove X This is a reminder to arrange for redelivery of your item or your item will be returned to sender. You may arrange redelivery by using the Schedule a Redelivery feature on this page or calling 800 -ASK - USPS, or may pick up the item at the Post Office indicated on the notice. Delivery Attempt: Action Needed REMINDER TO SCHEDULE REDELIVERY OF YOUR ITEM Get Updates \/ Text & Email Updates Tracking History Reminder to Schedule Redelivery of your item This is a reminder to arrange for redelivery of your item or your item will be returned to sender. You may arrange redelivery by using the Schedule a Redelivery feature on this page or calling 800 -ASK -USPS, or may pick up the item at the Post Office indicated on the notice. December 9, 2017, 3:53 pm Notice Left (No Authorized Recipient Available) DENVER, CO 80210 December 9, 2017, 8:40 am Out for Delivery DENVER, CO 80209 \ Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 gv+d/Z'ems %AUS o 0 0 G) SD 0 co w 1 ID 1 1 1 7015 1520 0002 5400 1232 7015 1520 0002 5400 1232 0 m Luther E & Diana G Moore 16611 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 USPS Tracking® FAQs > (http://faq.usps.com/?articleld=220900) Track Another Package + Tracking Number: 70151520000254001232 Remove X The delivery status for this item has not been updated as of December 10, 2017, 12:47 am. Alert December 10, 2017 at 12:47 am DELIVERY STATUS NOT UPDATED Get Updates u Text & Email Updates u Tracking History December 10, 2017, 12:47 am Delivery status not updated The delivery status for this item has not been updated as of December 10, 2017, 12:47 am. December 9, 2017, 12:06 pm In Transit to Destination On its way to CARBONDALE, CO 81623 December 9, 2017, 10:47 am Out for Delivery CARBONDALE, CO 81623 December 9, 2017, 10:37 am Sorting Complete n • — - Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 11 0 LgagrazglizziNxia ERTI 111 11 ll 1 1 1 11 7015 1520 0002 5400 1379 7015 1520 01102 5400 1379 N a EZTE8 OD 'alepuocpeD 9r3 JO ON ;CAI pue 13.94s ri D Li LI I1u &') `P.• 3 Fe &. ,T7 t) 0 ..mr" 1th - -0 —1 m Cn M C > m 0 m —4 Johnson Steele Family Trust 23 Pinot) Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 USPS Tracking® FAQs >(http://faq.usps.com/?articleld=220900) Track Another Package -1- Tracking Tracking Number: 70151520000254001379 Remove X This is a reminder to arrange for redelivery of your item or your item will be returned to sender. You may arrange redelivery by using the Schedule a Redelivery feature on this page or calling 800 -ASK - USPS, or may pick up the item at the Post Office indicated on the notice. Delivery Attempt: Action Needed REMINDER TO SCHEDULE REDELIVERY OF YOUR ITEM Get Updates \/ Text & Email Updates Tracking History Reminder to Schedule Redelivery of your item This is a reminder to arrange for redelivery of your item or your item will be returned to sender. You may arrange redelivery by using the Schedule a Redelivery feature on this page or calling 800 -ASK -USPS, or may pick up the item at the Post Office indicated on the notice. December 9, 2017, 5:50 pm Notice Left (No Authorized Recipient Available) CARBONDALE, CO 81623 December 9, 2017, 12:05 pm In Transit to Destination On its way to CARBONDALE, CO 81623 n Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 7015 7015 d Od JO ON 7dV pue taadS ueua�ngl qllagezi13 uanng 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1520 0002 5400 1126 1520 0002 5400 1126 C d'acHionmc 0 m a a c y n> r, p a d m a s n F F n P iD c = T d a a !jilt[=aur. iksaal_wit i Gwen Elizabeth Thurman 64 Pinon Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 USPS Tracking® FAQs > (http://faq.usps.com/?articleld=220900) Track Another Package + Tracking Number: 70151520000254001126 Remove X This is a reminder to arrange for redelivery of your item or your item will be returned to sender. You may arrange redelivery by using the Schedule a Redelivery feature on this page or calling 800 -ASK - USPS, or may pick up the item at the Post Office indicated on the notice. Delivery Attempt: Action Needed REMINDER TO SCHEDULE REDELIVERY OF YOUR ITEM Get Updates \/ Text & Email Updates u Tracking History Reminder to Schedule Redelivery of your item This is a reminder to arrange for redelivery of your item or your item will be returned to sender. You may arrange redelivery by using the Schedule a Redelivery feature on this page or calling 800 -ASK -USPS, or may pick up the item at the Post Office indicated on the notice. December 9, 2017, 5:47 pm Notice Left (No Authorized Recipient Available) CARBONDALE, CO 81623 December 9, 2017, 12:06 pm In Transit to Destination On its way to CARBONDALE, CO 81623 n LAND WEST Project Name: File Number: Date Posted: Date Photographed: EXHIBIT PLANNING I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES POSTING OF NOTICE TCI Lane Ranch PUD Substantial Amendment to the PUD PUAA-10-17-8586 December 6, 2017 December 8, 2017 Sign 1— Posted on northern property boundary facing CDOT Right of Way. Sign 2 — Posted on northern property boundary facing CDOT Right of Way. i Ad #: 0000157689-01 Customer: EAGLE VALLEY ENTERPRISE/LEGALS, Your account number is: 2927005 PROOF OF PUBLICATION RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD 1, Randy Essex, do solemnly swear that 1 am Publisher of the RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 12/7/2017 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 12/7/2017 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, 1 have here unto set my hand this day, 12/7/2017. Randy Essex, Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this day 12/7/2017. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 ,1ERI LYNN MEDiNA NOTARY ROM STATE OC . QL.O.SADO NOTARY !D 291.64029599 . MYak6tOSSICA EXPVEIAUGUM,2021 IEXHIBIT PUEILIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Aspen Polo Partners, LLP, rop resented by Jon Fredericks of Landwest Colorado, LLC, has applied to the r'lanning Commission, Gar- field County, State of Colorado, to request a recom- rrendatioe of approval for a Substantial Amendment to a previously approved PUD (TCI Lane Ranch P UD, ,,l 91, rally approved under Resolution 2009-71 and 2009-81) on a property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description, A TRACT OF LANE, SITUATED IN LOTS 8, 9, AND 10 OF SECTION 31 AND IN LO 1 S 5 ANL, 13 O1- SEC I ION 32, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, CENT TO TH-HE SOUTLYINGHOERLY RIGHTOOFWF AYDJA- LINE OF OLD STATE HIGHWAY 82 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOL- LOWS: B EGINNING AT A POINT ON SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY 1 INF WHFNCF A ISTONF FC1l1Nf") IN PI ACF FOR THF WITNESS CORNER TC) THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 31 BEARS N 26 DEGREES 00'43"E 1433-52 FEET; THENCE S 79 DEGREES 58'52"E 2125.37 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1013 AT PAGE 423 OF THE RECORDS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE ALONG TI 1C WESTERLY DO U N CoA rtY LINE OF SAID PARCEL ON TI IE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: 3 04 DEGREES t55'OO"W .401.90 FEET; THENCE S 01 DEGREES 00'00"E 861.25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE 169.57 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE ON THE ARC OF A 1565.69 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEF I 1 HE CHO1 L) OF WHICH SEARS 5 54 L,E- (UHEES 32'43"W 169.49 1 -EE 1 T U A PUIN I UN THE SOU I- HEHLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE N 89 DEGREES 54'14"W 651.37 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 13 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE S 00 DE- GREES 10'37"E 354.80 FEET ALONG THE EAST- ERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 10 TO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER: THENCE ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID ROARING FORK RIVER ON THE FOI 1 OWING SEVEN (7) COURSES: S 86 DEGREES 53'04"W 294.14 FEET: THENCE S 85 r -)F( BEES 32'23"W 117.60 FEET; THENCE S 78 DEGREES 29'25"W 123.94 FEET; THENCE S 89 DEGREES 17'47"W 118.5.1 FEET; THENCE S 67 DEGREES 42'27"W 386.40 FEET; THENCE S 62 DEGREES 48'18"W 124.67 FEET; THENCE S 57 DEGREES 58'42"W 235.20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LILAC OF SLUE CREEK RANCH FIE - CO rIDCD AS RECEPTION NO. 623535 IN THC RECORDS OF TI 1C GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE EAST- ERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLUE CREEK RANCH ON THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: N 00 DEGREES 10'37"W 736.64 FEET; THENCE N 89 DEGREES 54'14-W 231.46 FEET; THENCE N 00 DEGREES 02,13"W 1677.90 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A PAR- CEL OF LAND DES-CI1BED IN BOOK 333 Al PAGE 511 OF I Ht GAHF IELU OC)UN I Y 1 -1E - CURDS; THENCE S 79 DEGREES 52'12"E 278.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN SAID BOOK 333 AT PAGE 511 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE N 00 DE- GREES 02'13"W 156.69 FEET ALONG THE EAST- ERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: GARFIELD COUNTY. COLORADO. Practical Description: A parcel totaling 100 443 acre., located anrirovimately 4 milno east of the Town of Carbondale off the State Highway 82 Ac- cess Road and known as Parcel Number 2391 31 1 00033. TI -e property has an address of 16,111 OLD STATE HWV 82 CARBONDALE 81623. Project Description; Tho Applicant is roquooting to modify tho PUD as approved in 2000 for TCI Lane Ranch (Resolution 2009-71 and 2009-81) to allow for the proposed uses to include provisions for addi- tional agricultural uses with, equestrian facilities. in- cluding 2 regulation size polo fields. This includes agricullur al buildii .ys, structuies, u1 i rrlpruvenienls for the purpose of accommodating. breeding, rais- ing, trebling or euro pets r l9. equi0s (primarily horses). Associated agricultural facilities may include barns. stables, riding halls, riding rings. paddocks. polo 1101ds. corrals, tracks, or trails. 1 he amendment would also reduce the number of residential units from 89 as currently approved under Resolution 2009-71 and 2009-81 to 54 units. The Property is zoned PUID. All parsons affected by the proposed plan are invited to appear and state their views. protest or support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing. then you are urged to state your views by letter. as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of su rrnunding property owners. and others affected, in deciding whether to recommend that the Board of 13nrrnty f'nmmissinnars °rant 8. -Ir deny the request. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Fridoy. Altcrnativoly, tho opplication can bo viewed at https://records.gerfiold-county.com/WebLink/Brow oo.aspn?ctartid-3637570 (File No. PUAA-10-17- 6506). A public hearing on the application has bean scheduled fvr Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 6:00 P.M . in lite County Commissioners Meeting Ruo,.,, Garfield County Ad rr11,110 raliul1 BuillJirrg, 108 8111 Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County Published in the Citizen 1 elegram December 7, 2017 David Pesnichak From: Stephanie Lewis<stephanie@aspensnowmassliving.com> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 4:03 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: 16411 Old Highway 82 Land Use Proposal Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged David, EXHIBIT b .L a I wanted to reach out to you to let you know that I am a supporter of the new polo fields at 16411 Old Hwy 82. As a Blue Creek Ranch resident I was very pleased to know that there would no longer be 89 homesites on the 100 acre parcel. I am not against development, but I felt that it was too many homes and should be more in line with the 47 or so homesites that Blue Creek Ranch has, which this new proposal successfully addresses. I am also very excited to see the open space along the river. Not only will be great for wildlife, but it is also consistent with Blue Creek Ranch. Finally the equestrian facility which would be located off the frontage road is compatible with the adjacent land uses and will help to preserve the agricultural feel along Hwy 82. This is one of the things that makes our valley special. In summary, I am very excited to have these great new neighbors. I can be reached at 970 948.7219 if you have any questions. Warm Regards, Stephanie Lewis 44 Chokecherry Ct Carbondale, CO 81623 1 maw Black alis Corporation December 4, 2017 From: Matt Raper Black Hills Energy 0096 County Rd. 160 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-928-0407 To: David Pesnichak, Aspen Polo Partners, LLC Email: dpesnichak@garfield-county.com Phone: 970-945-8212 RE: 16411 HWY 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear David: EXHIBIT g 3 The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Black Hills Energy. Black Hills Energy has existing natural gas facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. At this time it appears that these existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide natural gas service to your project, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any upgrading of our facilities necessary to deliver adequate service to and within the development will be undertaken by Black Hills Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please contact us with any questions regarding this project, and with a timeline of when you would like to proceed with your project. Sincerely, Matt Raper 1 Utility Construction Planner 'Black Hills Energy Matt.raper@blackhillscorp.com 1970-928-0407 EXHIBIT Garfield County Road & Bridge 12/5/2017 TCI Lane Ranch PUD Substantial Amendment to the PUD Aspen Polo Partners, LLC 16411 Hwy 82 Carbondale, Co 81623 David, Regarding File# PUAA-10-17-8586 Aspen Polo Partners, LLC. Road and Bridge has reviewed the application to modify as approved in 2009, resolution 2009-71 and 2009-81, for the TCI Lane Ranch. This current application is proposing to use 2 accesses onto the CDOT Hwy 82 frontage road. Traffic from this proposal will put some additional impact on the Catherine Store intersection controlled by CDOT. Road and Bridge does not require any permits for this proposal. Thanks for the opportunity to review. Mike Prehm Garfield County R&B 0298 County Road 333A Rifle, Co. (970) 625-8601 December 12, 2017 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 108 8th Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Aspen Polo Partners, LLP PUD (TCI Lane Ranch PUD) Amendment 100.443 Acres 16411 Old State Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Commissioners, DEC 18 ZOO I am an adjoining neighbor to the above referenced property and I write this letter in favor of the approval of the above referenced project. You are voting to amend a previously approved PUD and I am in favor of your action to approve this amendment. Aspen Polo Partners, LLP will be spending millions of dollars in improvements on this property which in turn will bring millions of dollars in revenue to the county. The polo fields, barns and other facilities will be world class in design and construction and a quiet neighbor that will be much better than a dense single family development. The folks who come to this facility, from all over the world, will spend locally to support our local businesses. And since most of the folks will not be here full time, there will be minimum impact on traffic. I am in favor of this project and urge you to vote for approval. Yours truly, zs 265 Ponderosa Pass Carbondale, CO. 81623 December 21, 2017 COLORADO Parks and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources Glenwood Springs Area Office 0088 Wildlife Way Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.947.2920 I F 970.947.2936 David Pesnichak Senior Planner Garfield County Development 108 8th St. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: TCI Lane Ranch PUD Substantial Amendment (PUAA-10-17-8586) Dear David, a a 3 EXHIBIT Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has reviewed the application materials for the TCI Lane Ranch PUD Substantial Amendment submitted by Aspen Polo Partners, LLC. CPW has been involved during previous land use reviews for this parcel, and wildlife concerns are generally the same as they have been in the past. According to CPW's Species Activity Mapping (SAM) data, the property is either entirely or partially within the following wildlife habitats: black bear fait concentration area and human conflict area, mule deer resident population area, osprey foraging area, and great blue heron foraging area. Generally, CPW's comments from previous referrals are still applicable for this proposal and are included within the following recommendations: 1. Fencing should be held to a minimum and any necessary fencing should be wildlife friendly. Details and specifications for wildlife friendly fencing can be found at: https: / /cpw. state.co. us/ Documents/ LandWater/ PrivateLandPrograms/ FencingWithWi l dlifelnMind.pdf a. Additionally, CPW encourages the applicant to work with adjacent landowners to replace current perimeter fencing with wildlife friendly options. 2. Landscaping designs should preclude berry, fruit, or nut producing trees and shrubs to reduce attractants for bears and other wildlife. Homeowners should be aware that CPW is not liable for any damage to landscaping from wildlife. 3. All trash, horse grain/feed, and food -related items should be stored indoors or within bear -proof containers. Eliminating attractants for bears and other wildlife will reduce conflicts. This is especially relevant given that this property lies within the river corridor which is used heavily by various animal species. 4. Proposed ponds should be constructed with at least one bank having a minimum slope of 3:1, preferably 5:1, to allow ingress and egress of wildlife. If plastic liners are to be used, a minimum of 18 inches of topsoil should be used on top of liners. Bob D. Broscheid, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Robert W. Bray • Marie Haskett • Carrie Besnette Hauser John Howard, Chair • Marvin McDaniel • Dale Pizel • Jim Spehar • James Vigil, Secretary • Dean Wingfield • Michelle Zimmerman, Vice -Chair • Alex Zipp ..1875 5. Trails through riparian habitats should be minimized to the extent possible and provide adequate signage to keep users on designated routes. In addition to the above recommendations, CPW would encourage the applicant to consider a public fishing easement along the Roaring Fork River. Public river access through this parcel would connect the Blue Creek Ranch fishing easement with the Bureau of Land Management parcel upstream. This would create approximately 3/4 mite of public fishing access for anglers. Colorado Parks and Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to review and submit comments for this project. If there are any questions or needs for additional information, don't hesitate to contact Land Use Specialist, Taylor Elm, at (970) 947-2971 or District Wildlife Manager, John Groves, at (970) 947-2933. Sincerely, rry Will, Arti'Wildlife Manager Cc. John Groves, District Wildlife Manager Matt Yamashita, District Wildlife Manager Taylor Elm, Land Use Specialist File Garfield County Public Health 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-5200 Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: David Pesnichak December 21, 2017 Hello David, EXHIBIT 7 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-6614 I have reviewed the application for the Aspen Valley Polo Club PUD (formerly TCI Lane Ranch) and have several comments: 1. Potential Radiation Hazard (Section 6.6.4.) — While the radiation survey by Yeh & Associates did not indicate above normal levels of radiation on the subject property, all of Garfield County is considered at high risk for radon in buildings. It is recommended that all homes in our area be built using Radon Resistant New Construction (RRNC), which makes the mitigation process much easier if testing indicates that there are elevated levels of radon present. 2. Nuisance conditions (Section 6.7) — Public Health appreciates the applicant's commitment to use dust mitigation practices during construction activities. Because the project is greater than 25 acres and construction activities are anticipated to be longer than six months, an Air Pollution Emission Notification may be required by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. More information can be found on this permit process at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/APENforms. 3. Domestic Water Supply (Preliminary Engineering Report Section 3.1) — The use of this drinking water system in Zone 1 indicates that it might meet the criteria of being a public water system under CDPHE's Regulation 22 if it "regularly serves an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days per year." If these conditions are met, the operator should ensure that the system is in compliance with drinking water standards. Alternatively, if connection to another public water and sanitation district's facilities becomes available, it is recommended that the Aspen Valley Polo Club PUD utilize that connection. 4. Wastewater Treatment (Preliminary Engineering Report Section 3.4) — The total flows for each of the septic systems is near or at the threshold of 2,000 gallons per day based on CDPHE's Regulation 43. Once the systems become operational, the flows should be monitored to determine if these limits are exceeded to the degree that wastewater must be treated as a public water system according to CDPHE regulations. 5. Pesticide and fertilizer application — Due to the location of these facilities in the Roaring Fork River alluvium and the Town of Carbondale's drinking water protection area, care should be taken to ensure that pesticides and fertilizers applied on the polo fields and other lawns on the property are used properly to prevent their entry into the water table. These materials should also be properly stored. Thank you, Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease Morgan Hill Environmental Health Specialist III Garfield County Public Health 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 665-6383 Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease December 27, 2017 Mr. David Pesnichak Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 - MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting ancl Design ____; EXHIBIT 13 RE: TCI Lane Ranch PUD Substantial Amendment to the PUD: PUAA-10-17-8586 Dear David: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the TCI Lane Ranch PUD, Substantial Amendment to the PUD Application. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: 1. The Applicant states that water for fire protection will come from hydrants connected to the ponds. The Applicant should provide more information concerning how the volume in the ponds is allotted between fire protection, irrigation, and aesthetics. Pond surface areas for evaporation should be verified. It should also be verified that fire protection is an allowed use for the water from the irrigation ditches. 2. The Applicant should work with the Fire District to determine hydrant locations and spacing and how these would connect to the ponds. 3. The Applicant should describe how the onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) setbacks from the water features will be achieved. Some of the OWTS are shown very near ponds and streams. 4. Conveyances for storm drainage should be sized as necessary for the 25 -year event per the LUDC. The Applicant states that they will be sized for the 10 -year. The Applicant should verify the adequacy for a 25 -year event or a variance may be required. 5. Future phases propose smaller, residential lots that likely would not be feasible for OWTS. A reasonable alternative is a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). The application materials do not evaluate feasibility or future connections. The Applicant should connect the commercial buildings to a WWTF should one be constructed in the future. 6. The Applicant should describe the potable water treatment that is proposed and where the equipment will be located. 7. The Applicant should provide design drawings for the accesses proposed with CDOT permits. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Moupta' 'I Cross En innc 1 1 Chris Hale, PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross•eng.com 1111 I .617 i ilitifif1IWk {I ' /1411#1tl14tliittl 11 II I Reception##: 786310 05/21/2010 11.09:46 RM Jean Alberico 1 of 5 Rec Fee -$0 00 Doc Fee.0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT for EXHIBIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER FOR TCI LANE RANCH PUD, GENERALLY LOCATED % MILE EAST OF CATHERINE STORE ON STATE HIGHWAY 82, IN SECTIONS 31 & 32, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 86 WEST, GARFIELD COUNTY. PARCEL NO# 2391-311-00-033 AND 2391-323-00-051 In accordance with and pursuant to §4-111, Development in the 100 -year Floodplain, of the Unified Land Use Resolution of Garfield County of 2008, as amended, the Director of the Building and Planning Department hereby authorizes the following activity: Construction of a pedestrian bridge within the flood -fringe and the floodway, and placement of fill on residential lots located within the flood -fringe of the designated 100 - year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River This Land Use Change Permit is issued subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A (attached hereto), and shall be valid only during compliance with such conditions and other applicable provisions of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, Building Code, and other regulations of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado. BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Fred A. Jarman, Al Director County File Number FDPA6264 1111 I IeK710I'01.Gi1.111,i II111 Reception#: 786310 05121!2010 11:09:46 AMI Jean Alberico 2 of 5 Ree Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0. 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT A — TCI Lane Ranch PUD Floodplain Permit 1. All representations of the applicant within the application shall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise modified by the Director Determination. 2_ Prior to issuance of the Final Plat for TCI Lane Ranch PUD the Applicant shall provide a copy of the conditional FIRM and floodway map revision approved through FEMA. 3. No alterations of the floodplain may be made other than the specific improvements noted in the application and shown on drawings by James Brzostowicz, P.E., as labeled "General Layout Pedestrian Bridge' and "Floodplain Site Plan Lots' Sheets 1 and 2 attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. All new construction or substantial improvements shall be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. 5. All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage. 6. All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. 7. All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 8. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system_ 9. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system and discharge from the systems into flood waters. 10.0n -site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. 11. No disturbance of a regulated wetland shall be allowed. z Li LI J 3 0 CM 0 FUt' t 0 0 c; to. El riPPONEIVA 116.004411410 If MIA 1111 Recoptiontt: 706310 00/2112010 1109 4000 Jean AlberIco 3 of 5 Roo Fee:SO 00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 61111r1 ,IgH R IN k 1 1 1 . _ 1: 1 g '''• ' WS L":'2 I— S 4 p \ L ROARING FORK 40111 RIVER 55/21 l5 11.0946 AA Jean Al/Ar.aa 4 al 5 400 Foo$0.0111 Doc Fee,0 00 GARF16 9 CMIf/TV CO FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PLANS TCI LANE RANCH FLOOD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO p�l •IG111414C041K1143Ill Recepiien#: 785318 05/21/2010 1109.46 M Jean Riberioo 5 of 5 Fac Fee SO 00 Doc Fee O 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO -. 1 a 0,- 1 +?g.Page✓ �s2a _�. ate • V . ea Ro 8 z FL00DPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PLANS TCI LANE RANCH FLOOD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO 7 TOO a EXHIBIT David Pesnichak From: Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 2:29 PM To: David Pesnichak Cc: Kent Harbert; Sheryl Bower Subject: Re: TCI Lane Ranch PUD Substantial Amd - Referral Request Attachments: MP 15.5 Catherine Store 2009.pdf David - Thank you for the opportunity to review the TCI PUD amendment. Conceptually, the development team has addressed the our comments on the direct accesses to the frontage road, and CDOT has received access applications for the development. CDOT will be offering permit for the direct access from the frontage road. As you are aware, the original TCI traffic study was more traffic intensive than the amended TCI project (Aspen Valley Polo Club). The plan development is bring roughly 54 trips in the peak hour on weekdays (Figure 7a of the Aspen Valley Polo Club TIS) and 197 trips in the peak hour on Saturdays (7b of the Aspen Valley Polo Club TIS). The development has two different routes to take Valley Road to the east and Catherine Store (CR 100) to the west. In the previous TCI report dated July 2009 (see attached) the report made recommendation to add an additional right turn lane on Catherine Store Road. The existing traffic study also agrees with the assessment (page 19 of the of the Aspen Valley Polo Club TIS). However, the TIS states that the development doesn't increase the traffic by 20%; therefore, an access permit isn't required by the Code. However, I believe the improvement is necessary for overall operation of the County Road. It is my recommendation that the County address this concern with this development. The study also identified that all the turn lanes at the intersection of SH 82/CR 100 do not meet current State Highway Access Code standards. Please see page 27 of the Aspen Polo Club TIS. This is a particular concerning issue. The traffic volume for the left turn from SH 82 to CR 100 is 271 trip in the p.m. peak hour (Figure 3A). The left turn lane is 430' short (Table 4 of the report). The queuing analysis in the report states that there could be queuing from the left turn lane into main SH 82 through lane. However, the report states that the development traffic would only be a very small portion of the left turning volume, and the development doesn't trigger an access permit for CR 100. These inadequacies of the turn lanes will need to be address in the future either by a project or when a development triggers an access permit for CR 100. I will use 565 DVH for CR 100 as a baseline for access permit in the future. I recognize that Aspen Valley Polo Club has used 44 DHV of the 20% change in use (7.8%) There is another 73 DHV available before an access permit would be required for CR 100. If you have any questions, please let me know. thanks Dan 1 David Pesnichak From: Jon Fredericks <jon@landWESTcolorado.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 3:09 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: RE: Aspen Polo Club PUD - Updated COAs Dave, EXHIBIT /c; Here is the response on that item from our engineer: The permitting has not been started and won't until after land use approval due to the high cost of design and permitting the system (i.e. no reason to start these if the development gets denied). He is correct...the local public health department (in this case Garfield County) is a referral agency on all water and wastewater systems permitted through the State within their boundaries/limits. The CDPHE requires a Basis of Design Report submittal and Final Plans and Specifications to be submitted on the water side (both separate submittals). On the wastewater side there is a submittal for Preliminary Effluent Limits, Site Application, Process Design Report and Final Plans and Specifications (all separate steps). There is also another submittal for the plant to get their discharge permit. This happens when the plant is coming online after construction. o The CDPHE will send out an approval letter with/without comments after each submittal. We would receive a final go ahead after Final Plans and Specifications have been reviewed by the State and all comments were addressed. Both the water and wastewater systems will be given operating permits through the CDPHE as the final approval step, which will include the treatment facilities identification number. The County doesn't need to request anything for review as part of this project as it is already covered by the State requirements. Garfield County is a referral agency for all new and existing plants in their boundaries and will receive a copy of the submittals. The CDPHE requires us to provide proof we sent this information to each referral agency. Jon Fredericks From: Jon Fredericks [mailto:jon@landWESTcolorado.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 2:16 PM To: David Pesnichak <dpesnichak@garfieid-county.com> Subject: RE: Aspen Polo Club PUD - Updated COAs Hi Dave, Here is our Engineer's response to COA #5: "An analysis is not required. Zone 1 will be a non-public community water system and Zone 2 will be a community water system. The difference in the water system designations has no bearing on the well design as they have the same requirements. Permitting of the systems through the CDPHE is the same for both system. However, there can be slight difference in the required testing and monitoring of water quality within each treatment system, but this is unrelated to the well. Garfield County will be allowed 2 weeks to review the Basis of Design Report that gets submitted to the CDPHE, including plans, and provide comments to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment who will be reviewing and approving the final water treatment systems for both Zones." Jon Fredericks EXHIBIT it CORONA WATER LAW Craig V. Corona, Esq. 420 E. Main St., Ste. 210B Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 948-6523 cc@craigcoronalaw.com January 10, 2018 David Pesnichak, AICP Garfield County Community Development 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Aspen Polo Partners, LLP PUD Substantial Amendment Dear David, This letter is on behalf of Aspen Polo Partners, LLP ("APP") to address comments and recommended conditions contained in the Project Information and Staff Comments memo dated January 10, 2018. In that memo, the following comment is made regarding water for fire protection: Irrigation Water for Fire Protection: The application states that the ponds which are to be filled with irrigation water are also to be used for fire protection. The legal and physical ability of this irrigation water to be used for fire protection does not appear to have been addressed in the application, however. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the PUD, the applicant shall verify the legal and physical ability of the irrigation water to be used for fire protection. This verification shall be provided to the Community Development Department and accepted by the County designated engineer. As noted in the comment, APP will store water in the onsite ponds for two purposes, to be pumped to irrigation and to be stored for fire protection. The source for this water will be APP's Basin Ditch water rights which are decreed for irrigation. The Basin Ditch rights are not decreed for fire protection. However, APP may use water diverted under the Basin Ditch rights for any beneficial purpose so long as there is no call on the river. This principle is established by the Colorado Constitution which states, "The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied." Colo. Const., Art. XVI, sect. 6. If there is no call on the river, there is unappropriated water available. APP may store that water in its ponds for fire protection at Garfield County Community Development David Pesnichak, ACP such times. Free river conditions exist every year on the Roaring Fork River, often for most of the year and always in the spring during runoff. APP will top off the ponds during free river conditions with water available in the Basin Ditch. This water may be used for fire protection or irrigation or, in fact, any beneficial purpose. APP will then pump water to irrigation and continuously replace that water from the Basin Ditch for continued irrigation. The stored water will remain in the pond available for fire protection uses, if necessary. Any stored water that evaporates may be replaced pursuant to the Basalt Water Conservancy District water allotment contract. Regarding physical supply, APP owns 2.86 cfs, or 6.4%, of the 45 cfs decreed to the Basin Ditch. According to the diversion records attached to this letter, over the past fifty years, the Basin Ditch has diverted, on average, 18 cfs. The APP property, therefore, has received an average of 1.2 cfs from the Basin Ditch. APP plans to construct 3.2 acre feet of pond storage. At 1.2 cfs average, APP will be able to fill the entire pond volume in less than two days. APP will only need to fill the entire volume once when they are first constructed. After that, APP will only need to replace evaporation from the ponds. Based on this, there is a sufficient legal and physical supply of water available to provide fire protection for the development. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Craig V. Corona Structure Summary Report State of Colorado Structure Name: BASIN DITCH Water District: 38 Structure ID Number: 528 Source: Roaring Fork River Location: Q10 Q40 Q160 Section Twnshp Range PM NW SW 33 7S 87W S Distance From Section Lines: From N/S Line: From E/W Line: UTM Coordinates (NAD 83): Northing (UTM y): 4363290 Easting (UTM x): 317462 Spotted from PLSS distances from section lines Latitude/Longitude (decimal degrees): 39.399815 -107.119918 HydroBase Water Rights Summary: Total Decreed Rate(s) (CFS): Total Decreed Volume(s) (AF): Absolute: 45.0000 Conditional: 0.0000 AP/EX: 0.0000 Absolute: 0.0000 Conditional: 0.0000 AP/EX: 0.0000 Water Rights -- Transactions Case Adjudication Appropriation Administration Order Priority Decreed Adjudication Number Date Date Number Number Number Amount Type Uses Action Comment CA0132 1889-05-11 1882-10-20 11981.00000 0 49 5.0000 C 0 1 ID 6495 AP FOR 0.0208 CFS CA0132 1889-05-11 1885-03-27 12870.00000 0 108 5.0000 C 0 1 ID 6495 AP FOR 0.0208 C 87CW0364 1889-05-11 1886-03-25 13233.00000 0 137 0.1900 C 0,TF 1 DRYUP 2.7ACRES FOR 5.75AFCU 87CW0364 1889-05-11 1886-03-25 13233.00000 0 137 0.1900 C OTT 4A BYPASS FOR ID 7165 SUNNYSIDE AUG. LIM 5.75AFCU CA0132 1889-05-11 1886-03-25 13233.00000 0 137 1.8000 C 0 1 ID 6495 AP FOR .0084 CFS CA3082 1936-08-25 1890-03-01 30941.14670 0 294 33.2000 C S 1 ID 6495 AP FOR 0.138 CFS Water Rights -- Net Amounts Adjudication Appropriation Administration Priority/Case Rate (CFS) Volume (Acre -Feet) Date Date Number Order Number Number Absolute Conditional AP/EX Absolute Conditional AP/EX 1889-05-11 1882-10-20 11981.00000 0 49 5.0000 0 0 1889-05-11 1885-03-27 12870.00000 0 108 5.0000 0 0 1889-05-11 1886-03-25 13233.00000 0 137 1.8000 0 0 1936-08-25 1890-03-01 30941.14670 0 294 33.2000 0 0 Irrigated Acres Summary -- Totals From Various Sources GIS Total (Acres): Diversion Comments Total (Acres): Structure Total (Acres): Year 244.6324 373 Land Use Acres Flood Reported: 2015 Reported: 2000 Reported: Irrigated Acres From GIS Data Acres Furrow Acres Sprinkler Acres Drip Acres Groundwater Acres Total 1993 ***Year Total*** 355.69 0 0 0 0 355.69 1993 ALFALFA 153.80 0 0 0 0 153.80 1993 GRASS_PASTURE 178.40 0 0 0 0 178.40 1993 SMALL GRAINS 23.49 0 0 0 0 23.49 2000 ***Year Total*** 279.50 0 0 0 0 279.50 2000 GRASS_PASTURE 279.50 0 0 0 0 279.50 2005 ***Year Total*** 284.63 0 0 0 0 284.63 2005 ALFALFA 131.96 0 0 0 0 131.96 2005 GRASS_PASTURE 152.67 0 0 0 0 152.67 2010 ***Year Total*** 279.50 0 0 0 0 279.50 2010 ALFALFA 116.00 0 0 0 0 116.00 2010 GRASS PASTURE 163.50 0 0 0 0 163.50 2015 ***Year Total*** 244.63 0 0 0 0 244.63 2015 ALFALFA 225.49 0 0 0 0 225.49 2015 GRASS_PASTURE 19.14 0 0 0 0 19.14 Report Date: 2018-01-10 Page 1 of 3 HydroBase Refresh Date: 2017-10-16 Diversion Summary in Acre -Feet - Total Water Through Structure Year FDU LDU DWC Maxq & Day Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Total 1950 ' 5355 1952 * 8331 1953 ' 8331 1954 * 8033 1962 ' 7408 1969 1969-06-06 1969-07-24 102 45 06-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2231 2767 2767 1339 0 9104 1975 1975-05-16 1975-08-01 152 45 05-16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1428 2678 2767 1845 1785 833 11336 1976 1976-05-10 1976-05-10 174 35 05-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1527 2083 2152 2152 2083 2083 12080 1977 1977-05-01 1977-08-16 184 45 05-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 2767 2678 2767 2291 1785 1845 14132 1978 1978-05-01 1978-05-01 184 40 05-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 2460 2380 2460 2460 2380 2460 14599 1979 1979-05-01 1979-05-20 184 30 05-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 1140 24 25 25 24 25 1262 1980 1980-05-10 1980-08-01 175 30 05-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1309 1785 1845 1230 1190 1230 8589 1981 1981-05-16 1981-05-16 137 30 05-16 0 0 0 0 0 0 952 1785 1845 1845 1726 0 8152 1982 1982-05-09 1982-05-09 144 30 05-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 1369 1785 1845 1845 1726 0 8569 1983 1983-05-25 1983-05-25 160 30 05-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 417 1785 1845 1845 1785 1845 9521 1984 1984-05-01 1984-05-01 184 30 05-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 1845 1785 1845 1845 1785 1845 10949 1985 1985-05-10 1985-09-20 175 30 05-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1309 558 120 1365 925 249 4526 1986 1986-05-01 1986-10-16 184 34 08-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 2091 2023 1210 1742 1974 353 9393 1987 1987-04-25 1987-10-23 190 35 04-25 0 0 0 0 0 417 2104 1715 1101 1101 1065 1101 8603 1988 1988-05-09 1988-10-11 175 40 06-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 1551 2200 2018 1816 929 229 8743 1989 1989-04-25 1989-10-03 189 38 07-06 0 0 0 0 0 269 1503 2008 1872 1345 1392 205 8594 1990 1990-04-23 1990-10-31 192 45 04-29 0 0 0 0 0 559 2767 2523 2145 1611 1405 727 11738 1991 1991-05-11 1991-10-25 173 33 05-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1214 1952 1942 1248 1208 465 8030 1992 1992-05-02 1992-09-14 167 40 05-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 2296 1379 1113 1165 630 169 6751 1993 1993-05-10 1993-10-14 175 36 07-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 346 877 2152 2135 1292 654 7456 1994 1994-04-26 1994-09-30 189 43 05-20 0 0 0 0 0 35 1148 2467 2482 2539 1495 551 10718 1995 1994-11-01 1995-10-31 179 35 06-21 338 0 0 0 0 0 111 1607 2152 797 716 646 6368 1996 1995-11-01 1996-10-31 220 36 07-30 380 3 0 0 0 40 1033 1077 1348 1697 1069 780 7426 1997 1996-11-01 1997-10-31 189 38 05-22 21 0 0 0 0 0 1934 1853 1849 1590 120 122 7490 1997 ' 3 1998 * 3 1998 1997-11-01 1998-10-31 199 33 06-30 38 0 0 0 0 0 910 1877 1889 1293 1247 834 8088 1999 1998-11-01 1999-09-26 205 30 05-15 130 0 0 0 0 946 1514 1724 1600 1542 801 430 8686 1999 " 3 2000 * 3 2000 2000-05-01 2000-10-16 183 40 05-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 2460 2348 2292 2183 2112 2112 13508 2001 0 0 05-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 2003-07-26 2003-09-22 98 32 08-19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 1458 1874 1937 5485 2004 2004-04-30 2004-10-05 185 44 06-15 0 0 0 0 0 34 911 1778 2499 1871 956 516 8565 2005 2004-11-09 2005-10-31 252 39 07-15 125 177 0 0 0 167 1174 1430 1784 2087 731 871 8545 2006 2006-04-19 2006-08-08 179 36 06-08 0 0 0 0 0 82 1472 2002 1559 1864 1761 822 9563 2007 2007-05-10 2007-10-23 175 40 05-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1597 1922 1937 1651 1073 864 9043 2008 2008-05-02 2008-10-28 183 45 06-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 1055 2497 2473 1594 1082 533 9234 2009 2009-05-07 2009-09-17 177 42 08-19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1140 1792 1014 2271 1898 1210 9324 2010 2010-05-29 2010-10-31 129 20 05-29 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 1210 1250 710 847 356 4494 2011 2011-06-03 2011-10-24 132 28 08-23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 710 403 1449 1216 620 4398 2012 2012-04-17 2012-10-23 197 40 05-30 0 0 0 0 0 476 1459 2131 2124 1838 1019 933 9979 2013 2013-04-13 2013-10-08 169 39 07-22 0 0 0 0 0 1 1123 1596 1985 1129 1230 389 7453 2014 2014-04-24 2014-10-24 t90 39 07-28 0 0 0 0 0 141 1278 1922 1780 1841 1011 833 8806 2015 2015-04-08 2015-10-26 206 33 06-05 0 0 0 0 0 533 1661 1881 1756 1117 933 688 8568 2016 2016-04-25 2016-10-21 189 40 07-29 0 0 0 0 0 136 1265 1303 1634 1913 1170 971 8392 Report Date: 2018-01-10 Page 2 of 3 HydroBase Refresh Date: 2017-10-16 Minimum: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum: 45 380 177 0 0 0 946 2767 2678 2767 2767 2380 2460 14599 Average: 36 25 4 0 0 0 91 1280 1699 1711 1622 1257 794 7720 51.00 years with diversion records Notes: The average considers all years with diversion records, even if no water is diverted. The above summary lists total monthly diversions. * = Infrequent Diversion Record. All other values are derived from daily records. Average values include infrequent data if infrequent data are the only data for the year. Diversion Comments IYR NUC Code Acres Irrigated Comment 1950 534 1953 590 1954 590 1962 2000 1969 850 1975 1300 1976 1300 1977 1300 1978 1300 1979 1300 1980 1300 1981 1300 1982 1300 1983 1300 1984 1300 1985 1300 1986 1 1987 1300 1988 1300 1989 1300 1990 1300 1991 1300 1992 1300 1993 1300 1994 1300 1995 1300 MAY AND JUNE READINGS ARE ESTIMATES DUE TO FLOODING 1996 1300 1997 373 FILLS ID 4110 1998 373 FILLS ID 4110 1999 373 FILLS ID 4110 2000 373 FILLS ID 4110 2002 Water taken but no data available 2004 NO BYPASSES FOR ID (7165) NO AP DIVERSIONS MADE FOR ID 6495. 2006 ESTIMATED SHUT OFF DATE 2009 USED HISTORICAL RECORDS TO ESTIMATE WHEN DITCH SHUT OFF. 2012 BYPASS FOR SUNNYSIDE AUG. DITCH RAN INTO MID NOVEMBER 2013 BYPASS FOR SUNNYSIDE AUG 2014 NO CALL IYR 2014 2015 BYPASS FOR SUNNYSIDE AUG Note: Diversion comments and reservoir comments may be shown for a structure, if both are available. Report Date: 2018-01-10 Page 3 of 3 HydroBase Refresh Date: 2017-10-16 David Pesnichak From: Larry Smith <larry@waldorfschoolrf.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 3:17 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: Website inquiry -Community Development Larry Smith has sent you a message: Aspen Polo PUD Amendment 970 963 9098 David, EXHIBIT I write today on behalf of the Waldorf School on the Roaring Fork regarding the Request for PUD amendment from Aspen Polo Partners. In the narrative document submitted by Land West Partners, section 6.1 Adjacent Land Use, it is noted: "East Side: To the east lies the Waldorf School, with their school building and associated accessory facilities and playfields. Under the proposed PUD Amendment, land immediately west of the school would remain as agricultural open space, thereby limiting any potential impacts to the Waldorf School." The school would like it noted that our property extends South toward the Roaring Fork River, and the proposed "Future Residential Area 2" directly abuts the area used by our outdoor kindergarten. We do have concerns about the potential impact of housing directly across from where our students are active and outdoors. The school would be interested in discussing potential mitigation with berms and trees, or other similar concepts. The school does recognize and appreciate that the overall impact of this proposal is less that the impact of the prior approved TCI Lane Ranch. The school is also interested in creating a more safe route to school for students and staff that wish to walk or ride a bike to school in the spring and fall. With this aim in mind, we would welcome a discussion for trail access through the property from Blue Creek Ranch, and potentially pursuing the once proposed pedestrian bridge from the Rio Grande Trail. Overall, we are in support of the proposal. Best regards, Larry Smith 1 r Topic Summary 1. Summary of Request 2. About Aspen Valley Polo Club 3. Site Plan Overview 4. Proposed Land Uses 5. Planning & Development Schedule Summary of Request • PUD Amendment: — Reduction in number of allowed dwelling units, from 89 to 54 total. — Maintain and allow additional agricultural land uses for the purpose of breeding, training, and competing horses. 3 About Aspen Valley Polo Club • Aspen Polo Partners' Leadership • Current Facilities • A.P.P.'s Project Vision 4 Plan Overview —Zone Districts ZO NE/DIST RC T 1I r!Acres (refer�to PUD Guide for allow d land/uses,%standards and densities it od' ,-,4<", \\ i \,\.- Z ,N ENA : S�T�RI' �T\2 5121\\Acres\ (refer to PUD Guide for allowed land uses, standards\andNdensiti s:) \ f�' ���\ Plan Overview Site Plan Zone District 1 Uses: Polo Fields • 2 Polo Fields — approx. 12.5 acres each. Dam eu Polo Field 1 Zone District 1 Uses: Barns • 5 horse barns + 1 maintenance barn. -- • r r4Lj S1 C 1 --.FE It -7 t ,', • • I I s.• 8 1114,011”/ 7, • ' Zone District 1 Uses: Clubhouse • Approx. 4500 sf; support community events. ►..0 4�owm SOLJT i ELEN//.-110 1 9 c► L 1 tiwu.o a ..? p."1, .0.a. �ro41c vuufet; cm, Zone District 1 Uses: Cabins 4 cabins, approx. 1100 sf each. RoIQ T E LEVO 1IcN %/'s !. •. �IGI}T ZIyE .LES/,' -j I' N ♦cp�a, yb :i.- 10 Zone District 2 Uses: Residential & Open Space • Up to 42 dwelling units; SFR or 2 -unit. Land Use Summary 12 Total Acres 100.44 +/- 49.23 +/- 51.21 +/- Minimum Open Space Percent 50% 21% (of total PUD) 29% (of total PUD) Minimum Open Space Acres 50.22 +/- 21.09 +/- 29.13 +/- Minimum Lot Size -- 0.75 acres 0.25 acres Maximum Number of Dwelling Units 54 12 42 Maximum Dwelling Units per Lot -- 4 1 Maximum Overall Density (Acres per Dwelling Unit) 1.9 AC/DU 4.1 AC/DU 1.2 AC/DU 12 Planning & Development Process • PUD Amendment - in process • Preliminary Plan — 2018 • Final Plat — 2019 • Spring 2018 — begin construction of polo fields and infrastructure in Zone District 1. • 2019-2020 — infrastructure for Zone District 2. 13 Discussion & Questions. THANK YOU.