Auto Finance Calculator Louisville by ypg15560

VIEWS: 13 PAGES: 58

More Info
									                                               COUNTY OF ELBERT
COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
P.O. BOX 7
215 COMANCHE STREET
KIOWA, COLORADO 80117
303-621-3136 FAX: 303-621-3165
curtis.carlson@elbertcounty-co.gov

13 November 2008                                             V8B–CR
for the Planning Commission – sent back by Board of County Commissioners
20 November 2008

TO:     ELBERT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: CURTIS S. CARLSON, PLANNER II

RE:     RZ 07-0156 VERDE RIDGE PUD – A REQUEST TO REZONE TO
        PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 65.49 ACRES, LOCATED IN A
        PORTION OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 65 WEST, IN
        ELBERT COUNTY.

        PP 07-0157 VERDE RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT – A REQUEST TO
        SUBDIVIDE 65.49 ACRES TO CREATE A MAXIMUM OF 35
        RESIDENTIAL UNITS, LOCATED IN A PORTION OF SECTION 25,
        TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 65 WEST, IN ELBERT COUNTY.

        1041 07-02-01 VERDE RIDGE 1041 PERMIT – A REQUEST TO OBTAIN A
        1041 PERMIT AS A NEW COMMUNITY.

APPLICANT:               VERDE RIDGE LLC
                         P.O. BOX 1869
                         ELIZABETH, CO 80107

REPRESENTATIVE: TOM MARONEY

SUMMARY: Community & Development Services comments – The following Staff
report remains the same through page 44, as what the Planning Commission was
provided for the July 24th hearing. Beginning on page 44, a summary of the
interactions since July 24th, together with project issues, is provided for reference.

The changes offered by the Applicant together with the “conditions” being presented
since the July 24th Planning Commission hearing, are seen as providing
enhancement to this project. The Applicant‟s offerings are summarized as follows:
1. Summary of changes to the Verde Ridge Application offered by the Applicant




                                           1
         include:

          Commitment to provide trail linking Verde ridge and Diamond Ridge to be
           built in accordance with Elbert County standards
          Modifications to signage
          Deletion of Special Uses
          Commitment for landscaping plan for public areas to be approved by CDS
          Other modifications consistent with Richard miller‟s June 2008 Redline
           Development Guide
          Deletion of utility areas from open space credit
          Commitment to dedicate right of way instead of easements for internal
           roadways

2.       During the meeting with the Applicant‟s attorney and representative wherein
         they presented changes prior to the Planning Commission hearing scheduled
         for November 20, 2008, it was offered that the Metro District would be
         primarily responsible for maintaining the open space and consequently,
         the open space would be open to the public. The HOA would share in the
         expense and responsibility for the open space. The Metro District would be
         primarily and ultimately the responsible organization.

3.       Within the 1041 permit tab of the notebook, is a Preliminary Plan Vicinity
         map, (sheet 1 of 2), showing the Diamond Ridge connection to the Verde Ridge
         site. The following page is Verde Ridge, Preliminary Plan, (sheet 2 of 2),
         showing the proposed Diamond Ridge street re-alignment and lot re-
         configuration for connecting with Verde Ridge. The Applicant has submitted a
         re-plat to re-align the streets of Diamond Ridge with Verde Ridge. The re-plat
         needs to include the associated change to lot configuration resulting from the
         street re-alignment. This information illustrates how Diamond Ridge and
         Verde Ridge would come together as one development project.

4.   The Applicant has accomplished an update of the financial housing
     information together with a “break even” housing value for evaluating
     benefit to the County. This additional information provides an improved level
     of confidence that the financial items of the “1041” regulations have been
     appropriately addressed for the residents of Elbert County and the success of
     the subdivision.

The details of the affected changes are summarized beginning on page 44 of this
staff report.

Staff will accept the changes, (described in 1, 2, 3, & 4 above) offered by the
Applicant. If the Applicant will accept the “Conditions of Approval,” as presented
by Staff in this report, Community & Development Services will change their




                                             2
position of “Not to Support,” to “Support” for this project. Any deletion of the
changes or to the “Conditions of Approval,” as presented by Staff, void staff support.

PROJECT SUMMARY

The applicant is requesting the rezoning, subdivision and obtaining a 1041 permit
to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD site will encompass 65.49
acres and 35 residential units and a base density of 1 unit / 5.01 acres. Open space
has been reduced from 51% to 48.65% for removal of waste water facility and
detention / effluent ponds. The Applicant has deleted walking trails and a picnic
area unless he decides to add later. The development will include paved roads.

PERTINENT DATA:

Site Description – The site is located three miles north of the Town of Elizabeth,
north of the intersection of County Road 150 and CR 13. The site consists of gently
rolling hills with a natural drainage way in the northern portion of the site. There
are areas with slopes greater than 20% in the drainage channel. The site is covered
with a variety of grasses, both native and introduced. There is a small stand of
ponderosa pine trees on the northeast corner of the property

Topography – The topography consists of gently rolling hills with a natural
drainage way in the northern portion of the site.

Flood Plain – No flood plains have been identified.

Existing Zoning – Agriculture (A)

Proposed Zoning – Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD)

Surrounding Land Use and Zoning – Verde Ridge is the second of two project
submittals thus far. Diamond Ridge, adjacent to the south, was first. It was heard
by the Board of County Commissioners during September of 2006. The Applicant
has currently indicated a desire to develop Diamond Ridge together with Verde
Ridge, once they are both approved.

The west boundary of the parcel boarders on Ponderosa Park the development. The
Idleweiss Farm South A-1 property is to the north. Running Brooke is across CR 13
to the east. “A” zoned property is to the southeast.

BACKGROUND:

The original Concept Plan and 1041 permit application were received in April of
2007. The Planning Commission heard the concept plan in May and Board of




                                          3
County Commissioners in June. The purpose of these hearings was to receive
comment on the Proposal.

The current application to rezone to PUD and subdivide was received during
October of 2007.

EVALUATIONS:

It is a requirement of the Elbert County Zoning Regulations, Part I, Section 6;
Subdivision Regulations, Section VIII – Preliminary Plat, and 1041 Regulations,
Chapter 2, Article 1, 2-206 that referral agencies be utilized to evaluate land use
applications. In addition, if the application involves development of a subdivision, it
is a requirement of the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS 30-28-136), that specific
agencies be utilized as referrals on the proposal.

To that end, the Community Development Services, (CDS), Department identified
26 agencies to be utilized for review of this proposal. In addition to these agencies,
the County‟s 1041 Regulations (2-206), require that Mineral Right holders and all
surface property owners within 1,320 feet of the proposal be given referral agency
status. The referral status of surface property owners is unique to the 1041
Regulations.

Elbert County CDS – This application is a major project with significant issues
related to the proposed development. Many referral comments were received.
Copies of all referrals comments have been passed on to the Applicant. The
following process for resolving concerns, was used.

PROCESS
  1. CDS is asking the Applicant to respond, “in writing” to each issue raised by
     a Referral Agency. Selected issues are noted in Italics in this report.
     Applicant responses are provided in a different font for ease in reading.
  2. CDS will submit the Applicant‟s response to the Referral Agency for review.
  3. The Referral agency will then, respond to CDS about the adequacy of the
     Applicant‟s response.
  4. CDS will provide the Applicant with a copy of the Referral Agency‟s letter of
     satisfactory resolution or suggestion about what else may be needed to
     resolve an issue.

The following is a synopsis of the referral agency responses, Applicant‟s response,
and further referral agency comment. If there is no response, Elbert County
assumes the referral agency approves the project. Copies of complete referral
agency responses are available.

Elbert Co Assessor‟s Office – The current tax classification for ad valorem is




                                           4
agricultural grazing. This will be re-classified as vacant land or residential the
January following the final approval from the ECBCC and Planning Department.

Elbert Co Mapping – No objection.

Elbert County Building Department – No objection.

Elbert County Sheriff – No objection.

Town of Elizabeth – See following comments: Responded relative to their 3 mile
limit. Applicant responses are provided.
1. Wastewater Treatment Facility: We believe there might be an opportunity for
    the Town to provide wastewater treatment for the development. It would likely
    require a lift station and force main to transfer wastewater from the site to the
    Gold Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (GCWTP) with conveyance
    potentially occurring in CR13 right-of-way. The suggestion is worthy of
    consideration as the proliferation of small batch treatment facilities has long
    term consequences. There may be the potential for reimbursement of capital
    construction costs as other properties develop in the area and seek wastewater
    services.

     Applicant response – This property is included in and being served by the
     Diamond Ridge Water and Sanitation District, an approved and formed Water
     and Sanitation District.

2.    Section 19: Construction costs do not include costs for a wastewater treatment
      facility. Is that an oversight or were those costs included in the Diamond Ridge
      Development?

     Applicant response – Waste water treatment construction costs are not a part of
     this application. Water and waste water is being provided by the Diamond
     Ridge Water and Sanitation District.

3.    If the wastewater treatment facility is constructed in the development, does the
      Metropolitan District have the financial capabilities and expertise to provide
      long-term treatment services (i.e. adequate operating mill)?

     Applicant response – Clarification: The Diamond Ridge Water and Sanitation
     District will operate the wastewater facility and it does have the financial
     capabilities and expertise to provide this service.

4.    Preliminary Plat (note 7), states the Homeowners Association will own and
      maintain wastewater facility. We suggest the Metro District would be more
      capable as Homeowner Associations often dissipate with time.




                                           5
     Applicant response – This is an incorrect reading of plat note. Plat note only
     states HOA will own tract. Dev. Guide states that HOA will provide access for
     operation and maintenance to the Water and Sanitation District which will own
     and operate Water plant.

5.    I believe there is a building setback requirement for wastewater treatment
      facilities. I would suggest the County confirm with the CDPHE regarding those
      requirements.


     Applicant response- Applicant understands that CDPHE requires 100‟ foot
     setbacks from any residential structure and will comply with this regulation.

6.    The Town of Elizabeth advocates connected streets and would recommend the
      removal of cul-de-sacs as the road maintenance requirements are greater.

     Applicant response – The Applicant defers to the governing body, Elbert County
     Road and Bridge, which has reviewed application and has no objections along
     these lines.

7.    Who will own and maintain open space and will trails be provided? Note the
      inconsistencies of statements provided by the Applicant.
             Page 2-18 “the dedicated open space shall not be available to the
                general public.”
             Page 2-19 “Open spaces will be available to the general public.”
             Page 2-20 “Verde Ridge will provide hiking trails on the property.
                The open space will be open to the public.”
             Page 2-25 “The open space will not be available to the public.”
             Page 2-26 “Open space facilities will be open to the public.”
             Page 3- 3 “Pedestrian trails are not included in the proposal.”
     To clarify, As presented to you this evening, the Applicant‟s position is
     understood to be
             the dedicated open space shall not be available to the general public
             Pedestrian trails are not included in the proposal unless he decides to
                add them later.

     Applicant response – HOA will own and operate open space. Trails will be
     addressed at final plat.


     CDS response – CDS does not support an HOA owning and operating open
     space. There is a Metropolitan District for Verde Ridge. CDS recommends the
     open space be managed and owned the Metropolitan District.




                                           6
8.    Is the 51% open space actually all open space. According to the PUD
      Development Plan and Guide, water and wastewater facilities are located in
      the open space.

     Applicant response – Yes. Verde Ridge will follow the original rules approving
     Diamond Ridge, to wit: Open Space equals gross acreage less acreage dedicated
     to residential lots. Applicant has agreed to recalculate the open space minus
     waste water facility and detention / effluent ponds. The remaining open space is
     reported to calculate to 48.65%.

     CDS response – The Open Space Committee that has been established by the
     County as a referral agency for land use projects, has been working on a
     definition for Open Space. When land is used for other purposes such as a
     wastewater treatment facility, septic field, etc., it does not qualify as Open
     Space. Verde Ridge needs to meet Open Space area needs, (minimum 40%) from
     land area that truly is Open Space, (available to residents of the project / public
     for recreation uses).

9.    According to the PUD Development Plan and Guide, open space tracts are to be
      maintained by Metro District. Page 4-2 of the Preliminary Plat states that
      open space tracts are owned and shall be maintained by an HOA. This
      inconsistency needs to be clarified. Would suggest the Metro District has more
      staying power and should be responsible for maintenance. Preliminary Plats
      (note 6) states open space tracts owned and maintained by homeowners
      association.

     Applicant response – In order to be consistent with the approved Diamond Ridge
     Subdivision, the HOA will own and maintain the open space. It should be noted
     that the open space is passive and very little maintenance is necessary.

     CDS response – Verde Ridge will have a Metropolitan District for creating and
     maintaining public utilities. A Metropolitan District is a quasi-government
     organization, more acceptable and dependable for owning and maintaining Open
     Space. An HOA owning and maintaining Open Space as the lowest of priorities
     is the lowest of priorities for CDS.

  CDS notes that the Applicant has made conflicting statements about an intent to
  provide trails in the open space. CDS highly supports trails in open space
  providing for pedestrian connectivity among housing areas and a more useable
  and enjoyable open space experience.
Aquila – No objection.

Excel Energy – No objection. The developer should contract Public Service




                                            7
Company‟s Builder‟s Call Line at 1-800-628-2121 regarding gas and electric service
for this project. As a safety precaution, Public Service Company of Colorado would
like to remind the developer to call the utility Notification Center, at 1-800-922-
1987, to have all utilities located prior to any construction.

Colorado State Forest Service – No objection.

Colorado Division of Wildlife – No response.
Liza Hunholz, Denver

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – No objection.

Qwest – No objection. The Developer / Builder should contact Quest. Trench and
backfill activities are the Developer / Builder responsibility.
Colorado Department of Health –
   1. The plan lacks clarification on the central water and waste-water systems
        that they would be jointly used by both the Verde Ridge and Diamond Ridge
        subdivisions.
   2. I would have hoped that the plan included a test hole for ground water
        resources that showed the water quality.
   3. The plan did not include the type of waste-water effluent discharge, either
        surface or ground water.
   4. If the total discharge would be solely reuse, then a pond of substantial size
        would be required to store the effluent from 150 – 180 days.

Colorado Department of Transportation Region I – No objection. The proposed
development will have negligible impact on State Highway 86

Elizabeth Consolidated School District #C – No objection.

Elizabeth Parks & Recreation – No objection. We expect the Developer to
contribute monies to the Park District per the District‟s new Impact Fee Study,
which will be completed by 2 / 08. We‟ll forward this study to the County and the
Developer at that time.

CDS comment – Have received a copy of a letter confirming Applicant has been sent
a copy of the study.

Kiowa Conservation District – The District recommends that
   - You utilize a phased grading plan to minimize the land area disturbed by
      grading at one time to 15 acres or less.
   - Vehicle tracking control stations should be provided at all entrance and exit
      points on the site.




                                          8
   -   Due to limitations on “cut banks cave” soils, alternatives to mitigate the
       limitations where these soils exist, will be required in your engineering
       design or construction techniques.
   -   That Colorado Division of Water Resources Dam Safety Branch regulations
       be followed on all jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional ponds.

Applicant response – See file.
Kiowa Conservation District – Applicant‟s response to our comments is satisfactory.

Intermountain Rural Electric Assn – Standard cmts. The Association has existing
overhead electric facilities on the subject property. The Association will maintain
these existing utility easements and facilities unless otherwise requested by the
applicant to modify them under the Association‟s current extension policies.

The Association is requesting utility easements to accommodate the installation of
front-lot design for electric facilities in this project, a ten foot (10‟) easement on all
front-lot will be required. Further, a five-foot (5‟) utility easement is required on
one side-lot line of each lot.

Elbert County Environmental Health – See following concerns: Applicant‟s
response to our comments is satisfactory.
      1. Different maps were presented in material to be review. On some maps,
           the waste water holding ponds near the treatment plant were called:
           “retention / irrigation pond” or “effluent pond.” Are these the same
           thing?

       Applicant response – The map presented as part of this application (“Pre-
       Plan” page 2) shows two detention ponds which will be used for storm water
       detention and an effluent pond which will contain water treated and used for
       irrigation.

       2.   Diamond Ridge will be providing the water for this subdivision. We
            assume that when Diamond Ridge was created and approved, it was with
            extra water treatment
            capabilities to supply this subdivision with enough water per demand.
              -   Is this true?
              -   Did the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
                  (CDPHE) approve the water system for Diamond Ridge including
                  increased capacity for Verde Ridge?


       Applicant response – The State of Colorado, not Elbert County, approves
       Potable Water Systems. Diamond Ridge was approved with a “Condition of
       approval” that no building permits will be issued until the State approves the




                                             9
      design of water treatment plant. The potable water treatment plant for
      Diamond Ridge is being developed and will ensure an adequate supply for
      both developments.

      3.   The waste water treatment plant for both subdivisions will be located in
           Verde Ridge.
           It must be sized to treat both subdivisions.
             - Has it been approved by CDPHE?

      Applicant response – This plant is in the design phase and will be sized to
      meet the needs of both subdivisions.

      4.   The treated effluent will be used to irrigate lots and open space.
            - Will it be supplying this water also to Diamond Ridge?
            The text indicated that each lot will have dual water supply to it. One
            for domestic drinking water and one for irrigating. There must be
            safeguards that no cross connections are encountered.
            - Can the Developer supply this department with other local
             subdivisions that have this dual water system and how will (sic) it has
             worked?

      Applicant response – Treated effluent will be used to irrigate both
      developments. State-approved regulations will safeguard against cross-
      connection issues. Applicant will comply with State Regulation 84 to prevent
      any cross-connections. Applicant has been provided with the following list of
      local jurisdictions that employ reuse of effluent for irrigation. 1. Parker
      Water & Sanitation, 2. Plum Creek WW Authority, 3. Lone Tree, 4. Aurora,
      Metro / Denver water have a huge project going, 6. Yuma, 7. Broomfield, 8.
      Colorado Springs, 9. Superior, 10. Kremmling, 11. Fort Collins, 12. Louisville.

            Will there be any parks with pavilions? If so, will there be restrooms
            available? If so, they must be properly sewered to the waste water
            treatment plant. A septic system would be discouraged.

      Applicant response – There will be no pavilions and therefore no restrooms or
      need for waste water treatment.

      5.   There will be numerous ponds (detention, retention, effluent, etc) onsite.
           These must be managed to reduce odors and vector problems mosquito).

       Applicant response – Agreed.
Elbert County Environmental Health: Applicant‟s response to our comments is
satisfactory.




                                         10
Elizabeth Fire District – Please consider these comments as “conditions of
approval.” Applicant‟s response to our comments is satisfactory

      1. Developer has indicated that roadways will meet the minimum
         requirements of the Elbert County road construction guidelines. These
         access ways shall comply as well with the provisions set forth by the
         County Road Engineer.

      2. Approved street signs shall be installed prior to the construction of any
         building within the subdivision.

      3. A map of the development with approved addresses for each lot including
         the water system tract shall be submitted to this office prior to
         recordation of final plat.

      4. Developer shall design or provide an approved means for marking each
         residence. This marking shall be installed at the entrance to the street
         and shall meet the following criteria.
            o 4 inch high numbers with a ½” stroke
            o Colors that contrast the background

      5. Developer shall provide an 8 ½” x 11” graphic map of the division that
         indicates the
          Following:
           o Lot lines
           o Developed and un-developed property addresses
           o Fire Hydrant locations
           o Directional indicator
           o Approved road names

       Water Supply (903): Water supply and fire protection provisions shall
      be provided prior to and during construction of any structure within
      the project.

      1.   The Developer shall provide a minimum fire flow of 1000 gallons per
            minute for a 60-minute duration using a central water delivery system.
            This flow shall be provided in excess of the normal domestic water
            demand. The central delivery system shall be engineered to provide
            such flow using listed equipment and methods approved by this office.


      2.   Approved fire hydrants shall be installed and spaced every 500 feet and
           shall be approved by this office (see attached hydrant spec sheet).




                                         11
      3    A plan review and final acceptance test of all hydrants and auxiliary
           appliances shall be scheduled and performed prior to construction of any
           building or structure.

      4.   Applicant shall provide an avenue for the fire district to obtain a water
           usage agreement with the development. This agreement allows the fire
           district to access water supplies for fires within and surrounding the
           development.

      5.   Water Line Contractor shall provide adequate documentation of testing
           and inspection results from the designated Inspector/ Authority

           overseeing this project. Contact this office for more information
           regarding this provision.

      General Provisions: A plan review fee of $280.00 is due prior to recording the
      final plat.

      Applicant‟s response – See File.

      Elizabeth Fire District – Applicant‟s response to our comments is
      satisfactory.

Colorado Division of Water – The proposal is to subdivide 65.49 acres into 35 single-
family residential lots. According to the submittal, the estimated water
requirements total 23.1 acre-feet annually. This amount breaks down to 0.57 acre-
feet / year for each lot, consisting of .040 acre-feet / year for in house use and 0.17
acre-feet / year for the irrigation of 3000 square feet of home gardens and lawns; 3
acre-feet for the irrigation of 1.5 acres of open space; and 0.15 acre-feet for water
requirements for the wastewater treatment and storage facility. Sewage treatment
will be provided by a central wastewater treatment system.

The proposed water supplier is the diamond Ridge Water & Sanitation District
(“District”). According to the referral information, the District will be used to serve
both this proposed subdivision and the Diamond Ridge subdivision. The District
has not provided a letter of commitment for service.
      Prior to further evaluation of the water supply plan, the Applicant must
      include a letter of commitment for service from the District.

Applicant response – Diamond Ridge Water and Sanitation District has supplied a

letter of commitment of service to the State Engineer, BOCC, and Elbert County
Planning Department.




                                           12
 As required in Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(ll), C.R.S., a municipality or quasi-
municipality, upon receiving the preliminary plan designating said municipality or
quasi-municipality as the source of water for a proposed subdivision, shall file, with
the board of County Commissioners and the State Engineer, a statement
documenting the amount of water which can be supplied by said municipality or
quasi-municipality to proposed subdivision without causing injury to existing water
rights. To expedite the evaluation of the water supply for the subdivision, a water
supply report or statement should include:
       * A summary of water rights owned or controlled by the District,
       * The yield of these rights both in an average year and a dry year,
       * The present demand on the system and the anticipated demand due to
           commitments for service entered into by the District, and

      *    The amount of uncommitted firm supply the District has available for
           future development.
      A report of this nature has not been submitted by the District and must be
      submitted prior to further evaluation of the water supply plan.

Applicant response – Diamond Ridge Water and Sanitation District has supplied
required documentation to the State Engineer, BOCC, and Elbert County Planning
Department.

According to the records available in the State Engineer‟s Office, the Applicant is
currently seeking to decree the Denver Basin groundwater underlying the proposed
subdivision in Division 1 Water Court case no. 2007CW162. If this water will be
used by the District to serve the subdivision, a decree must be obtained in case no.
2007CW162 prior to further evaluation of the water supply plan.

Applicant response – Final Decree issued January 8, 2008.

Pursuant to Section 30-28-13691)(h)(ll), C.R.S., the State Engineer‟s Office has not
received enough information to render an opinion regarding the potential for
causing material injury to decreed water rights, or the adequacy of the proposed
water supply.

Colorado Division of Water – We have reviewed your 25 January 2008 submittal
concerning additional information for the above referenced proposal to subdivide
65.49 acres into 35 residential lots and open space. Treating Elbert County‟s
requirement as an allocation approach based on three hundred years, . . . the
water may be withdrawn in an annual amount of 42.4 acre feet / year for a
maximum of 300 years.
It is the opinion of the State Engineer‟s Office that the water supply is adequate, . .
. based upon current conditions and that the water supply can be provided without
causing injury. (more later)




                                          13
Elbert County Road & Bridge – See following comments: Applicant‟s response to
our comments is satisfactory
       All roads will be dedicated to the County at the time of final plat.
          Amended Jan 2, 2008: During the presentation of the project at the
          Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant‟s Representative responded
          that the Applicant would dedicate “right-of-ways” to Elbert County in
          Verde & Diamond Ridge, thus upgrading both projects to current Elbert
          County Road & Bridge standards. (This response supercedes an earlier
          request by the Applicant to Road & Bridge, to only provide easements.)

          All utilities will be located within a separate 10 foot easement from the
           road right-of-way.
        All cul-de-sacs will be a minimum 50 foot paved radius.
        Fire hydrants will be located a minimum of 10 feet from the shoulder of
           the road and delineated.
        Individual mailboxes will not be allowed. A mail box kiosk must be used,
           it must be designed and approved by County Engineering and must not
           impede the flow of traffic.
        The traffic study is being referred to County Engineering for comment
           and approval.
        The drainage study is being referred to County Engineering for comment
           and approval.
        Construction drawing which include a sign plan must be approved by
           County Engineering and Road and Bridge.
        A Stormwater Permit issued by the Water Quality Control Division of the
           Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment must on file
           with Road and Bridge.
        The Storm Water Management Plan will be reviewed by County
           Engineering.
        Operation and Maintenance Responsibility of the Storm Drainage and
           Detention Pond systems must be determined before final plat.
        Operation and Maintenance Responsibility of the open space, parks and
           trail system must be determined before final plat.
        Impact Fees will be used by the developer for off-site improvements as
           determined by Road and Bridge and County Engineering.
        Before any work can begin, an over-lot grading permit, storm-water
           permit and road permit must be on file with Road and Bridge.
        Third Party inspections will be agreed upon at Construction Drawing
           Review.
Applicant response – See file.
Elbert County Road & Bridge – The Applicant‟s response to our comments is
satisfactory.




                                         14
Elbert County Engineer – See following comments: see page 19?
Section 1 – Executive Summary

      Please include the capacity of the wastewater treatment system.
Section 2 – 1041 Application

         2.1    Is the Elbert County Environmental Health office in support of this
                approach?
         2.3    Please provide the water supply and distribution design as indicated
                 but not included.
         2.3    A water storage reservoir with a capacity of 135,000 is proposed. Is
                 this system already designed (in conjunction with Diamond Ridge)?
                 Is this system currently approved by CDFPHE?
         2.3    It is stated that a dual pipe water system has been designed to
                 provide separate systems for potable water and treated effluent for
                 irrigation purposes. Please provide this design for review.
         2.4    The peak flow of the wastewater treatment facility was left blank.
                 Please provide the peak flow, the basis for using a peaking factor of
                 1.5 and the supporting design and data that is indicated to be
                  included.
         2.4    With regards to the Diamond Ridge Water and sanitation District,
                does the service plan need to be amended to include the 35 additional
                 homes from Verde Ridge? If so, please include in the subsequent
                 submittal. Please include both Diamond Ridge and Verde Ridge in
                 the proposed condition as well as the proposed back ground traffic
                 estimated in the Elbert County Traffic Master Plan. Using this
                 information, are accel, decal, right turn and left turn lanes
                 necessary?
         2.9    Please include a copy of the environmental assessment in the
                 subsequent submittal.
         2.9.5 CDH&E should be CDPHE.
         2.10.1 Please provide written confirmation from the Elizabeth school District
                affirming student population growth calculations and impact fees.

Section 3 – No comment at this time.

Section 4 – Preliminary Plat

Is the easement recorded for Verde Ridge Trail connection to CR 13? If so, please
provide reception and book number. If not, please provide the easement. Please
indicate location of the required 10‟ snow storage easements along roadways.

4.5 #8     Please remove the word easements for the Applicant response.




                                           15
4.5 #15   Please provide the peak gallons per day for sewage to be treated.

4.5 #18   The Applicant response indicates that the answer is located in Section 9
          Water Supply. This section refers to water rights; not gallons per day of
          production / consumption. Please provide.

4.5 #30   Please provide the Road Construction Plans that were indicated as
          submitted under separate cover.
Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: No comment at this time.

Section 10 – Utility Report

Please provide with the subsequent submittal, as there was not a utility report
included with this submittal.

Utility System Report – Please respond to all comments in writing.
       Comment 1: Please clearly identify in the report, if and where the domestic
       and irrigation distribution systems are combined.

      Applicant response: The irrigation and domestic systems are independent
      and the report has been revised to remove references to a combined system.

      Comment 2: In Table 1, Water Supply Demand Parameters, the potable
      demand is 265 gpud. Please explain how this value was derived.

      Applicant response: All water demand parameters are taken from the South
      Adams County Water and sanitation District “Design and Construction
      Standards for Water and Wastewater Facilities,” November 2002. The
      reference has been added to the table in the report.

      Comment 3: Please verify the irrigation distribution system pressure will
      be adequate to service all lots without further need of design or review by the
      homeowner or developer.

      Applicant response: The irrigation system will supply sufficient pressure to
      the entire subdivision and the reference to homebuilder verification has been
      removed.



      Comment 4: Please explain why the fire flow is added to the irrigation
      demands if the irrigation system is proposed to be separate from the domestic
      water distribution system.




                                         16
      Applicant response: Fire flows will not be delivered thru the irrigation
      system and the reference has been removed from the report.

      Comment 5: Please verify how the waste water design values (ADF) were
      derived.

      Applicant response: All waste water design values are taken from the South
      Adams County Water and Sanitation District “Design and Construction
      Standards for Water and Wastewater Facilities,” November 2002. The
      reference has been added to the table in the report.
      Comment 6: Please update the text to state that all crossings involving
      sanitary sewer will result in the sanitary line being below the conflicting
      utility or the necessary precautions stated in the latest Elbert County
      Standards will be applied.

      Applicant response: The statement has been added to the sanitary sewer
      section of the report.

      Recommendations:
           Each of the above listed items should be revised and resubmitted prior
           to approval of the Verde Ridge Utility System Report.

      Elbert County Engineering: The Utility Report has been reviewed in
      accordance with approved Elbert County regulations and is acceptable as a
      preliminary submittal.

Section 11 – Soils: No comment at this time.
Section 12 – Weed Management Plan

It is recommended that the weed management plan implementation shall be the
responsibility of the Metro District.

Section – Drainage Report

Please insure that the basin acreages are consistent between the report and the
maps. An example is Basin B is identified as being 39.81 acres in the report, but
add up to 41.18 acres on the map.

Please clarify WQCCV calculations, if calculated via the method in USDCM Vol. 3.
Please specify drain time and show calculations.

Elbert County does not accept ownership or maintenance responsibility for Storm-
water facilities. It is recommended that the Metro District assume ownership and
maintenance responsibilities for the Storm-water management system.




                                         17
Preliminary Drainage Report – Please respond to all comments in writing.

      Comment 1: Onsite detention is required for all new development,
      expansion and redevelopment. Please include table or chart to show that the
      site is releasing at historic rates that include the basins flowing offsite which
      are un-detained.

     Applicant response: A release rate table has been added to the Preliminary
     Drainage Plan Map.

      Comment 2: Under section Drainage Facility Design page 6, there is
      mention of proposed site grading to include a berm behind the lots located
      west of Road C in the northwest corner of the site. Please include the
      proposed contours for the berm grading in the Preliminary Drainage Plan
      Map.

      Applicant response: The berm contours are shown and labeled on the plan
      map. This berm will be detailed in the construction plans at final submittal.

      Comment 3: Please include erosion control measures in the final report in
      conformance with the Urban Drainage Flood Control District Manual
      UDFCD (Volume 3).

      Applicant response: Erosion control measures will be included with the final
      report and construction plans.

      Comment 4: Include the calculation spreadsheet for sizing detention basins
      using the Urban Drainage Flood Control Districts Detention Volume
      Estimating Workbook, located on the UDFCD website.

      Applicant response: The UDFCD spreadsheet is included in the appendix to
      the drainage report.

      Comment 5: Include the 100-yr Storm Water Detention Volume
      Requirements and release rates.

      Applicant response: The detention volume requirements and release rates
      are included with the UDFCD spreadsheet print-outs.

      Comment 6: Page A-49 is missing.

      Applicant response: This page was the 100-yr. detention requirements and
      has been replaced with the UDFCD detention workbook.




                                          18
Comment 7: Please include storm pipe sizes and inlet sizes.

Applicant response: The inlets are standard Type „C‟ inlets. All pipes and a
culvert will be sized with the final report and construction plan submittal.

Comment 8: Please include a stage storage table for the detention ponds in
the final drainage submittal.

Applicant response: The stage storage tables are included with the UDFCD
spreadsheet printouts.

Comment 9: Please reference the drainage report for the Diamond Ridge
Subdivision and discuss how both subdivisions will utilize some of the same
drainage structures.

Applicant response: Reference is made to the Diamond Ridge Subdivision
runoff being a part of this drainage plan.

Comment 10: Please include WQCC calculations in the final report in
conformance with the Urban Drainage Flood Control District Manual
(UDFCD).

Applicant response: The EURV calculations for storage and 72-hour drain
time are included with the UDFCD spreadsheet print-outs.

Comment 11: Please include outfall structure calculations in the final report
in conformance with the Urban Drainage Flood Control District Manual
(UDFCD).

Applicant response: The pond outlet structures will be detailed with the final
report and construction plan submittal.

Comment 12: Please include culvert calculations in conformance with the
Urban Drainage Flood Control District Manual (UDFCD).

Applicant response: All culvert calculations and riprap outlet protection will
be included with the final report and construction plan submittal.


Comment 13: Please include a typical cross section of the proposed rock lined
swale north of both cul-de-sacs.

Applicant response: Swale / rundown worksheets and cross sections are




                                   19
      included in the appendix to the report.

      Recommendations –
           Each of the above listed items should be revised and resubmitted prior
           to approval of the Verde Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Drainage
           Report.

      Elbert County Engineering, (CH2MHILL): The Drainage Report has been
      reviewed in accordance with approved Elbert County regulations and is
      acceptable as a preliminary submittal

Section 14 – Traffic

Please add both Diamond Ridge and the estimated background traffic volumes used
in the Elbert County Traffic Master Plan.

Section 15, 16, 17, 18: No comment at this time.
Section 19 – Costs

Grading was not included. Please include in the subsequent submittal.

The water treatment / storage facility was not included. Please include in
subsequent submittal.

The sewage treatment facility was not included. Please include in subsequent
submittal.

The irrigation pump station was not included. Please include in subsequent
submittal.

The model contents are identified in sections 1-4, but sections 1-4 specific to the
Spring Valley Vistas development are not included. Please include in next
submittal.

Section 20 – Preble‟s Mouse

Please provide environmental assessment with subsequent submittal.

Section 21: No comment at this time.

Elbert County Engineering: The following listed submittals have been reviewed in
accordance with approved Elbert County regulations and are acceptable as
preliminary submittals for PUD Application:
       Verde Ridge Traffic Report




                                          20
         Verde Ridge Engineer‟s Probable Costs
         Verde Ridge Real Estate Option Agreement
         Verde Ridge Wastewater Treatment Facility Application
         Verde Ridge Sanitation District Service Plan


Colorado State Geological Survey – According to the geotechnical report, the site is
underlain by soil and bedrock that, in areas, may be slightly prone to consolidation
or expansion. These recommendations are based on limited information and
additional testing will need to be done. Prior to issuance of building permits, a site-
specific foundation investigation, including a test boring, should be completed for
each lot. Prior to final approval of pavement design, additional soil testing should
be done.

Grading adjacent to steep slopes along Running Creek may result in construction-
related instability. In other areas, moderate amounts of fill will be placed on
steeper slopes and in drainages.

Before the approval of final construction plans, it would also be prudent for the
county to ensure the final construction plans are reviewed and approved by a
geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer should review the plans to ensure
fills will be properly constructed and for potential slope stability issues.

Colorado State Geological Survey – Because of concerns listed in the geotechnical
report, the County should get a letter from the geotech before final plans are
approved. Otherwise, we have no problems with the application.

Mineral Interest Owners – The applicant indicates he owns all the mineral rights.

FINDINGS:

Evaluation of this proposal requires compliance with the major portions of the
Elbert County Zoning, Subdivision and 1041 Regulations. In addition, the proposal
is to be evaluated with regard to the relevant portions of the Elbert County Master
Plan.

Zoning Regulation Compliance – The requirements for the rezoning of the site are
contained in Part I, Section 6 and Part II, Section 16 of the Zoning Regulations.

CDS believes the applicant has submitted the necessary documentation to satisfy
the requirements of Part I, Section 6, (Rezoning procedure), of the Zoning
Regulations, including proper public notice.

It is a requirement of the Zoning Regulations that all requests for rezoning address




                                          21
the seven adopted Standards of Approval. The following is the CDS response to
those Standards:

   1. Whether the proposed rezoning complies with the requirements of the Elbert
      County Master Plan – A complete response to the Master Plan requirements
      will occur later in this report. This project is in the “High Density Rural
      Residential Area” as defined in the Elbert County Master Plan. The Rural
      Residential-High Density Land Use Area has a developmental density of one
      unit per 3.0 to 10.0 acres. The base density, (5.01 acres) for this project is
      within the 3 to 10 acres per lot. Additional density bonuses for central water
      & sewer and conservation and reuse systems are requested, (175% of base
      density).

      The proposed rezoning calls for 35 home-sites. It complies with the
      requirements of the Master Plan for density and open space (over 47.5%),
      when water conservation & reuse programs are provided. Water
      availability (exceeding 300 years supply), is identified in the Water
      plan. Data provided does not satisfy the recent State Water ACT
      requirements.

      The current Adjacency requirement in the Master Plan indicates that 1/6 of
      the site perimeter be adjacent to similar or smaller size parcels. This
      requirement is met considering Diamond Ridge compliance per Zoning
      Regulations, Part I, Section 6.

   2. Whether the proposed rezoning is compatible with surrounding land uses –
      Verde Ridge is adjacent to Diamond Ridge which has 27, approximately, one
      acre lots. The project does meet the adjacency requirements of Master Plan
      provided compliance per Zoning Regulations, Part I, Section 6, B. is obtained.
      Furthermore, the project design provides for clustering of the homes resulting
      in more open space than the required 40%. There are additional residential
      developments in the area, including Ponderosa Park, Idleweiss Farm South,
      and Running Brook Estates.

   3. Whether the proposed rezoning would adversely impact the provision of
   public
      service – No adverse comments were received from any of the public service
      providers.

  4. Whether the proposed rezoning would adversely impact the environment –
     Several referral agencies provided comments related to possible
     environmental impacts. The Applicant has responded in a satisfactory
     manner to many of the agency comments.




                                         22
   5. Whether the proposed rezoning would create traffic congestion or burden the
      existing road system – The traffic study was prepared by LSC

       Transportation Consultants. The report concluded that the existing road
       network is capable of handling the new traffic generated by Verde Ridge.

      Elbert County Engineering, has responded to the Planning Department, that
      the Applicant‟s responses to their comments, has been reviewed and found to
      be complete.

      Elbert County Road & Bridge – The Applicant‟s response to our comments is
      satisfactory.

    6. Whether there has been a substantial change in the character of the
       neighborhood since the land was last rezoned – The most recent rezoning
       request in this area was Diamond Ridge, approved for 27 homesites by the
       BOCC in 2006. The preliminary plat was recorded in Feb of 2008. No final
       plat has been recorded. Verde Ridge is adjacent to Diamond Ridge. The
       Applicant intends to provide connecting streets between the two and develop
       them together.

   7. Whether the proposed rezoning will not otherwise be detrimental to the
health,
      safety or welfare of the present or future inhabitants of Elbert County – No
      detrimental aspects have been identified during referral of the proposed
      rezoning. In some parts of the plan, the Applicant states that Open Space
      will be available to the general public and in other places, states it will not
      available to the public. The Applicant has clarified that open space will not
      be available to the public. Unless open space is open to public use, there is
      no perceived value to present or future inhabitants of Elbert County except
      those within the subdivision. Even then, the Applicant talks about passive
      open space. Passive open space has only no “active” value. The Applicant
      has indicated in the Development Guide, that he may provide trail if he
      decides it to be necessary. No mention has been provided about picnic areas
      or amenities, even for the residents of the subdivision.

      The Applicant is however, requesting that Elbert County grant him the
      maximum density bonuses available. This project may not be detrimental to
      the general welfare of present or future inhabitants of Elbert County,
      however CDS has certainly observed no enhancements either.


Subdivision Regulation Compliance – The submitted documentation must address,
as appropriate, the Subdivision Regulations Sections II, IV, V, VIII, IX, XIII, XIV,




                                         23
XV, XVI, XVII and I.

The submitted documentation has satisfied the applicable requirements of Sections
II, IV, V, VIII, XVI, and XVII.

For Section XIII, several months ago, the Applicant requested to be allowed road
easements instead of the now required road right-of-ways because that would be
similar to their proposal for Diamond Ridge. Road & Bridge did provide them a
letter saying it was ok. However, a review of Diamond Ridge staff report later,
identified road right-of-ways were requested by Elbert County then also.

It appears the Applicant ignored the request then, as it wasn‟t a Road & Bridge
regulation at the time. During the presentation of the project at the Planning
Commission hearing, the Applicant‟s Representative responded that the Applicant
would dedicate “right-of-ways” to Elbert County in Verde & Diamond Ridge, thus
upgrading both projects to current Elbert County Road & Bridge standards. (This
response supercedes an earlier request by the Applicant to Road & Bridge, to only
provide easements. Thank you.

For Section XIII, K. Landscaping: The approved landscape plan shall list the types
of planting materials to be used and a schedule for seeding and planting. The
Applicant has not provided such information.

For Section XIV, A. 2. b. “In subdivisions with an average net residential lot size of
one and one-half (1.5) acres or less: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, (trails), and
streetlights may be required, in accord with Elbert County Road and Bridge
standards.” CDS recommends exercising the “may.” The Applicant is proposing
none of these in the Plan or Development Guide, yet is, requesting that Elbert
County grant him the maximum density bonuses available.

Section IX Final Plat – There has been no submitted Final Plat documentation with
this application.

Section XV – To be completed.

Section XVI Vested Property Rights – This section outlines the vesting period and
the ability for the applicant and Elbert County to extend the vesting under certain
conditions. A plat note will be required to comply with the specific language in this
section.

Section I Enacting Clauses – In Subsection C - Acceptance of a Subdivision - There
are three specific criteria which shall be considered by the Planning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners in their respective review of all
applications for subdivisions. The following is Community & Developments




                                          24
Service‟s response to these criteria:

1.      Whether the application is in compliance with the requirements of these
        regulations, the Elbert County Zoning Regulations and the Elbert County
        Master Plan.

        CDS Response – The Division of Water Resources has deemed the Water
        Availability adequate. All infrastructure design must be reviewed and
        approved by all appropriate agencies. Data, subject to review, “sufficient to
        satisfy the new Colorado Water ACT, will need to be provided for new wells.

2.      Whether the application is in compliance with all statutory provisions.

        CDS Response – Community and Development Services believes that this
        application appears to have satisfied the statutory provisions related to
        Zoning, however, there remain questions and concerns about Subdivision,
        and 1041, as noted throughout the report. Additional comment is provided
        under Community & Development Services Comments / concerns.

3.      Whether the application is in compliance with the Colorado Health
        Department and the Colorado Department of Transportation regulations.

        CDS Response – The Colorado Department of Health will ultimately need to
        approve the central water system and central sewer system. There are not
        any known violations of concerns of Colorado Department of Transportation
        regulations.

1041 Regulations Compliance – CDS believes the applicant has submitted the
necessary documentation to satisfy the intent of Chapter 4, Article 3, 4-305 –
Application Submittal Requirements. In accordance with the requirements
specified in Chapter 4, Article 3, 4-306, the Planning Commission is holding
hearings on this application and will forward appropriate recommendations to the
Board of County Commissioners.

The following are the 1041 Regulation approval criteria, the responses by the
applicant to those criteria and as appropriate comments from Community &
Development Services.

     1) The Board of County Commissioners shall approve an application for a
        permit for site selection and development of a new community (with
        reasonable conditions, if any, in the discretion of the Board of County
        Commissioners) only if the proposed site selection and development complies
        with the following criteria, to the extent applicable:




                                           25
a. The health, welfare and safety of the citizens of this County will be
   protected and served.

   Applicant Response – Verde Ridge will provide improved tax base and
   support for County services. It will provide fire protection systems
   consistent with code requirements, including hydrants.

   CDS Response – The proposal should protect the health and safety of
   citizens of the County in that central water / central sewer systems are
   proposed.

b. The natural and socio-economic environment of this County will be
   protected and enhanced.

   Applicant Response – Verde Ridge will provide natural and active open
   spaces. The open space will not be available to the public. Active open
   space has been withdrawn.

   CDS Response – Summary: Inconsistent statements were made in
   the Plan about use & amenities of Open Space. 1) Active open space
   has been withdrawn as finalized by the Applicant. 2) No pedestrian
   circulation is proposed in the finalized proposal. 3) There is no
   design incorporated into the development to minimize conflict between
   pedestrian and auto traffic and to allow pedestrians to safely travel
   throughout the neighborhood. 4) So, how is the socio-economic
   environment of Elbert County enhanced?

   On page 2-20, Section 2.12.2 of your proposal, as well as in Section 2.22
   of the 1041 Permit Criteria (l) you declare that Open Space will be
   open to the public. That is supported by CDS, in that as confirmed in
   the facts identified during the Master Plan update, useable open space
   with trails and parks are reasons two (2) and three (3) --- after schools,
   that attract people to a residential location. There are other places in
   your plan that state otherwise. This needs to be clarified. Active open
   space has been withdrawn as finalized by the Applicant. .

   A Pedestrian circulation system is proposed. No pedestrian circulation
   is proposed in the finalized proposal. The PUD Development
   Guide should address Open Space, including Landscape, Pedestrian
   Amenities and Trails. Trails and foot bridges shall be designated for
   active pedestrian use and incorporated into the development to
   minimize conflicts and allow pedestrians to safely travel throughout
   the neighborhood and connect to adjacent public ways. There is no
   design incorporated into the development to minimize conflict between




                                26
   pedestrian and auto traffic and to allow pedestrians to safely travel
   throughout the neighborhood.

   Additional detailed discussion about park and trail design landscaping
   and vegetation type and connectivity throughout the subdivision and
   with Diamond Ridge to the south, would be very helpful in
   communicating the desirability of the project. How will Verde Ridge &
   Diamond Ridge projects ultimately be developed together?

   CDS believes that a Metropolitan District / third party is an
   appropriate choice, to manage and maintain the open space,
   landscaping, pedestrian amenities and trails and bridges. An HOA is
   the lowest of priorities. Experiences with them, in Elbert County,
   have not illustrated dependability. Regular maintenance and
   responsible management are essential to long-term up-keep and
   quality of the open space and recreation experiences for Elbert County
   residents.

   Elizabeth Parks & Recreation commented that they expect the
   Developer to contribute monies to the Park District per the District‟s
   new Impact Fee Study, which now complete. A copy the
   study has been mailed to the County and the Developer.

c. The applicant has presented and is committed to a satisfactory
   program to mitigate, and minimize adverse impacts.

   Applicant Response – A team of design and engineering professionals
   has identified and mitigated project impacts. Issues addressed include
   (1) environmental, (2) fiscal, and (3) community impacts.

    (1)   Environmental issues include the land plan, drainage, wildlife
          habitats, and geology.
    (2)   Fiscal issues include costs and benefits of Verde Ridge. The
          fiscal benefits of the development, including cash-in-lieu
          payments and upfront fees, will be positive.

                CDS response: The fiscal benefits are questionable.
                As required, the applicant contracted with BBC Research
                & Consultants to evaluate the proposal against the
                County Impact Model. The evaluation indicates a positive
                fiscal impact to the County when using the sales values of
                $550,000.00 per lot provided by the Applicant. Build-out
                is forecast to occur in 5-7 years. The Applicant provided
                this forecast without evidence of a Residential Absorption




                               27
                Study.

                For example, with only 10 percent down, a monthly
                payment for a purchaser during a 30 year, fixed interest
                loan at 5.625%, (April 10, 2008), would be only $3780.00.
                Qualifying buyer annual income would need to be
                $161,962.00 – See Mortgage Qualifier Calculator).

                If the average residential price materializes at a lower
                number, the metro district becomes in danger of failing
                because resulting tax revenue from the mill levy is less
                and the burden of making up the difference falls on the
                existing lot owners.

        (3) Community impacts include visual, traffic, and services. The
           developer has worked to refine the design and development
           program to address issues of concern.

d. The nature and location or expansion of the new community complies
   with the intent of all applicable provisions of the Master Plan of this
   County, and other applicable regional, metropolitan, state, and
   national plans.

   Applicant Response – Verde Ridge has been designed to comply with
   the Master Plan recommendation for the area.

   CDS Response – The discussion of Master Plan compliance will occur
   later in this report. In general, the application is in compliance with
   the developmental density of the Rural Residential-High Density Land
   Use Area.

e. The nature and location or expansion of the new community will not
   create an expansion of the demand for government services beyond the
   reasonable capacity of the community or region to provide such
   services, as determined by the Board, or the plan contains adequate
   mitigation of such demands; in particular, the new community shall, at
   a minimum, provide for transportation, waste disposal, schools, and
   other governmental services in a manner that will not overload
   facilities of existing communities in the impact area.


   Applicant Response – Verde Ridge will not overload governmental
   services. All roads serving the site have adequate capacity. Central
   water and central wastewater treatment will be provided by an




                               28
    existing water and sanitation district. Fire protection will include on-
    site water storage and fire hydrants, consistent with the requirements
    of the Fire District.

    Elizabeth School District will work with the development to mitigate
    any impacts; the Applicant accepts the fee schedule required by the
    District.

 f. Priority is given to the development of a total community which
    provides for commercial and industrial activity, as well as residences
    and for internal transportation and circulation patterns.

    Applicant Response – Verde Ridge will provide single family home-
    sites, open space, and recreational amenities. No commercial or
    industrial facilities will be included.

    CDS response – As of this time, we know of “NO” recreational
    amenities.

g.(i) The nature and location of the new community or expansion will not
      adversely affect the water quality or water rights of any upstream,
      downstream, or agricultural users, adjacent communities or other
      water users.

    Applicant Response – Sufficient water rights are available for the
    development. The development will not adversely impact water rights
    for other users. Water rights have been adjudicated through the water
    court.

    CDS Response – The State Engineer‟s Office responded that in their
    opinion, the proposed water supply is adequate and can be provided
    without causing injury to decreed water rights. The opinion that the
    water supply is adequate, is based on their determination that the
    amount of water required annually to serve the subdivision is
    currently physically available, based on current estimated aquifer
    conditions.

    It is further, their opinion that the water supply can be provided
    without causing injury, based on the determination that the amount of
    water that is legally available on an annual basis, according to the
    statutory allocation approach, for the proposed uses, is greater than
    the annual amount of water required to supply existing water
    commitments and the demands of the proposed subdivision.




                                29
      With reference to the new Colorado Water ACT, Water Court
      decrees require that, for new wells, the entire length of the open
      borehole, except the surface casing, shall be geophysically surveyed
      prior to casing and copies of the of the geophysical log submitted to the
      Division of Water Resources within 60 days.

      For decrees, the Court retains jurisdiction to provide for the
      adjustment of the annual amount of withdrawal to conform to the
      actual local aquifer characteristics, as determined from analysis of
      data obtained when the well was constructed. Any person, including
      the State Engineer can invoke the Court‟s retained jurisdiction, upon
      notification of retained jurisdiction, shall utilize data available to him
      and make a Final Determination of Eater Rights Finding within 4
      months and submit same to the Water Court.
      Elbert County will use geophysical logs, water rate testing and
      production data and other information to evaluate the water
      availability according to the State ACT.

g.(ii) Adequate water supplies are available for new community needs.

      Applicant Response – Adequate adjudicated water rights are available
      for the development.

      CDS Response – See g.(i) above.

g.(iii) The existing water quality of affected state waters will not be degraded
      below state and federal standards or established baseline levels.

      Applicant Response – Water quality will not be negatively impacted by
      the development because of the engineered drainage program and the
      wastewater treatment facility.

      CDS Response – The Applicant has meet with referral agencies
      commenting on drainage and submitted a satisfactory response to their
      concerns.

g.(iv) The proposed project will not have a significantly adverse net effect on
      the capacities or functioning of streams, lakes and reservoirs in the
      impact area, nor on the permeability, volume, recharge capability and
      depth of the aquifers in the impact area.


      Applicant Response – A drainage plan has been prepared by Paragon
      Engineering consultants. (See Section 13) There will be no change in




                                   30
   the off-site historical flow from the site. There will be minimal change
   in volume recharge capability and depth of aquifers as a result of
   development.

   CDS Response – The Applicant has meet with referral agencies
   commenting on drainage and submitted a satisfactory response to their
   concerns.

h. Adequate electric, gas, telephone, water, sewage, and other utilities
   exist or shall be developed to service the site.
   Applicant Response – Adequate utilities are available and will be
   provided. A central water system and central wastewater treatment
   system will be provided.

i. The applicant has obtained or will obtain all property rights, permits,
   and approvals necessary for the proposed project, including surface,
   mineral, and water rights and easements for drainage, disposal,
   utilities, access, etc. If the applicant has not obtained all necessary
   property rights, permits and approvals, the Board may, in its
   discretion, grant the permit conditioned upon completion of the
   acquisition of such rights prior to issuance of a zoning or building
   permit by the County.

   Applicant Response – The Applicant has contracted to acquire the
   property and mineral rights.

j. Compliance with the applicable Elbert County Zoning and Subdivision
   Regulations and all the provisions of the permit application procedure.

   Applicant Response – The Applicant is simultaneously applying to
   rezone the property to PUD and filing an application for preliminary
   subdivision plat. The Applicant will comply with all County
   regulations and procedures.

k. Compatibility with existing and surrounding land uses, and existing
   natural environmental conditions of the site.

   Applicant Response – Adjacent land uses are residential uses. Verde
   Ridge‟s proposed land uses are single family residential and open
   space. None of the proposed uses are incompatible with adjacent
   properties or uses.
   CDS Response – There is always concern related to the compatibility of
   agricultural uses and subdivisions. The State of Colorado has afforded
   agricultural uses protection from nuisance complaints. Elbert County




                               31
   is an advocate of this process and encourages developers to incorporate
   similar language in their Covenants. The proposed Covenants contain
   this language.

l. The applicant has made provisions to preserve such natural features
   as water bodies and steep slopes and to establish and maintain an
   accessible open-space network for conservation, natural beauty, and
   recreation, as well as to prevent environmental pollution, natural
   hazards, and minimize noise problems.

   Applicant Response – There is one well-defined drainage-way on site;
   the general direction of drainage will be maintained. No building will
   be permitted on slopes over 20%. 48.65% of the site is open space.
   Open space facilities will not be open to the public, (confirmed at the
   Planning Commission hearing).

m. The proposal will not result in detrimental impact to the existing or
   planned transportation system and that it has been demonstrated that
   adequate access has or will be constructed including any external
   roadways, interchanges, and railroad crossings necessitated by the
   build out of the development. Rural and urban classifications are
   determined by the Colorado Department of Transportation (state
   roads), and by the Elbert County Master Plan (all other roadways),
   and the land use and transportation circulation plans and population
   density and distributions are planned in such a way as to promote
   adequate internal accessibility.

   Applicant Response – A traffic study has been completed by LSC
   Transportation Consultants. The development will not require off-site
   roadway improvements. The site is adjacent to CR13 on the east, and
   access to CR150 to the south will be through the Diamond Ridge
   subdivision. The development density is consistent with the County
   Master Plan for the area. All internal roads will be constructed and
   paved to County standards.

   CDS Response – Elbert County Road & Bridge submits that the
   Applicant‟s response to their comments is satisfactory.

n. The proposed development is in compliance with the best management
   practices of the applicable basin authority and the corresponding basin
   water quality master plan.
   Applicant Response – An engineered drainage plan has been prepared
   by Paragon Engineering Consultants. The “best management
   practices” will be utilized during the construction period and post-




                               32
   construction.

o. The nature and location of the development will not interfere with
   threatened or endangered wildlife habitats, or adversely affect any
   threatened wildlife species, unique natural resource or historic or
   archaeological landmarks within the development area unless it can be
   demonstrated that adequate mitigation measures will be taken.

   Applicant Response – The site is not near a stream or wetlands. It was
   not necessary to prepare an analysis of Preble‟s Mouse habitats.
   Information from the Colorado Historic Society showed that there are
   no historical or archaeological sites on the site.

p. The development plan utilizes current design and technology for
   energy conservation with respect to land utilization.

   Applicant Response – Water re-use is a major design component.
   Energy conservation will be a consideration in the siting of homes,
   home construction, and landscaping of private and public areas.

q. The applicant has the technical and financial capability to completely
   plan and develop the new community within a reasonable time, and
   the proposed new community is economically feasible. This is
   demonstrated by providing evidence of the following issues:

   q.i) The technical and administrative capability of the applicant to
   plan and develop a new community, including experience, success
   and/or failures on other new community projects, and expertise and
   experience of personnel.

   Applicant Response – The development team has extensive experience
   in residential land developments. The applicant has been involved in
   the Colorado construction and real estate industries for many years;
   and is a resident of Elbert County. The land planners and engineers
   have all been involved with large-scale land developments.

   CDS Response – A review of the projected lot valuations at completion
   of housing construction raises concerns if such values will actually
   exist to support the Metro District. As required, the applicant
   contracted with BBC Research & Consultants to evaluate the proposal
   against the County Impact Model. The evaluation indicates a positive
   fiscal impact to the County when using the sales values of $550,000.00
   per lot provided by the Applicant. Build-out is forecast to occur in 5-7
   years. The Applicant provided this forecast without evidence of a




                               33
        Residential Absorption Study.

        For example, with only 10 percent down, a monthly payment for a
        purchaser during a 30 year, fixed interest loan at 5.625%, (April 10,
        2008), would be only $3780.00. Qualifying buyer annual income would
        need to be $161,962.00 – See Mortgage Qualifier Calculator).

        If the average residential price materializes at a lower number, the
        metro district becomes in danger of failing because resulting tax
        revenue from the mill levy is less and the burden of making up the
        difference falls on the existing lot owners.
        The current median household income for Elbert County, (rounded to
        $69,000.00), is sufficient to repay 30 year fixed rate loans for no more
        than $252,000.00, (Mortgage calculator, 6% interest with up to 20%
        down payment, July 18, 2008).

q.ii)   The financial capability of the applicant including:
        q.ii) A)     all anticipated costs of developing public and publicly
        financed services and facilities.

        Applicant Response – The Applicant will provide any necessary equity
        funds. Infrastructure costs will be funded through construction loans.
        An existing water and sanitation district will own and manage the
        water system.

        CDS Response – A metropolitan district is appropriate to own and
        manage the water system.

        q.ii) B)      the extent to which the development costs will be met by
        financial resources of the developer, borrowing, and/or special districts
        if any.

        Applicant Response – The Applicant has sufficient financial resources
        for the development.

q.iii) Before any permit is issued, the BOCC may require the applicant to
       file a guarantee of financial security deemed adequate by the BOCC,
       and in the amount of 115%, (see SIA), of the estimated cost of the
       anticipated infrastructure for the new community.


        q.iii A) The BOCC may require that the financial feasibility of the
        project be reviewed by an independent CPA, if there is any reason to




                                     34
             doubt the accuracy of the financial information submitted, or the
             estimated costs of completing the new community.

     r       The project is in proximity to primary and secondary schools of
             adequate capacity, has the ability to provide for adequate educational
             facilities, or has proposed an acceptable plan for mitigating the impact
             on schools with inadequate capacity.

             Applicant Response – Verde Ridge is in the Elizabeth School District.
             The District has or will have sufficient capacity to serve Verde Ridge.

             The Applicant will comply with District requirements for investments
             in school facilities and fees.

             CDS Response – The Applicant and the School District must comply
             with Resolution 99-14.

     s.     Applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the permit
            application procedure.

             Applicant Response – The Applicant is complying with all of the
             provisions of the permit application procedure.

2.        Additional criteria for developments outside the urbanized areas
          designated on the Elbert County Growth Management Plan and Master
          Plan, as amended.

          a. In order to assure a long term water supply, and given the concern
             with dependence on bedrock ground water, and the difficulty in
             supplying future surface sources outside the urbanized areas, the
             following additional criteria apply:

             a.i) Total water supply for full project build out has been
             demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board of County
             Commissioners based on the following factors: Such supply shall be
             based on a factor of .4 acre feet for residential and the single family
             equivalent for non-residential. The factor of .4 acre feet for residential
             applies to the residential portion of use of a residence and does not
             include domestic or agricultural stock watering and other associated
             uses of rural residential uses. An additional appropriate factor would
             be required for such uses.
             Applicant Response – Total water supply for full project build-out is
             sufficient for 300 years.




                                          35
CDS Response – It is the State Engineer‟s Office requested a letter
from the Applicant, of commitment to serve Verde Ridge. A letter was
received on January 24, 2008.

On January 14, 2008, CDS received a copy of adjudication, Case #
2007CW162, referring to the water under Verde Ridge. The following
amounts are available for withdrawal subject to the Court‟s retained
jurisdiction in this matter:

                     Saturated
Aquifer               Thickness         Annual Amount
Lower Dawson          65 feet                8.5 acre-feet (NT)
Denver               195 feet               21.5 acre-feet (NT)
Lower Arapahoe       225 feet               24.9 acre-feet (NT)
Laramie-Fox Hills    180 feet               17.6 acre-feet (NT)

A follow-up letter from the Secretary

The State Engineer‟s opinion that the water supply is adequate is
based on our determination that the amount of water required
annually to serve the subdivision is currently physically available,
based on current estimated aquifer conditions.

The State Engineer‟s opinion that the water supply can be provided
without causing injury is based on our determination that the
amount of water that is legally available on an annual basis, according
to the statutory allocation approach, for the proposed uses is greater
than the annual amount of water required to supply existing water
commitments and demands of the proposed subdivision.

The State Engineer‟s opinion is qualified by the following: The
Division 1 Water Court has retained jurisdiction over the final amount
of water available pursuant to the above-referenced decree, pending
actual geophysical data fom the aquifer.

The amounts of water in the Denver Basin aquifers, and
identified in this letter, are calculated based on estimated
current aquifer conditions. For planning purposes the county
should be aware that the economic life of a water supply based
on wells in a given Denver Basin aquifer may be less than the
100 years (or 300 years) used for allocation due to anticipated
water level declines. We recommend that the county
determine whether it is appropriate to require development of
renewable water resources for this subdivision to provide for a




                            36
   long-term water supply.

   For decrees, the Court retains jurisdiction to provide for the
   adjustment of the annual amount of withdrawal to conform to the
   actual local aquifer characteristics, as determined from analysis of
   data obtained when the well was constructed. Any person, including
   the State Engineer can invoke the Court‟s retained jurisdiction, upon
   notification of retained jurisdiction, shall utilize data available to him
   and make a Final Determination of Eater Rights Finding within 4
   months and submit same to the Water Court.

   Elbert County will use geophysical logs, water rate testing and
   production data and other information to evaluate the water
   availability according to the State ACT.

   a.ii) if greater than 50% of the water supply is a renewable source of
   water, then a 100 aquifer year life will be applied.

   Applicant Response – N/A.

   a.iii) if less than 50% of the water supply but greater than 25% of the
   water supply is a renewable source of water, then a 200 year life will
   be applied.

   Applicant Response – N/A.

   a.iv) if less than 25% of the water supply is a renewable source of
   water, then a 300 year life will be applied.

   Applicant Response – Total water supply for full project build-out is
   sufficient for 300 years.

   CDS Response – See response comment from the State Engineer‟s
   Office in a.i).

b. To efficiently utilize public and private investments in infrastructure
   and urban service areas, moderate build out must be demonstrated in
   the urbanized areas and within municipal planning areas; moderate
   shall be defined as 40% build out of residential and 20% build out of
   industrial/commercial/business. This particular requirement will be
   waived if it can be demonstrated that there is a particular benefit
   which accrues to the County and all other criteria are met.

   Applicant Response – Not applicable. Verde Ridge Miller Ranch is not




                                37
   in an urbanized area.

c. The applicant has demonstrated that the socioeconomic, or land use
   conditions of the County either have changed or are in the process of
   change in such a manner to warrant approval.

   Applicant Response – The location of Verde Ridge has been defined as
   the “Rural Residential high Density Land Use Area” in the Master
   Plan. There are residential developments near the site.

   CDS Response – The project is located in the Rural Residential-High
   Density Land Use Area as identified in the Master Plan. The
   developmental density for this land use area is for lots of 3 to 10 acres
   in size. The base density of Verde Ridge is 5.01 acres per lot.

d. If negative fiscal impacts to Elbert County, or other units of
   government, occur as a result of the project, either mitigation and
   monitoring of such negative fiscal impacts or particular benefits to
   Elbert County must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board of
   County Commissioners to offset such impacts.

   Applicant Response – Verde Ridge will have positive fiscal impacts to
   Elbert County. The developer will work with the Elizabeth School
   District to mitigate any impacts.

   CDS Response – Summary: 1) Refer to the Applicant‟s lot / home
   valuation 2) the Elbert County Median Income qualifies for a loan of
   less than half that valuation 3) No absorption study was
   accomplished.

   The Applicants fiscal numbers are questionable as previously
   discussed. Elbert County will be monitoring the fiscal performance of
   the project. As required, the applicant contracted with BBC Research
   & Consultants to evaluate the proposal against the County Impact
   Model. The evaluation indicates a positive fiscal impact to the
   County using the sales values provided by the Applicant.

         (Average price to be $550,000.00 with a build-out period of 5-7 years.
         With only 10 percent down, monthly payment for a 30 year, fixed
         interest loan at 5.625%, (April 10, 2008), would be $3780.00 –.
         Qualifying buyer annual income would be $161,962.00 – See Mortgage
         Qualifier Calculator).




                                38
      Master Plan Evaluation – The High Density Land Use area has seven
       Requirements which must be evaluated. There are also 14 General
       Standards which should be addressed.

The following is the applicant‟s response to each of the seven requirements, and as
appropriate, the CDS response.

Rural Residential-High Density Land Use Area Requirements:

          a. All new, legally created, platted subdivisions of land, creating lots of
             less than 35 acres in size, must be adjacent to existing, similar size or
             smaller parcels. Similar shall be defined as: any lot within the same
             zoning district shall be considered similar, and therefore, adjacent. To
             be considered adjacent, not less than 1/6 of the parcel perimeter must
             be adjacent. All similar or smaller sized parcels that are considered
             adjacent must be legally created and zoned. Creation of parcels
             between 35.00 and 59.99 acres shall be exempted from the 1/6
             adjacency requirement.

             Applicant Response – Verde Ridge is adjacent to Diamond Ridge PUD
             which, with density bonus, has 27 lots that are about 1 acre in size,
             including density bonuses for water conservation. This adjacency
             complies with the county requirements for the base density of Verde
             Ridge (before density bonuses), provided appropriate follow-through
             occurs with Diamond Ridge according to Zoning Regulation, Part I,
             Section 6.

          b. In transition areas between lower and higher density uses, measures
             could include requiring same density as contiguous land use, requiring
             greater setbacks, or providing appropriate screening or buffering.

             Applicant Response – Not applicable.

          c. New development shall design residential location(s) in order to
             conserve land and preserve the concept of open space.

             Applicant Response – A total of 33.53 acres, now recalculated to 31.80
             acres or (51.20%), now (48.65%) of open space will be included. The
             open space includes only both active and, (active retracted by
             Applicant) passive recreation areas and provides a buffer for

             neighboring developments, protects the primary drainage pattern,
             provides wildlife habitat and circulation corridors.




                                          39
   CDS Response – Elbert County Subdivision Regulations require 20%
   open space in subdivisions. With the provision of central sewer and
   water and application of density bonuses, open space requirements
   increase to 40%.

d. A County approved central water system using Denver, Arapahoe,
   Laramie-Fox Hills aquifers shall be required which will incorporate a
   recharge system to allow water to replenish or augment the aquifers.

   Applicant Response – A central water system will be provided.

e. A County approved central sanitation system may be required.

   Applicant Response – A central sewer system will be provided.
   Treated effluent will be available to each lot for irrigation purposes.
   The treatment facility will be located on-site.

   CDS response – The sewer treatment facility area is not be counted as
   part of the open space area.

f. All collector roads shall be paved at the developer‟s expense, and
   provide improvements to any County roads to be impacted by this
   development. Road right- of-way should be wide enough to provide for
   landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and adequate berming for
   visual relief and noise abatement where appropriate.

   Applicant Response – All roads in the project will be paved to County
   specifications and will be dedicated to the County. CR13 is adjacent on
   the east and is paved.

   CDS Response – The applicant will mitigate impacts to County Roads
   by payment of TAZ fees of $2521.00 per residence (35 new =
   $88,235.00) to Elbert County. All internal roads will be constructed
   and paved to County standards.

   Applicant response – See file.
   Elbert County Road & Bridge – The Applicant has responded
   satisfactorily to our referral comments.

g. The developer may be required to design a Trail System that allows for
   pedestrian and equestrian use. The Trail System should endeavor to
   link up or provide access to the forthcoming County-wide Trail Map.

   Applicant Response – Pedestrian trails are not included in the




                                40
            proposal.

            CDS Response – A pedestrian trail is denoted on the PUD Exhibit.
            Why is this not included in the proposal??

            The Applicant has indicated in the Development Guide, that he may
            provide trail if he decides it to be necessary. No mention has been
            provided about picnic areas or amenities, even for the residents of the
            subdivision. The Applicant is however, requesting that Elbert County
            grant him the maximum density bonuses available. This project may
            not be detrimental to the general welfare of present or future

            inhabitants of Elbert County, however CDS has certainly observed no
            enhancements either.

The Master Plan also contains 14 General Standards which must be addressed.
The following is the applicant‟s response and as appropriate, a CDS response.

1.    20% dedicated open space with consideration for wildlife and wildlife
      corridors.

      Applicant Response – A total of 35.53 acres, now recalculated to 31.80 acres,
      (51.2%), now (48.65%) will be dedicated to open space.

2.    Paving of roads, and when approved by the County, dust mitigation where
      there is more than 200 vehicle trips per day generated by the proposal.

      Applicant Response – All roads shall be paved in the development, to County
      standards.

      CDS Response – County standards include right-of-ways as opposed to
      easements. This is a PUD development. Road easements are not critical to
      being included in lot sizes to meet any minimum lot size requirements. Road
      right-of-ways should be dedicated when the final plat(s) for Verde Ridge and
      Diamond Ridge are submitted. During the presentation of the project at the
      Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant‟s Representative responded
      that the Applicant would dedicate “right-of-ways” to Elbert County in Verde
      & Diamond Ridge, thus upgrading both projects to current Elbert County

      Road & Bridge standards. (This response supercedes an earlier request by
      the Applicant to Road & Bridge, to only provide easements. Thank you)

3.    Undergrounding of all Utilities.




                                         41
     Applicant Response – All utilities will be placed underground.

4.   Dedication of Land, Facilities or Cash-in-lieu for Schools, Fire Protection,
     Sheriff‟s Facilities, Roads, and Other County Services where applicable.

     Applicant Response – School impacts: Elizabeth School District has proposed
     impact fees related to new developments for capital facilities and land. The
     applicant accepts the District‟s current impact fee requirements and cash-in-
     lieu contribution.


           Impact Fees: The developer will pay road and county impact fees
           consistent with County requirements and comply with Resolution 99-
           35 with the Elizabeth Fire Protection District.

5.   Residential, Commercial or industrial Development shall not occur on 100
     year flood plains, slopes greater than 20% or other hazard areas.

     Applicant Response – Development is prohibited on slopes greater than 20%
     and on unstable soil areas. There are no designated 100 year flood plain
     areas on the site.

     CDS Response – The Colorado Geological Survey and Elbert County Engineer
     Representative, provided questions and comments about unstable soils and
     drainage issues. The Applicant responded. The County Engineer, has
     reviewed the Applicant‟s response and found it to satisfactory as a
     preliminary submittal. A follow-up letter from the Colorado Geological
     Survey indicates a few remaining clarification questions.

6.   Premium areas such as treed areas, environmentally sensitive areas,
     viewsheds, and prime agricultural land shall require Design Standards.

     Applicant Response – Design standards shall provide for the quality of the
     homes, site development standards, and landscaping. There are no sensitive
     environmental areas on the site that prohibit development.

     CDS Response – Modifications / mostly additions need to be made to Planned
     Unit Development Guide per the CDS guidelines. Design standards have not
     been provided for the quality of the homes, site development standards, and
     landscaping.

7.   Building envelopes shall be required on lots with hazardous and premium
     areas.




                                        42
      Applicant Response – Residential lots shall include designated setbacks and
      easements that restrict construction on individual lots.

      CDS Response – Designated setbacks should be referenced in the Planned
      Unit Development Guide.

8.    Provisions for noxious weed control.

      Applicant Response – A weed plan has been prepared and shall be
      implemented.

9.    Energy Conservation.

      Applicant Response – Energy conservation will be encouraged in the design
      and construction of the homes by the homebuilders. Native plants and low-
      water and low maintenance landscaping will be used in public ROW and
      encouraged on residential lots.

      CDS Response – Needs to be in Development Guide. Landscaping is only
      referenced in the Development Guide as associated with monumentation.
      Monumentation, however, is not discussed in the Development Guide.

10.   Design Standards.

      Applicant Response – Design standards are included in the protective
      covenants; an architectural control committee shall be established.

      CDS Response – Elbert County reserves the right to review these standards
      to determine if there are conflicts between adopted County regulations and
      the submitted Development Guide Agreement, (Design standards need to be
      in Development Guide - second red marked submitted 7-18-08.), which
      serves as the site specific Zoning Regulation for the project.

11.   Protective covenants.

      Applicant Response – Protective covenants have been prepared.

12.   Density requirements for different land use areas may be lower than
      specified densities for respective land use areas.

      Applicant Response – Not applicable.

13.   Also, development must comply with all Elbert County Zoning, Subdivision,
      1041 Requirements along with Federal Road Design Standards.




                                        43
      Applicant Response – The development shall comply with county regulations.
      CDS Response – The Applicant has agreed to changes that have satisfied the
      concerns of most referral comments.

14.   If a land use application proposes a use in an area that has been designated
      as appropriate for that type of use, the application for rezoning shall be
      approved if it meets the standards developed for that land use designation.

      Applicant Response – None.
      CDS Response – In addition to compliance with the Master Plan
      Requirements and General Standards, the application must be in compliance
      with all appropriate County Regulations.

Community & Development Services comments – Following the Planning
Commission hearing of July 24, 2008, the Applicant‟s attorney requested a meeting
with CDS staff. Following the first meeting, some phone conversations and another
meeting took place.

The modifications suggested by the Applicant, were directed toward working with
Staff on the “red marked” items of the Development Guide and at improving the
Applicant‟s project with regard to some of the “conditions of approval.” No
resolution to 1041, Master Plan issues or other concerns were addressed by the
Applicant.


CDS believed the Applicant needed to present their terms to the Planning
Commission and public, (Reference: Zoning Regulations, Part I, Section 6, B, 2, a,
5), c) . . . No changes to the application shall be made between the Planning
Commission hearing and the Board of County Commissioners Hearing except for
minor corrections related to misspelled words or recommended conditions of
approval from the Planning Commission).

“Conditions of approval” alone, are not always an appropriate means by which to
“improve” a project to an acceptable position. The “conditions of approval” that
were recommended, (at the July 24, 2008 hearing), by Staff, were viewed as
minimum, should the Planning Commission and / or Board of County
Commissioners decided to approve the project despite Staff‟‟s position, “Not to
support.”

The concerns with this project are greater than what would be mitigated by just the
minimum recommended “conditions of approval.” They extend to
      1. Providing information sufficient to justify a level of confidence that the
         financial concerns of 1041 regulations, have been appropriately




                                         44
         addressed,
      2. Appropriately addressing Master Plan Requirements and General
         Standards, and
      3. Concerns 11 – 16 described at the end of the FINDINGS.

Upon staff recommendation, the Board of County Commissioners determined to
send this project back to the Planning Commission for four reasons. Following the
Planning Commission hearing,

      1.) The Applicant offered changes to their project while attempting, in
          return, to gain CDS Staff support,
      2.) The Planning Commission did not hear the “conditions of approval” or
          consider any of them, up or down.
      3.) The Board of County Commissioners desired specific explanation of the
          Planning Commission denial of the project.
      4.) Reference: Zoning Regulations, Part I, Section 6, B, 2, a, 5), c) . . . No
          changes to the application shall be made between the Planning
          Commission hearing and the Board of County Commissioners Hearing
          except for minor corrections related to misspelled words or recommended
          conditions of approval from the Planning Commission

The Verde Ridge hearing scheduled before the Planning Commission for September
18, 2008, was canceled due to a letter from the land owner indicating there was no
agreement with the Developer for the Verde Ridge property. On Monday,
September 22, Community & Development Services received written
communication validating a Developer and land owner agreement.

The Developer desired to proceed with the hearings, for which new hearing dates
and a “re-notice” were necessary. The Planning Commission hearing was set for
Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 7 pm at the Fair Grounds Agr. building and the
Board of County Commissioners for Wednesday, December 10, 2008 at 7 pm at the
Fair Grounds Agr. building.

The Applicant requested an opportunity to meet with Staff to present the changes
they intend to offer for this hearing. The changes will be recognized in the
following summary.

Following, is a current summary of Staff comments / concerns, organized by
category – Zoning, Subdivision, 1041, Master Plan, and additional comments.
Changes offered by the Applicant are noted.

FINDINGS:

      Zoning compliance comments / concerns: (1) { Applicant changes offered, have
                                       addressed comments / concerns as noted. }



                                         45
      1.)   Part II, Section 16, Planned Unit Development

             During the meeting with the Applicant‟s attorney and
             representative wherein they presented changes prior to the
             Planning Commission hearing scheduled for November 20,
             2008, it was offered that the Metro District would be primarily
             responsible for maintaining the open space and consequently,
             the open space would be open to the public. The HOA would
             share in the expense and responsibility for the open space.
             The Metro District would be primarily and ultimately the
             responsible organization.

   In addition, it is a requirement of the Zoning Regulations that all requests
   for rezoning address the seven adopted Standards of Approval. CDS has
   noted concerns with this project meeting the standards of items 6 and 7.

   Seven adopted Standards of Approval: { Applicant changes together with
                                  additional information, have addressed the issues}

             The Applicant has submitted a re-plat to re-align the streets of
             Diamond Ridge with Verde Ridge. The re-plat also needs to
             include the associated change to lot configuration resulting
             from the street re-alignment.


             Within the 1041 permit tab of the notebook, is a Preliminary
             Plan vicinity map, (sheet 1 of 2), showing the Diamond Ridge
             connection to the Verde Ridge site. The following page is
             Verde Ridge, Preliminary Plan, (sheet 2 of 2), showing the
             proposed Diamond Ridge street re-alignment and lot re-
             configuration for connecting with Verde Ridge. This
             information illustrates how Diamond Ridge and Verde Ridge
             would come together as one development project.

             The Applicant is now offering a pedestrian trail pursuant to
             Elbert County Construction standards and Specifications, 2007
             Edition. The trail shall internally connect the various open
             space tracts within the Verde Ridge and Diamond Ridge
             developments and provide pedestrian connectivity throughout
             the subdivisions as conceptually indicated on the “red line”
             corrections to the Exhibits, dated July 18, 2008.

Subdivision compliance comments / concerns: { Applicant changes have
                                                                         addressed }

1041 compliance comments / concerns: { Applicant changes have addressed
                                          the issues as represented in the



                                     46
                                   paragraphs below   }

1.)   The Board of County Commissioners shall approve an
      application for a permit for site selection and development of a
      new community only if, (emphasis added), the proposed site

      selection and development complies with the following criteria, to
      the extent applicable:

      The 1041 portion of the Elbert County Regulations are
      regulatory. In the opinion of CDS, the Applicant‟s changes have
      addressed the 1041 issues of concern.

       During the meeting with the Applicant‟s attorney and
       representative wherein they presented changes prior to the
       Planning Commission hearing scheduled for November 20,
       2008, it was offered that the Metro District would be primarily
       responsible for maintaining the open space and consequently,
       the open space would be open to the public. The HOA would
       share in the expense and responsibility for the open space.
       The Metro District would be primarily and ultimately the
       responsible organization.


       Within the 1041 permit tab of the notebook, is a Preliminary
       Plan vicinity map, (sheet 1 of 2), showing the Diamond Ridge
       connection to the Verde Ridge site. The following page is
       Verde Ridge, Preliminary Plan, (sheet 2 of 2), showing the
       proposed Diamond Ridge street re-alignment and lot re-
       configuration for connecting with Verde Ridge. This
       information illustrates how Diamond Ridge and Verde Ridge
       would come together as one development project.

       The Applicant is now offering a pedestrian trail pursuant to
       Elbert County Construction standards and Specifications, 2007
       Edition. The trail shall internally connect the various open
       space tracts within the Verde Ridge and Diamond Ridge
       developments and provide pedestrian connectivity throughout
       the subdivisions as conceptually indicated on the “red line”
       corrections to the Exhibits, dated July 18, 2008.

       The Applicant accomplished an update of the financial
       housing information together with a “break even” housing
       value for evaluating benefit to the County. This additional
       information provides an improved level of confidence that the
       financial items of the “1041” regulations have been
       appropriately addressed for the residents of Elbert County
       and the success of the subdivision.



                              47
      Master Plan Compliance comments / concerns: { Applicant changes have
                                                                     addressed as noted }

                   The Applicant is now offering a pedestrian trail pursuant to Elbert
                   County Construction standards and Specifications, 2007 Edition. The
                   trail shall internally connect the various open space tracts      within
                   the Verde Ridge and Diamond Ridge developments and provide
                   pedestrian connectivity throughout the subdivisions as conceptually
                   indicated on the “red line” corrections to the Exhibits, dated July 18,
                   2008

                   Applicant has commited for landscaping plan for public areas
                   to be approved by CDS and other modifications consistent with
                   Richard Miller‟s July 18, 2008 Redline Development Guide

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff will accept the changes, (described on page 2 of this report) offered by the
Applicant. If the Applicant will accept the “Conditions of Approval,” as presented
by Staff in this report, Community & Development Services will change their
position of “Not to Support,” to “Support” for this project. Any deletion of the
changes or to the “Conditions of Approval,” as presented by Staff, void Staff support.

07-0156 VERDE RIDGE PUD, conditions of approval to include:

1.   The applicant shall coordinate with the Elizabeth Fire Protection District
     and comply with all necessary conditions including Resolution 99-35 as
     related to fire protection.
      - A letter confirming agreement will be submitted to Community
          Development Services prior to recordation of any documentation.
      - A letter, confirming completed construction meets all Fire District
          standards, will be submitted to Community Development Services prior to
          release of any building permits.
      - A letter, confirming required flows meet all Fire District standards, will
          be submitted to Community Development Services prior to release of any
          building permits.
      - The applicant will be responsible for an appropriate address map prior to
          recording of any final filing.


2.   The rezoning will not become effective until all fees paid and the recording
     of an approved final plat of the subdivided area has occurred, (Part I, Section
     6, B., Elbert County Zoning Regulations).

3.   The applicant will be required to remove the public notice sign within



                                           48
          seven (7) days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. A letter
          to that affect will be placed in the Planning Department file, prior to
          recordation of the Rezoning Exhibit.

4.        The applicant will record the Rezoning Exhibit, Weed Management Plan,
          Development Guide and associated documents within ninety (90) days of
          approval by the Board of County Commissioners.

5.        Adopt the Findings enumerated herein.


PP 07-0157 VERDE RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT, conditions of approval to
include:

 1.       The Applicant will coordinate with Qwest about phone service and
          necessary easements to set equipment. The plat exhibit will reflect the
          easement location together with a letter to the CDS from Qwest confirming
          satisfactory access to all lots prior to sign-off of the preliminary plat.

 2 . Add Plat Notes:     All utility service lines are to be underground from the
     drop pole. Approval of this plan may create a Vested Property Right,
     pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24 C.R.S., as amended.

 3.       The applicant will provide utility easements to accommodate the
          installation of front-lot design for electric facilities, a ten foot (10‟)
          easement on all front-lot will be required. Further, a five-foot (5‟) utility
          easement is required on one side-lot line of each lot and will coordinate
          with the Intermountain Rural Electric Association to have service lines
          from the drop pole, installed underground.

     4.    Should a need for any over-lot grading be determined, a County grading
           permit will be obtained and the Applicant will coordinate with the Kiowa
           Conservation District about:
           - Utilization of a phased grading plan to minimize the land area disturbed
              by grading at one time to 15 acres or less and
           - Provision of vehicle tracking control stations consisting of a pad of 3 to 6
              inch rock, to strip mud from tires prior to vehicles leaving the
              construction site to prevent spreading of noxious weeds, should be
              provided at all entrance and exit points on the site.

     5.    Prior to the final plat hearing, the Applicant will prepare and submit for
            approval, a Subdivision Improvement Agreement, {SIA} according to the
            format provided by Elbert County. The SIA will contain provisions for
            completion of all improvements identified in the plan, on the Plat and




                                               49
        within the Development Guide.
          o The Applicant shall provide a “letter of credit” equal to at least 110% of
             the estimated completion costs.
          o The SIA will be signed off by the Elbert County Attorney and Elbert
             County Board of County Commissioners.
          o A copy of all “conditions of approval” shall be attached to the SIA.
          o The County will issue a 1041 Permit following recordation of the Final
             Plat and prior to initiation of any construction (4-307 q, ii, (A)).

  6.    The Applicant will comply with all requirements of Elbert County. The
        preliminary plat will not be recorded, however, two paper copies of the
        plat will be submitted for verification of all “conditions of approval.” The
        paper copies will include a sign-off for Elbert County Environmental
        Health, Elbert County Road & Bridge, Elbert County Engineering, and
        Community Development Services.

  7.    The name of the rezone and name of interior streets are to be reviewed for
        any duplication of names by the Mapper, prior to recordation.

  8.    A Final Plat application will not accepted until all “conditions of approval”
        pertaining to the Preliminary Plat, have been completed and signed-off.

  9.    Adopt the Findings enumerated herein.


1041 07-02-01 VERDE RIDGE, “Conditions” to be fulfilled prior to release of any
building permits

 1.    The Colorado Department of Health, the County Engineer, and the County
       Environmental Health Department must review and approve the Water and
       Sewer Systems Design. A letter of confirmation from each entity, will be
       provided to CDS for the project file.

 2.    Storm water detention ponds and effluent storage ponds must be approved
       by the County Engineer and Environmental Health Department. A letter of
       confirmation from each entity, will be provided to CDS for the project file.

 3.    The Applicant shall provide an all weather trail, at least 8‟feet in width,
       (Road & Bridge, Construction Standards & Specification Manuel, Section
       1082.00, page 328, Soft Trails ), available to public use, and located as
       conceptually illustrated on the “red marked” plan,(dated July 18, 2008). This
       inclusion would count toward provision of pedestrian circulation and
       connectivity within the subdivision and without to Diamond Ridge.
 4.    Water supply and fire protection systems are in-place and have been




                                          50
         inspected and approved. A letter of confirmation will be provided to CDS
         from Elizabeth Fire.

    5.   A separate letter / acknowledgement for each of the following items,
         shall be submitted to CDS, confirming approval of by the appropriate
         department of Elbert County:
:
            Landscaping plan, -- PUD Development Guide
            Drainage Report -- approval by Elbert County Engineering.
            Storm Water Management Plan, -- approval by Elbert County
             Engineering.
            Erosion Control Plan, -- approval by Elbert County Engineering.
            Dust Abatement Plan, -- approval by Elbert County Engineering.
            Site-specific foundation investigation, including a test boring for each lot
             by a Geotech Engineer prior to issuing a building permit -- approval by
             Elbert County Engineering
            Central water system approval by Elbert County Building Department
             State Health Department


“Conditions” to be fulfilled prior to recording each final plat filing

    1.   The applicant will pay to Elbert County, growth related impact fees of
         $2453.00 per residence, based on number of lots.

    2.   The applicant will pay to Elbert County, TAZ fees of $2521.00 per
         residence, based on number of lots.

    3.   The Applicant will comply with the County Resolutions for fees to
         the appropriate school district, fire district, and recreation district,
         in effect at the time of recording. A separate letter / acknowledgement
         for each of the aforementioned items, shall be submitted to CDS, confirming
         resolution by the appropriate organization.


Respectfully Submitted,



Curtis S. Carlson
Planner II




                                             51
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: From July 24, 2008

On July 24, 2008, the Planning Commission (PC), held a public hearing on this
application. At the hearing, there were presentations by Staff and the Applicant
and there was a request for public comment.

Attached is a rendering of notes from the Planning Commission public hearing. The
audio was recorded for details.

Presentation by Applicant‟s Representative:
       HOA is to own and manage open space
       Standards for Verde Ridge will be similar to Diamond Ridge
       At Concept Plan, the Planning Commission requested that Verde Ridge
          be designed into Diamond Ridge




                                        52
   This would create better connectivity between the developments
   The Planning Commission asked for more clustering
   The Board of County Commissioners didn‟t want clustering
   See page 20; the application meets the seven adopted standards of
    approval
   No new standards have been adopted
   The Applicant feels he has incorporated appropriate accommodations for
    coming changes
   Compliments to Community & Development Services Staff for tying up as
    many loose ends as possible
   Easements for roads or dedication
       o Applicant agrees dedicate right-of-ways except to County Road 13
           which is not owned by the Applicant. The Applicant only has
           obtained an easement for that connection
   # 6 of Master Plan 14 General Standards: Premium areas such as treed
    areas, environmentally sensitive areas, viewsheds, and prime
    agricultural land shall require Design Standards. – The Applicant feels
    this is addressed appropriately in the Development Guide as presented.
   # 10 of Master Plan 14 General Standards: Design Standards – The
    Applicant feels this is addressed appropriately in the Development Guide
    as presented.
   Construction standards updated in the Road & Bridge manual
   Applicant feels he has followed Development Guide template guidelines
    as much as possible
   Open space will be passive. This is to be a buffer to other development.
    The Applicant feels open space should be passive and private. Residents
    of the development should be the ones to decide at later date if any trails
    and park amenities should be provided.
   Past applications that provided central water, sewer, reuse effluent and
    irrigation have all been granted all of the density bonuses available. No
    qualifiers were applied.
   The Metro District was given no powers, in the Metro District plan to own
    / maintain open space. The Applicant believes the residents will want
    “hands on” management of the open space as an HOA.
   Diamond Ridge Service Plan is approved. Developer is responsible for all
    infrastructure with “up-front” money. Bonds are not marketable until
    buildout has been markedly accomplished. The bonds are to re-imburse
    the Developer for “wet” costs. If no bonds are sold, there is no mill levy.
   The Applicant feels that the project is of a higher standard then other
    area developments.
   Under permitted uses by right, the Applicant agrees to change
    “workshop” to an “outbuilding.”
   Adjacency is Ok.




                                   53
        “Use by Special Review” is not appropriate. It will be stricken from the
         Development Guide.
        Applicant agrees with Colorado Water comments by Staff.

Public Comment:

        Would like to share some wisdom. It is not necessary to learn the same
         lesson over and over again. Following rules, regulations, and common
         sense is usually good. If one party doesn‟t, it causes problems, sometimes
         catastrophic. There are consequences when the rules are stretched. The
         end result often is an absolute mess where only attorneys gain, ie – The
         Boy Scouts Ranch, Compost Express issues, and Spring Valley Vistas.
        Am a concerned citizen & have been a land developer in Elbert County. I
         have attended most the Master Plan update meetings & its not been
         approved yet. It seems you are giving the Applicant a moving target. He
         has followed the rules & regulations as given, so how can they comply?
        Concerns were voiced regarding sustainability of new developments,
         given the present state of the economy. I have been a resident of Elbert
         County for 28 years 31 years of planning. Developments aren‟t
         happening because of the economy now. Are people going to continue
         moving to these types of densities with $4.00 gas. The County will get
         stuck with a non-completed development.
        It was noted that larger acreages adjoin this subdivision, not residential
         densities
        Many people in adjoining developments still earn some agriculture
         related money.
        I have a concern about erosion occurring on the property. There is no
         information in the Verde Ridge project addressing it.
        There should be better peripheral fencing around the development to
         address any livestock issues that may arise. What if some of the animals
         from surrounding properties escape into the subdivision. It needs better
         peripheral fencing.
        Need mitigation measures for sounds from the substation in the
         northeast corner.
        What about ponds for wildlife?
        There has been no change in the tax assessment for the Diamond Ridge
         area. Why?
        Applause to Community & Development Services
        What about the Applicant‟s financial capability? The same question came
         up at the time of Diamond Ridge. Now the Applicant is saying that
         Diamond Ridge is dependent on Verde Ridge. So why is adjacency being
         allowed to a project where ground has yet to be broken?
        The cell tower, to be located on the property, was not mentioned in the
         plan. Why?



                                        54
   The economy has shown us we don‟t need developments like this now.
   Urges rejection of the project. Does not think 100% density bonuses
    should be given.
   Concerned about water availability.
   There are a lot of existing unsold houses / lots for sale in Elbert County.
   The project is vague about help to schools. Can schools handle the influx
    of students?
   There were concerns expressed about negative impact on property values.
    Nearby resident in a larger lot then those planned for Verde & Diamond
    Ridge: Who would want to buy my house if Diamond Ridge & Verde
    Ridge developed?
   Development should occur in the order of Diamond Ridge and then Verde
    Ridge – if the Developer is still functioning.
   This development is too dense.
   It sounds like the Developer doesn‟t feel Diamond Ridge is financially
    feasible without Verde Ridge.
   In the Subdivision regulations, “shall” = “always,” however, “may” =
    “may”?
   Water – sewage treatment needs to be approved to have a viable project.
   We were previously told that Diamond Ridge would stand by itself. The
    Developer shall show adjacent owned land & disclose the whole plan.
    Now the Developer says that he needs Verde Ridge to be approved to
    make Diamond Ridge work. We all have been told a lot of misleading
    information. What about the land to the east of Verde Ridge? 21 homes
    there, plus Diamond Ridge & Verde Ridge, would bring the total to 83.
    That was the total lots heard about for development at the time of
    Diamond Ridge, but denied by the Developer.
   The Subdivision Regulations require that all intent must be identified
   What kind of security that a project will be completed is provided for in
    the Subdivision Improvement Agreement?
   We all know the “Ridges” don‟t stand alone. Either they stand alone or
    they don‟t. If they don‟t, then the Developer needs to start over with the
    entire plan.
   This is an obvious attempt by the Developer to avoid stricter guidelines;
    It should be noted that Diamond Ridge is not rezoned until the final plat
    is recorded and therefore there is no adjacency. The Developer is trying to
    skirt the Regulations.
   Quoted Zoning, Part I, Section 6, B: . . . Rezoning involving
    subdivisions that are approved by the County, shall not become effective
    until the recording of an approved final plat of the subdivided areas. . .
    .
   Request denial of the project.
   Concerned that the perimeter have good fencing to keep livestock out.
   Concerned about water drainage, especially if the land is re-contoured.



                                   55
    What about flooding potential. It needs to be evaluated.
   Concerned that livestock need more buffering.
   Concerned about domestic dogs chasing livestock.
   Complying with Regulations and our Master Plan is not a moving target.
   Concerned about the high density proposed.
   We have seen this kind of proposed development before.
   During Diamond Ridge, we were warned about another “Ridge” being
    proposed.
   Who is going to finance the construction costs of this project? A
    $550,000.00 proposed lot / home valuation is well beyond the market
    rates. The viability of the Metro district was questioned.
   $13,000.00 per year per lot is the cost to Elbert County residents for
    education
   Elbert County needs safeguards to these kind of developments.
   This is “domino” Ridge.
   Community & Development Services did a fantastic job. This is the best
    presentation I ever heard. We have come a long way in planning.
   What‟s changed for Diamond Ridge? Have all the “conditions of approval”
    been met?
   Will phase III come along & be needed to help I and II be fiscally OK?
   In the Elizabeth area, there are currently 225 homes for sale. During the
    previous 30 days, there have been 20 closings. Those 225 homes = 11.25
    months of market.
   40% of market is bank owned or headed toward foreclosure. So what is
    the hurry?
   Our Master Plan guidelines are not a moving target.
   Why would anyone pay $550,000.00 and not get any acreage? , or even a
    golf course?
   What are the subdivision residents not getting?
       o No recreation center
       o No trails
       o No draw
       o No quality of life
       o No good for the County
   Submitted a letter for the first scheduled hearing date cause could not be
     present.
   Previously, there was a Diamond Ridge road that went nowhere.
   Have some real concerns:
       o Diamond Ridge can‟t go anywhere without Verde Ridge
       o Expensive homes are not selling
       o Need to hold this Developer accountable to provide a quality
           development
       o Request denial of this project




                                  56
Rebuttal – Applicant‟s Representative:

         There could be numerous “final” plats depending upon how market
          conditions influence the number of filings
         When Diamond Ridge was started, Verde Ridge was not planned.
         Don‟t know where the 81 lots came from
         Developments need roads going to where development may occur
         Either project could stand on its own. The State has approved the
          wastewater treatment plan.
         Fencing is Ok. Colorado Law says, “Fence out.”
         Development will happen to agriculture land
         Water is a State issue
         Wildlife: There is much information available to the County as to how
          wildlife may be affected. There are no deficient referrals outstanding.
         Drainage studies are complete & approved date.
         Schools & Developer need to agree on impact fees.
         Timing: The Development Group has much experience. They have been
          working on this project already 2 years. It could be another 10 – 18
          months before a final plat. Have to look at the conditions.
         When Verde Ridge began, there was no talk about Master Plan changes.
          Change has been a bouncing ball.




Planning Commission Comments:

         Catch 22. Not good to change rules in the middle of the game
         Why digress to Diamond Ridge standards?
         Why not up-grade?
         The whole application was poorly written
         The application conflicts with itself throughout
         There is no good faith being demonstrated in this project
         Even a fence hasn‟t been moved for Diamond Ridge development
         The application has lots of holes
         What‟s in it for Elbert County? I‟m having a hard time finding anything.
         There are so many discrepancies, I‟ve lost track of what to note
         Our Master Plan is not a moving target. Rather, its dynamic

         This plan has the audacity to not give anything, yet want all density
          bonuses.
         The open space offering is joke, a slap in the face.
         What is this with the flood plain?
         I have a huge problem with the HOA owning the open space



                                         57
         It‟s a bad plan. It sits bad on my table.
         Concern about the proximity of lots to the North boundary
         Our Master Plan policies are not a moving target
         Thank you to Richard for defining “Density Bonus.”
         The Application puzzles me. The Applicant wants all, but gives nothing
         Compatibility issue related to larger adjacent agriculture land areas of
          the owner. Why would it be planned this way unless more development
          was planned? That‟s ok, but let us see the whole picture.
         At Concept Plan, the Planning Commission warned the Developer about
          this. Seems to be an attitude problem. The Developer keeps his options
          open, but doesn‟t want the County to have any.

With the above comments in mind, the Planning Commission submitted a Motion to
“deny” that passed 6 – 0, with one abstention.




                                        58

								
To top