The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.0 PC Staff Report 12.12.2007Exhibits (12/12/07) Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibits (Battlement Mesa Rezone) A Proof of Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended D Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Staff Report F Response from Road and Bridge Department, 10/31/07 G Response from Consolidated Metropolitan District, 11/5/07 H Application I Letter from Dean Gordon, P.E. of Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer dated 11-13-2007 J Battlement Mesa Core Area Master Plan dated 6-2007 K Denver Post Article dated 11-13-2007 L Letter from William L. Lorah, P.E. of Wright Water Engineers, Inc. dated 11-14- 2007 M Letter from Dean Gordon, P.E. of Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer dated 11-14-2007 N Letter of Technical Compliance dated 9-24-2007 0 Letter from Chris Coyle of The Battlement Mesa Company dated 12-4-2007 P Updated charts determining the total Acreage and potential Dwelling Units dated 12-5-2007 Q Updated PUD Zoning Map illustrating Proposed Zone Districts for Battlement Mesa PUD — dated Received 12-6-2007 R Updated PUD Zoning Map illustrating Existing Zone Districts for Battlement Mesa PUD — dated Received 12-6-2007 r-c/r/oe atile0‘-- PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: SITE INFORMATION: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: PC 12/12/2007 DP Rezone from Public, Semi -Public and Recreational (PSR), Business Center (BC), Open Space (OS), and Central Area Residential (CAR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Density Residential (LDR) Battlement Mesa Partners Chris Coyle of Balcomb and Green Battlement Mesa PUD, east of the Town of Parachute and the Colorado River A total zone change of 423 acres Battlement Parkway and North Battlement Parkway Public, Semi -Public and Recreational (PSR), Business Center (BC), Open Space (OS), and Central Area Residential (CAR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Density Residential (LDR) Agricultural Residential Rural Density (ARRD) OS (Open Space) I. THE REQUEST Battlement Mesa Partners, requests to rezone a total of 423 acres in the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD), which is a total of approximately 13.2% of the PUD. Battlement Mesa is located east of the Town of Parachute, Interstate — 70, and the Colorado River. It is proposed to reduce the acreage of Public, Semi -Public & Recreational (PSR), Business Center (BC), Open Space (OS), and Central Area Residential (CAR) and increase the acreage of Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). 1 1) Zoning Map of Battlement Mesa PUD The application breaks down the areas to be effected by the zone change into Area 1, Area 2, and Stone Quarry as shown in the following illustration: 2) Affected Areas of Battlement Mesa PUD 2 II. LAND USE BACKGROUND Battlement Mesa PUD was created as a planned community that would house the employees attracted to the area to work for the oil industry, more specifically, Exxon. Under the original zoning, the "central core" area was intended for high density residential and commercial development, as well as schools and other public uses. The commercial area is centrally located to the development and was originally planned to provide retail, service, and professional office space to a community of 23,000 residents. However, the demand for these uses was dramatically reduced when Exxon closed their facilities on May 2, 1982, which was immediately after the Resolution for the PUD was approved in the same year. Portions of the PUD have been subdivided over the past 25 years but a large portion of the property remains un -subdivided. The existing subdivisions within the PUD are Saddleback Village, Monument Creek Village, Willow Creek Village, Battlement Creek Village, and more recently, Valley View Village, and The Fairways. III. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The PUD was designed for a mix of uses as shown in the table below. To the east of the PUD is the Town of Parachute, I-70, and the Colorado River. The surrounding County zoning is predominantly Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (ARRD). To the northwest of the property and adjacent to the PUD is Morisania Ranch subdivision. The areas within the PUD that are proposed for rezoning are located with in the `central core," which is bounded by North Battlement Parkway, East Battlement Parkway, County Road 302 to the south, and the golf course to the west. At the last Planning Commission meeting held on November 14, 2007, the following tables were presented to summarize the PUD's existing zone districts and proposed zone districts along with the corresponding acreage In addition, the last two tables summarize the total potential dwelling units based on existing and proposed zoning change: 3 ummary of the PUD Zone Districts with Corresponding Acreage t inch = TOTALS C4R MDR EXI511AJC ZONING PROPOSED ZON/NC .717.4 ACRES 19,3 ACRES - 96.98 ACRES 60.2 ACRES 1328 ACRES 20.9 ACRES 29.9 ACRES 176;6 ACRES 27.1 ACRES 1374 ACRES ; 705 ACRES 93.5 ACRES NET CHANCE -951 ACRES -35.8 ACRES -111.9-ACRES /48.7 ACRES 110.J ACRES -12.2 ACRES. 5) Net Changes of Acreage in Areas 1, 2, and Stone Quarry TOTALS :UNITS PSR BC swnv VJ' EX/STING UNRS PROPOSE° UN/TS 2555.UN/75 415 MIS 359 UNITS 214.3 UN/IS 136. UNITS 687, UNITS NET CHANCE -2238 UNITS , 1784.UNRS 557 UNITS 6) Potential Dwelling Units Based on Current and Proposed Zoning in Areas 1,2, and Stone Quarry. In addition, at the November 14 meeting, the Staff Report stated the following: Concerning potential dwelling units (DUs), according to Tables Number 5 and 6, if the CAR zone district was to be reduced by 111.9 acres, that would reduce the number of potential DUs by 2,238, thus leaving a potential for 418 DUs. If MDR was to increase by 148.7 acres, that would increase the number of potential DUs by 1,784 DUs, totaling 2,143 potential DUs. Lastly, if LDR was to increase by 110.3 acres that would add a potential for 551 DUs totaling 687 DUs in the LDR zone district. This results in a net change of a total of 97 additional, potential DUs (1,784 MDR + 551 LDR — 2,238 CAR = 97). Since the November 14 meeting, the Applicant has put together the following corrected and clarifying tables calculating the acreages and projected DUs to be created by the proposed zone district amendment: 5 ZONING PSR BC C4R MDR LDR AREA /) & PARCEL /3-10 EX/STING ZONING tLIP 05LD ZONING 96,34 ACRES 0 0 0 8725 ACRES 269 A Y2£5 0 11.82 ACRE5 0 5/5 AC'S 972 ACRES 84.23 ACRE.°: AREA /i2 571`5/1)15 ZONAL' PRGPOSEP Z01/1N6 35/1 ACRES 0 14.7/ ACRES 0 45.54 A(./55 0 0 54.9 ACRES 0 47.8 701155 8.7.7 A0R£5 9.9 10055 010 HIGH SCHOOL PARCEL £X.C9111/0 20h9NG PROPOSED 70N/N0 40.25 ACRES 0 -2244 t//JITS 0 4(1,25 ACRES 542 149/75 88008 4, TOWN CE'1TER F11/1/6 5 (XIS/INC 7011111/6 PROPOSED ZONING' /88 ACRES 208 ACRE5 58 ACRES BLOCK 3, TOW CEN785' 1,7/6)17 5 EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONIN0 3.15 ACRES 0 0 3. /5 ACRES T.'ARC,EL C, i!ONUuEN/ Gi-'Et ✓ VIL/AOE FASTING ZONA; ,PROPOSED ZONL'G .9 t ACRES 0 0 91 ACRES 5305E 01,49R5 0041.1101/5 EXISTING ZONING PROPOSE) ZON/N: 8.88 ACRES 0 25.68 ACRES 3570 ACRE; 28.77 ACRE5 2727 40480 107 4, O/LRNNG 0007 51490i✓.5,/ON EX/SW ZONING PPOP05EG' ZONIJG 537 A0.RE5 0 0 8.33 ACRES TOTALS PSR BC C4R MDR LDR OS 57/57-11/9, ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 96,34 ACRES 0 34.07 ACRES 208 ACRES 13309 ACRES 209 ACRES' 2568 AIRE5 169.45 ACRE5 2577 ACRE5 73723 4;RE5 105.97 ACRES 94.3 ACRES NET ORANGE -96.,34 ACRES -31.9.9 ACRE5-11219 ACRES 14377 ACRES 108.46 AC/55 -77.84 ACRES TOTALS UNITS PSR BC C4R MDR LDR 05 /X1511,90 017.9S 2662 U.NTIS 306 UN/LS 144 UNITS PROPOSED 10.1/115 418 0/1/75 2033 011/76 586 08175 NET 0HANC5 -2244 t//JITS 1725 0115 542 149/75 Based on the updated charts, above, the potential dwelling uni s (DUs) if the CAR zone district was to be reduced by 112.19 acres, that would reduce the number of potential DUs by 2,244, thus leaving a potential for 418 DUs. If MDR was to increase by 143.77 acres, that would increase the number of potential DUs by 1,725 DUs, totaling 2,033 potential DUs. Lastly, if LDR was to increase by 108.46 acres that would add a potential for 144 DUs totaling 686 DUs in the LDR zone district. This results in a net change of a total of 23 additional, potential DUs (1,725 MDR + 542 LDR — 2244 CAR = 23). As a result of this correction, the total additional dwelling units on the affected 423 acres is reduced from 97 additional DUs to 23 additional DUs. IV. REFERRAL COMMENTS The following comments and concerns were submitted by Garfield County's Road and Bridge Department: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has many concerns that would happen with the increased density of residential units. The increased traffic volume would mandate many updates to 6 the road system at Battlement Mesa. The increase in traffic volume should be projected out for the future with road improvements designed to handle the projected traffic volumes. All road improvements would be at the developer's expense and approved by the Garfield County engineer. The maintenance of all new roads would not become the responsibility of Garfield County and would not become a part of our road system. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department would like to see some of these concerns addressed prior to our approving the application for the zoning change for more residential units. We do not disagree that more residential units are consistent with the surrounding area and necessary for the influx of new people into this area needing housing. (Emailed response, 10/31/07) Additional concerns were provided by the Consolidated Metro District which states the following: The Consolidated Metropolitan District has reviewed and considered the materials you sent regarding the requested rezone of the Battlement Mcsa PUD, We are concerned that reduction in PSR and BC zoning and the increase in MDR and LDR zoning allows too much residential density, The requested rezone of major parts of Battlement Mcsa will, in the long tern[, impair our ability to he a balanced and well planned community, We are also concerned about the need to resolve basic road and traffic issues as part of the planning for Battlement Mesa. All of the arca requested for rezone is outside our district boundary. We have requested Battlement Mesa Partners include the properly into the District. Theis far, they have refused. This complicates our planning and makes it more difficult to keep track of District boundaries, We request that any approvals of rezoning be conditioned with a requirement of inclusion into the Consolidated Metropolitan District. We do not have the ability al this point to provide water service to two large parcels (5-2 Stone Quarry Commons and the old High School Parcels). To serve these parcels would require the building of a new water tank higher up on the Mesa. We do not have the money to build the required tank at this time. 7) Letter from Consolidated Metropolitan District, 11/5/07 V. STAFF COMMENTS The Colorado Revised Statutes establish the standards of review for rezoning land in the county. The standards depend on whether the proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). If so, the proposed rezoning need only bear a reasonable relationship to the general welfare of the community. If the rezoning is in conflict with the Plan, the Applicant needs to show either 1) that an error was made in establishing the current zoning, or 2) that there has been a change in the conditions of the neighborhood that supports the requested zone change. At present, the subject property is designated "Subdivision" in the Plari. Staff offers the following thoughts in addition to the previously provided information: 7 a. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The PUD is identified in the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 as "subdivision." It appears that one of the main purposes of the PUD was for subdivision into residential and commercial lots. The following goals apply to the requested rezone: Goal: To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment. Goal: Designate and encourage growth favorable zones adjacent to community limits. For these reasons, the proposed rezone to increase the residentially zoned acreage is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. b. Error in Zoning The PUD was approved through a formal public hearing process and was approved by the Board of County Commissioners through Resolution. Staff believes the present zoning of the subject parcels was not done in error. The Applicant does not assert there was an error in the present zoning of the property. c. Change in Conditions of the Neighborhood The application indicates that there is a change in the conditions of the neighborhood. According to the application "The changes in zoning designations are intended to respond to the to the existing demographics of the community that have developed overtime as opposed to creating a `company town' as was originally planned." Although the requested zone district amendment does increase the potential number of residential DUs by 23, the impact of those DUs on traffic, water consumption and wastewater production is expected to be less then the commercial and business oriented zones which would be displaced. Since the original calculations determined that this zone district amendment would add 97 DUs, not the now calculated 23 DUs, the below excerpts are calculated based on the original calculation. In regards to water demand and wastewater treatment demand, Dean Gordon, P.E. of Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer stated (See Exhibit M): 8 This rezoning application creates a net reduction in business/commercial space by increasing residential space. Specifically. the rezoning creates a net increase of 97 single-family detached residential units on 36.8 acres that is currently zoned business/commercial or public/semi- public/recreation. The increase in single-family homes in place of commercial space actually causes a net reduction in water demand and wastewater treatment demand. In addition, William L. Lorah, P.E. of Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (See Exhibit L) states: The proposed rezoning of 259 acres (8 percent of the PUD), according to a report by Schmueser Gordon & Meyer dated November 14, 2007, will require less water than the current zoning of the 259 acres. Consequently, it is WWE's opinion that there is adequate physical and legal water currently available to meet the needs of the proposed zone change and the rest of the build -out of the PUD as long as the demands do not exceed those described in the original decrees. Further, in regards to traffic, Dean Gordon, P.E. of Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer stated (See Exhibit I): I respectfully disagree with his comments regarding the increased density of residential units. This rezoning application creates a net reduction in business/commercial space by increasing residential space. Specifically, the rezoning creates a net increase of 97 single-family detached residential units on 36.8 acres that is currently zoned for business/commercial space. The increase in single-family homes in place of commercial space actually causes a net reduction in site generated traffic that would impact the road network. Below is an example of the To this end, it is Staff's opinion that although the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department and the Consolidated Metropolitan District expressed concerns regarding an increase in residential DUs that the impacts of the expected 97 additional DUs is less then the impacts which would have otherwise been created by the business and commercial districts which are being displaced. Hence, the proposed zone district amendment does not cause the overall Battlement Mesa PUD to exceed the expected water, wastewater and traffic demand from the original PUD approval. As a result, despite the aforementioned concerns, it is Staff's opinion that the impacts created from the proposed zone district amendment can be adequately mitigated at the time of subdivision approval. In addition, updated calculations indicate that the actual increase in DUs is 23, not the originally projected 97. VI. STAFF SUMMARY In light of the forgoing, Staff makes the following observations: 1) The proposed zone district amendment is consistent with the goals and intent of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. 2) Although the requested zone district amendment does increase the potential number of residential DUs, the impact of those DUs on traffic, water consumption and wastewater production is expected to be less then the commercial and business oriented zone districts which would be displaced. 9 3) As the impacts on traffic, water consumption and wastewater production are expected to be less then the commercial and business oriented zones which would be displaced, the impacts from the development can be adequately mitigated at the time of subdivision approval. 4) As the impacts on traffic, water consumption and wastewater production are expected to be less then the commercial and business oriented zones which would be displaced, the proposed zone district amendment does not undermine the approval of the original Battlement Mesa PUD. 5) As is consistent with past practice, at the time of subdivision approval the newly platted subdivisions shall be included within the Consolidated Metropolitan District in order to obtain water and sewer service. VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That all applicable regulations regarding a zone district amendment have been complied with including, but not limited to, Section 10.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 2. The proposed zone district amendment is consistent with the goals and intent of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. 3. That the proposed rezoning from PSR, BC, and CAR to LDR and MDR is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. VIII. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the rezoning of Battlement Mesa PUD from PSR, BC, and CAR to LDR and MDR." 10 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Date Sent: October 18, 2007 Comments Due: November 6, 2007 Name of applicatioh: Battlement Mesa Partners Sent to: Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staffs contact: Christina Montalvo 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has many concerns that would happen with the increased density of residential units. The increased traffic volume would mandate many updates to the road system at Battlement Mesa. The increase in traffic volume should be projected out for the future with road improvements designed to handle the projected traffic volumes. All road improvements would be at the developer's expense and approved by the Garfield County engineer. The maintenance of all new roads would not become the responsibility of Garfield County and would not become a part of our road system. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department would like to see some of these concerns addressed prior to our approving the application for the zoning change for more residential units. We do not disagree that more residential units are consistent with the surrounding area and necessary for the influx of new people into this area needing housing. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept By: Jake B. Mall Date October 31, 2007 Revised 3/30/00 9702859631 Battlement Mesa Metro Consolidated Metro District 10:51:34 a.m. 11-05-2007 2 /2 CONSOLIDATED METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 109 TAMARISK TRAIL. / P.O. BOX 6116 / BAFFLEMENT MESA, CO 81636 (970) 285-9050 / FAX (970) 285-9631 Christina Montalvo Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108th street, suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Dear Ms. Montalvo; Re: Battlement Mesa Partners request for rezoning The Consolidated Metropolitan District has reviewed and considered the materials you sent regarding the requested rezone of the Battlement Mesa PUD. We are concemed that reduction in PSR and BC zoning and the increase in MDR and LDR zoning allows too much residential density. The requested rezone of major parts of Battlement Mesa will, in the long terry impair our ability to be a balanced and well planned community. We are also concerned about the need to resolve basic road and traffic issues as part of the planning for Battlement Mesa. All of the area requested for rezone is outside our district boundary. We have requested Battlement Mesa Partners include the property into the District. Thus far, they have refused. This complicates our planning and makes it more difficult to keep track of District boundaries. We request that any approvals of rezoning be conditioned with a requirement of inclusion into the Consolidated Metropolitan District. We do not have the ability at this point to provide water service to two large parcels (5-2 Stone Quarry Commons and the old High School Parcels). To serve these parcels would require the building of a new water tank higher up on the Mesa. We do not have the money to build the required tank at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rezone of Battlement Mesa If you have questions please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Bob Jas District Manager Cc. Consolidated Metropolitan District Board of Directors TO: Christina Montal FROM: Dean Gordon, P.E. DATE: November 13 RE: Battlement M SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER E 140114 E E R /SURVEYORSS MEMORANDUM Senior Planner a Rezon' g — Road & Bridge Comments I have reviewed the comments made by Jake Mall of the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department dated October 31, 2007 and have the following response. I respectfully disagree with his comments regarding the increased density of residential units. This rezoning application creates a net reduction in business/commercial space by increasing residential space. Specifically, the rezoning creates a net increase of 97 single-family detached residential units on 36.8 acres that is currently zoned for business/commercial space. The increase in single-family.homes in place of commercial space actually causes a net reduction in site generated traffic that would impact the road network. Below is an example of the calculations that support this finding: For the trip generation estimates, we first equated commercial/business zoned space to square footage of leaseable space. We looked at similar sized commercial spaces planned or constructed in Garfield County and compared acreage with leasable space. Development Site Acreage Square Feet of Space Glenwood Meadows 45 490,000 Ferguson Crossing, (Proposed in Silt) 65 440,000 Based on the above table, Glenwood Meadows is a more dense development equating to about 11,000 SF of leaseable space per acre. If we apply that density to the space in Battlement Mesa that would have been commercial/business space (36.8 acres), we calculated that this land could have been occupied by about 405,000 SF of commercial/business space. Under the rezoning proposal, this land would contain 97 single-family homes. Next we compared the traffic generated by several different commercial land uses (for comparison) to the traffic expected to be generated by 97 single-family homes. Land Use # of UNITS DAILY TRIPS AM IN AM OUT PM IN PM OUT Single -Fancily Detached Homes 1 97 928 18 54 62 36 1 I8 W. 6'", SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 970-945-1004 FAX: 970-945-5948 Free -Standing Discount Superstore 2 405 19,930 380 365 768 799 Shopping Center] 405 17,391 254 163 729 790 General Office Building. 405 4,459 553 75 103 501 — ITE Land Use Code #210, trip rate based on number of dwelling u its 2— ITE Land Use Code #813, trip rate based on 1,000 square feet of 1 asable space 3— ITE Land Use Code #820, trip rate based on 1,000 square feet of I asable space 4— ITE Land Use Code #710, trip rate based on 1,000 square feet of I asable space As the table shows, any of the potential land uses for commercial/business space will generate significantly larger daily and peak hour traffic volumes on the area roadways than the proposed residential units. The proposed rezoning will create a substantial reduction in total traffic volumes generated by the proposed uses in Battlement Mesa. I 18 W. 6", SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948 BATTLEMENT MESA CORE AREA MASTER PLAN v m N 5 The Denver Post - Garfield County sees explosive growth denverpost.com TiwDm'VEtFkwi denver & the west Garfield County sees explosive growth A perfect economic storm fuels the county, pop. 50,289 By Jason Blevins The Denver Post Article Last Updated: 11/13/2007 11:45:19 AM MST New Castle, which sits along the Interstate 70 corridor between Glenwood Springs and Parachute, is one of the fastest-growing communities in Garfield County. Energy development in the area is spurring a population boom. (Post cnprial / William Wnnd„1 They call it Black Sunday: May 2, 1982. "Everyone can tell you what they were doing when Exxon shut its gates," says Rifle Mayor Keith Lambert, recalling his picnic that afternoon. More than 2,000 people in the Colorado River Valley lost their jobs the day the giant oil company shut down its failed shale operation — before it produced even a single barrel. "Then there was 20 -plus years of people struggling," Lambert says. But these days, shuttered storefronts have reopened. Unemployment is practically nonexistent. Property prices, two decades stagnant, are skyrocketing. The natural -resources industry has returned — and so have the boom times. From Glenwood Springs west to Parachute and points north and south, the valley is surfing a wave of natural gas -fueled growth that mirrors the region's roaring '70s. Towns such as New Castle and Silt are exploding with new residents. Homes and apartment complexes are going up daily. Main streets vibrate with the rumble of big new pickups. But with the prosperity have come growing pains. Sagebrush ridges are dotted with gas rigs. Schools are crowded, and businesses can't keep up with demands. Traffic backs up from exit -ramp stop signs onto Interstate 70 every weekday afternoon. Longtime residents find themselves in a squeeze. Speculating real estate buyers and sellers are driving housing prices so high they threaten to oust the teachers, volunteer soccer Advertisement \ sxoP DMINF wITMUREE STATEWIDE / DEuv¢w \, OWnOOsvt COUPON $50 OFF RO PRICE ON HEMS TOTALING $300 OR MORE Print Powered By !Pd 1 FormatDynamics' Page 1 of 4 The Denver Post - Garfield County sees explosive growth Page 2 of 4 denverpost.com Trw DEN%tk POST coaches and Girl Scout troop leaders who anchor communities. In Garfield County, real estate sales are 26 percent ahead of last year, reaching $920.8 million through September. The average price for a home in the county, long the bailout for middle-class workers in resort towns, is $444,436, up from $279,000 in 2000. In the town of Parachute, the average price of a home climbed $40,000 between June and July. With rental costs following the same track, the county's growing population is wandering further Downvaliey migration U.S. Census Bureau figures show Garfield County was home to 30,000 people In 1990. It grew 46 percent in the next decade to 44,000 residents. Local leaders project the county will reach 90,000 by 2015. (Post special / William Woody) afield in search of housing. Or they're just leaving. Matt Wells and his wife think they might have to depart nearby Carbondale, which is also affected. Housing prices are just too high for the pair of teachers to move up from their modest town home, which is feeling cramped with their 16 -month-old. "We aren't looking for a mansion or anything," says the 37 -year-old Aspen high school teacher. "But a couple professionals with master's degrees should be able to afford a house, you know." Expansion, popularity Growing pains and stories such as the Wellses' are old news for Colorado's resort -anchored valleys. Cities such as Aspen and Vail know well the tribulations of fast expansion and Real estate squeeze Speculating real estate buyers and sellers are driving housing prices so high that they threaten to lock out the teachers, volunteer soccer coaches and Girl Scout troop leaders who anchor communities. (Post special / William W,.Ar,n soaring popularity. In Pitkin County, home to Aspen, the average home now costs $5.25 million and real estate sales passed $2 billion in September. The middle-class trials that come along with that — unattainable housing prices, proliferating vacation homes loss of community — have trickled down from the ski resorts to the nearby hamlets, a downvalley creep that pushes affordable homes further and further from the Advertisement leen of New & Used -KOP' SKOP ONIIH! �WIIN w! _. r fip1lWip! ONY[AY �.- •e Gal -SHOWROOM 'couP4tt7 $50 OFF wgXub PRICE ON IUMS TOTALING $300 ouASORE Print Powered By lIS 1 FormatDynamics' The Denver Post - Garfield County sees explosive growth Page 3 of 4 denverpost.com THE DLN% Pus1 resort jobs. And now the Roaring Fork Valley's famous downvalley migration — the mass flight that recently shoved the average home price in former bedroom community of Basalt past $1 million — has met the energy boom. "The unstoppable forces have collided, and • there's a whole new Energy demand There were 1,000 gas rigs, like the ones on the left, in the region in 2001. Today there are nearly 4,000 rigs, and officials estimate the 6,000 -square -mile basin will have 20,000 rigs In the next two decades. (Post special / William Woody) dynamic I don't think we fully understand yet," says Colin Laird, the director of the Carbondale -based community group Healthy Mountain Communities. "Everything is getting pushed further and further downvalley, and now downvalley is too expensive." "We don't have bedroom communities any more. We are at a place where the worker bees don't have a place to live," says Liz Lippitt, the head of marketing for Land Title in Glenwood Springs, which compiles monthly real estate information for communities along the Roaring Fork and Colorado rivers. "I'm thinking this growth is just going to race all the way to Grand Junction. I have to think, 'Where does it stop? When do we get to a place where no one can afford to live here anymore?' " It's hard to say whether New Castle, Silt and Rifle begrudge their speedy transition from bedroom community to self-sufficient towns. While Aspen and its satellites have long appreciated the affordable Garfield County municipalities for their ability to host police, nurses and service workers, the towns themselves have endured the social impact of residents' long commutes. "The greatest contributor to the decline in community health is extended travel times," says Frank Breslin, the mayor of New Castle who recently inherited the job of city manager. Now, with the oil and gas explosion from dozens of companies seeking to tap the Pi ceance Basin — known locally as the "Persian Gulf of natural gas" — beneath Garfield County, many workers are giving up on the commute to resort work and donning hard hats on gas rigs. There were 1,000 gas rigs in the region in 2001. Today there are nearly 4,000 piercing Piceance. State oil and gas officials estimate the northern, gas -rich section of the 6,000 -square -mile basin will have 20,000 wells in the next two decades. With that energy development comes a crush of people, all seeking to call Garfield County home. U.S. Census Bureau figures show Garfield County Advertisement /_! "FAA!AAA F$DW'ROOM COUPON '-. $SO OFF IRAM PRICE ON ITMS TOTALING $300 OR DIODE TrrrdpmMISSi OM. YAs�Ir.'OTw1YpP�lRdst•Me�M' a, ., Print Powered By Mrd FonrnatDynamics` The Denver Post - Garfield County sees explosive growth Page 4 of 4 denverpost.com 'DIE DENY R POST was home to 30,000 people in 1990. It grew 46 percent in the next decade, to 44,000 residents. By 2015, local leaders project the county will reach 90,000. New Castle, Silt, Rifle and Parachute — the epicenter of the nation's largest -ever natural-gas extraction push — had a combined population of 11,500 in 2000, and projections pin the four towns at 34,000 by 2015. Rifle, a 102 -year-old city that knows boom and bust, has 4,200 more homes planned, with 3,000 of those already approved and awaiting construction. Waiting for construction is a big problem in Garfield County. Workers have fled for rigs, where the pay is better. Builders, hobbled by crackdowns on illegal immigrants, are struggling to keep crews intact. Construction costs have joined real estate prices in a race for unattainable. A year ago, New Castle landed a grant from Colorado's Department of Local Affairs to renovate its aging, energy -inefficient city hall. Leaders there planned $640,000 in upgrades and DOLA ponied up half. In the one year it took to secure the grant, the cost of the upgrades almost doubled, to $1.2 million. "It's just all happening so fast out here," says Breslin, a skilled cabinetmaker and installer who squeezes in mayoral and city manager work between an ever-growing workload. "I just dart around like a bumblebee." The influx of energy workers has strained local schools in Garfield County. The increasing cost of housing makes it difficult for the district to lure new teachers, and the high wages paid by energy companies keep snaring maintenance workers and bus drivers. "We pay drivers $14 an hour, and they pay $22 an hour. We have to compete with that, and we've seen lots of turnover," says Christy Hamrick, the finance director for Garfield County's 4,500 -student school district. The district offered 23 positions that potential workers declined this school year, and affordable housing has climbed to the top tier of the district's list of challenges. "The housing issue is paramount and absolutely crucial right now," Hamrick said. "There are units available; it's just a matter of affordable." Jason Blevins: 303-954-1374 or jblevins@denverpost.com Advertisement SXOP OXIr ouv['Xrl,c •,J ittnet¢o PRICE ON ITEMS TOTALING $300 ORMORI "- Lu../L-_-_-..1.._.....v.-..,, - /..: 'IAACAAI Print Powered By 16- FormarDynamics WWE Wright Water Engineers, Inc. 818 Colorado Avenue, Suite 307, P.O. Box 219 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (970) 945-7755 TEL (970) 945-9210 FAX November 14, 2007 Via Hand Delivery Chris Coyle, Esq. Balcomb & Green, PC P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Battlement Mesa — Water Requirement Projection Dear Mr. Coyle: vrww.wrightwater.com e-mail: blorahewrightwater.com Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) and its sister company, Wright McLaughlin Engineers, developed the basic water supply plan for the entire 3,200 -acre Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD). The plan was developed over several years beginning in 1978. The physical water supply for the Battlement Mesa PUD was designed to come from diversions from the Colorado River. There is always an adequate physical water supply in the Colorado River for the build -out of the PUD. The PUD has a large portfolio of decreed water rights. The two primary water rights used to meet the development water requirements are: 1) 20 cfs of the Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline appropriated in 1956, and 2) 1250 acre-feet (AF) of water from Ruedi Reservoir through a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. The Ruedi Reservoir water is to be used as augmentation water when the Dow water right is out -of -priority. The key water rights for the Battlement Mesa PUD are described and decreed in Water Court Case Nos. 79CW3351 and 82CW107. These two cases are water augmentation plans that provide an adequate legal water supply to serve a population of 23,000 people, plus commercial areas, schools, a community center, a 100 -acre golf course, and to irrigate 775 acres of landscaping and lawn. Documentation on how the water requirement estimates were made is presented in the September 23, 1982 report prepared by WWE entitled "Augmentation Plan for Battlement Mesa". The relevant text of that report is attached. The current population of the PUD is less than 6,000. The PUD is currently built out to less than 30 percent of its planned water supply. The proposed rezoning of 259 acres (8 percent of the PUD), according to a report by Schmueser Gordon & Meyer dated November 14, 2007, will require less water than the current zoning of the 259 acres. Consequently, it is WWE's opinion that there is adequate physical and legal water currently available to meet the needs of the proposed zone change and the rest of the build -out of the PUD as long as the demands do not exceed those described in the original decrees. DENVER DURANGO (303) 480-1700 TEL (303) 480-1020 FAX (970) 259-7411 TEL (970) 259-8758 FAX Mr. Chris Coyle November 14, 2007 Page 2 If you have any questions or need additional historic background, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. BY l ,.7 oC. vier-va William L. Lorah, P.E. Senior Consultant Enclosure cc w. enol: Scott Balcomb, Esq. CLWORK \Wamr Requirement Projections.doc ENGINEERING REPORT FOR BATTLEMENT MESA AUGMENTATION PLAN 1982 WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 2420 ALCOTT STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80211 SEPTEMBER 23, 1982 741-020.05R TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE I INTRODUCTION 1 II WATER REQUIREMENTS 5 Depletions 8 III WATER SUPPLY 13 Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline 13 Battlement Mesa Wells 15 Eaton Pipeline No. 2 15 IV V WATER CONSTRAINTS 16 PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION 18 Replacement of Depletions 18 Ruedi Reservoir 19 Other Sources of Augmentation Water 21 Statement of Plan for Augmentation 22 Administration 24 APPENDIX A - DECREES FOR THE DOW PUMPING PLANT AND PIPELINE, INCLUDING 79CW351, PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION, DECREED MARCH 20, 1981 APPENDIX B - DECREES FOR CASE NO. W-2560 APPENDIX C - DECREES FOR EATON PIPELINE NO. 2 APPENDIX D - SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL STUDY OF RUEDI RESERVOIR RELEASES FOR THE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY OF BATTLEMENT MESA APPENDIX E - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF "TRANSIT LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH RUEDI RESERVOIR RELEASES," WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, SEPTEMBER 1982 APPENDIX F - CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND BATTLEMENT MESA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, FOR FURNISHING WATER FOR MUNICIPAL, DOMESTIC AND OTHER RELATED PURPOSES FROM RUEDI RESERVOIR SECTION I INTRODUCTION Battlement Mesa, Inc., a Delaware corporation, doing business in the State of Colorado, is building a new community, known as Battlement Mesa, to serve the growth associated with the shale oil industry. Battlement Mesa is a planned unit development located south of the Colorado River near the Town of Parachute in Garfield County. At ultimate build -out, Battlement Mesa will house approximately 23,000 people in single-family dwellings, town- houses, apartments, and mobile homes. The development will also include commercial areas, schools, community center and golf course. Water supply for the Battlement Mesa central system will be provided by diversion from the Colorado River and from wells in the Colorado River al- luvium. The water will be treated to meet state and federal potable water quality standards. There will be an integrated storage and distribution system that will supply all the domestic water needs for the development, including municipal fire protection and irrigation of landscaping and lawns. Battlement Mesa will also divert water from the Colorado River through the Eaton No. 2 Pipeline. This water will be used primarily for irrigation of the golf course and open space and so used, will not be treated. In an average year, the development will require a water supply of approximately 4,810 acre-feet of water. In a dry year, it will need approximately 5,200 acre-feet. Expected maximum daily diversion will be about 20 cfs. In addition to using the treated water supply for lawn irrigation, Battle- ment Mesa will continue to use water from its decreed irrigation ditches for irrigation of landscaping and greenbelt areas. These ditches, which divert from Battlement Creek, Monument Gulch and Dry Creek, have historically irri- gated the Battlement Mesa lands. None of Battlement Mesa's water rights in these ditches will be transferred or directly connected to the central water supply system. Consequently, they are not a part of this plan for augmenta- tion. -2 - In -house wastewater will be collected by a central sewer system, treated at a wastewater treatment plan located near the Colorado River and discharged directly to the river as permitted by NPDES. The sewage collection system will be designed and constructed in accordance with State of Colorado stan- dards to minimize infiltration and exfiltration. With the exception of depletions caused by irrigation of lawns, landscaping, and the golf course, all uses by the municipal system and returns to the river will be directly measured. Direct diversions from the Colorado River and punpage from the wells will be measured. Inflows to the water treatment plant will also be measured. In addition, there will be meters on all user service lines to measure use. Inflows to the sewage treatment plant will be metered, and treated effluent from the sewage treatment plant will be mea- sured. Battlement Mesa will use the formula already decreed in its original plan for augmentation (Case No. 79CW351) to calculate the depletions caused by lawn irrigation. This formula is based on 80 percent of the lawn irrigation water being consumptively used and the other 20 percent returning to the river with a one month lag. Therefore, diversions and depletions in this plan for augmentation are mea- sured, with the exception of lawn irrigation, which is handled by the proce- dure approved by the Water Court in Case No. 79CW351. This basis of.mea- surement for diversions and depletions makes for a relatively straightfor- ward administration of the plan for augmentation. In Case No. 79CW351, Battlement Mesa, Inc. applied for a plan for augmenta- tion to provide a legal and physical municipal water supply for its first five years of development. According to this plan, which was decreed on March 20, 1981, Battlement Mesa is entitled to divert 6 cfs from the Colo- rado River under its ownership of 20 cfs in the Dow Pupping Plant and Pipe- line right and to replace out -of -priority diversions with releases from any of seven reservoirs or groups of reservoirs: Wildcat, Ruedi, Green Moun- tain, Monument, Deep Creek and Thompson Creek Reservoirs and Mesa Lakes 1 through 8. -3 - Battlement Mesa, Inc. filed an application (Case No. 82CW107) on May 13, 1982 for a second plan for augmentation which will permit Battlement Mesa to divert its full ownership in the Dow right (20 cfs) for municipal use, to replace out -of -priority diversions with releases from Ruedi Reservoir under a contract with the U.S. government and from its own storage reservoirs, and to provide a supply for ultimate development. Existing water rights in the Colorado River basin will not be affected by this plan. The purpose of this report is to present the factual vasis for this second plan for augmenta- tion. 11 In summary: 1. At ultimate development, Battlement Mesa will provide services to 23,000 people. 2. The water supply for the houses, commercial areas, public buildings and lawn irrigation of this development will be provided by a central system which will divert directly from the. Colorado River and pump from the alluvium. A water supply for the golf course will be provided primarily by direct diversions from the irrigation ditches from Battlement Creek and through the Eaton Pipeline No. 2 from the Colorado River. 3. At ultimate development, maximum daily diversion for the central potable system will be approximately 20 cfs. 4. Battlement Mesa will continue to divert water for irrigation from its decreed ditches on Battlement Creek, Monument Gulch and Dry Creek that have historically irrigated Battlement Mesa lands. These diversions are not connected to the central water system and are, therefore, not a part of this plan. 5. Wastewater will be collected by a central sewer system, treated and re- turned to the Colorado River. 6. Except for irrigation return flows, uses and returns of water will be metered. -4- 7. Lawn irrigation return flows will be calculated by standard engineering methods using previously decreed criteria. 8. Water for Battlement Mesa will be diverted under the following water rights: Battlement Mesa Wells 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, and 5A, Battlement Mesa Wells 61, 62, 63, 84, 85, 66, and B7, the Dow Punping Plant and Pipeline and Eaton Pipeline No. 2. When these rights are out of priority, Battlement Mesa will replace water to the river from Ruedi Reservoir under a contract with the U.S. government or from its own storage reservoirs. -5 - SECTION II WATER REQUIREMENTS Battlement Mesa's central water supply system will divert its raw water from the Colorado River. The central system will support the ultimate planned population of about 23,000 people and irrigate approximately 775 acres of landscaping and lawns and a 100 -acre golf course. Table 1 shows the estimates used to analyze the water requirements for in- house domestic use and domestic irrigation for a population of 23,000. TABLE 1 WATER USE ESTIMATES FOR A BATTLEMENT MESA POPULATION OF 23,000 Number Type Persons Irrigation of of per Daily Requirement Per Ugit Units Living Units Unit (gal/capita/day (ft') 223 Rural residence 3.2 90 12,500 2,146 Single family residence 3.0 90 7,500 1,502 Townhouse 3.0 90 2,000 2,975 Apartment 2.8 90 1,000 1,052 Mobile home 2.8 75 2,000 The Table 1 estimates are based on expected land use patterns and population densities at full development. Average use was assumed to be 90 gallons per capita per day, except that mobile homes were assumed to require 75 gallons per capita per day. Table 2 shows the estimated monthly diversions needed to supply domestic re- quirements. It breaks down in-house water use into three categories. Column 1 in Table 2 shows in-house water use by a population of 5,200. This use was covered in the original augmentation plan, which was decreed in March 1981 (Case No. 79CW350 and 79CW351. For a copy of this decree, see Appendix A.) Column 2 shows the in-house use for the incremental population -6 - of 17,800, and column 3 shows the estimated in-house use for the total popu- lation of 23,000 which is expected at the completion of Battlement Mesa. In-house use estimates in column 3 of Table 2 are based on Table 1 data together with an estimated 600,000 gpd demand for schools, commercial build- ings, churches and community center. TABLE 2 ESTIMATED BATTLEMENT MESA DOMESTIC WATER USE (Acre -Feet) (1) (2) (3) In -House Use In -House Use In -House Use Population of 5,200 Additional Population Total Population of Month (Orig. Aug. Plan) of 17,800 23,000 January 50 198 248 February 46 178 224 March 50 198 248 April 48 192 240 May 50 198 248 June 48 192 240 July 50 198 248 August 50 198 248 September 48 192 240 October 50 198 248 November 48 192 240 December 50 198 248 Total Annual Use 588 2,332 2,920 Total water diversion for irrigation at the 23,000 population level was esti- mated to be approximately 2,279 acre-feet in a dry year and 1,890 acre-feet in an average year. The amount of water to be used for irrigation was deter- mined by using the Jensen-Haise method and assuming that 80 percent of the water applied to the land will be consumed by the plants. Table 3 details OwC eNPIRM1 0 OMOP.O_m P 1RONCl.N N .+Int o00m I� —Y •V WC EO O 0 00 FS + 1ti O Y Y ^ A 5Y d— MO= IRLL 0. PmNrONi.•I,0O n L d NIIi.OQN•y N • C E 0 M y. O C Y n - ^ N _ W = 2 O O Y Mr L 1. - OC = ^ Y 0 ^ O C X 0 L ` o.•^ C O Y + C d ME 6 Wq5 Q == = c- 211 -aa =Y M Q d OC ti u d Q W L N LL W ort d C W C yLy Y 0 HO.+ or Q Z La= Q md •.•• Y W LL VC A d WC 60 00 =WC v s - 0 L L — O C +fid Y Ir L C W < 0.p0 L 41▪ .▪ 14 R. d A•. d _ Y L C EfiC Y • N d O 0 N 0.00 0 - . N C 1 L _O N.< O NO O a p P d • y NONQ•+ 0 L • L C U 1. .•M A N O P 3 C! N 0. L W I. O .0 A 4:1.- C C u P C • d 6W A g OOPfPNMO b R.OMN PIRG ••IPfN•I+ _,. CQ Mi W .. fi QN •'II0 IIHO et 0 N • .. N W O C A .qIl• .•INON• ▪ YYO W0d ACA • N u.t• LO• d ..pa= n 1rC OY O A 0 V WM PC d^ d'^ C O L L L A P C Y Q g E d 0 .0, -.,...,..mo . OtliWI, YtO N I A d L E n..N0r QIP.•. f N --Q.O IR .t V d I .�. .y I� .y .O IR A L d C- 0 d 0r0:81" O 00 i- N 6 73"g NE 0d0 • MM WWWWW .0 POOP PMI P ACC A 0 OM..O•.IRNo. 1� OM11R.GfN N _qA_;V O O o O o O o o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N C^ w 11. C^^ 104-0 A u A P Ir 0 C C N 0 C L d _ d1li•- 3t D6C u Y0Y QCOOPfN.•. ON•RNON+ NN IOfER.pP Y •• ••Abd ^C vND 00000000 N. 0000000 fl—CN • • 0 c c 0^0 d Y L d..0 A L •- wt. L d A v a o C Au A_ � 5)E yL d C.7C..“ IR _p I L im NYLa ova N6j�tg fOi Y d >f9Y O E 3 d >•t0*.+0 3 it c'i44.f.,181 dr 4.2,31116/ i�'ac'v b ` • � ^�� -8- the estimated monthly diversion requirements to irrigate the total 775 acres of landscaping and lawn and the 100 -acre golf course associated with ulti- mate development for a population of 23,000. The irrigation requirements of the 219 acres and the 50 -acre golf course which were covered by the original augmentation plan are also shown in Table 3. As approved by the Water Court in Case No. 79CW351, the 20 percent of the irrigation water which will not be consumed by plants is assumed to return to the Colorado River one month after application. These return flows are shown in column 6 of Table 3. Average year consumptive use calculations were based on the years 1965-1980; dry year calculations were based on 1978. Peak use for Battlement Mesa at ultimate development is shown in Table 4. Peak flow was determined by increasing the average in-house demand by 50 percent. In addition, total peak estimates for both irrigation and in- house use were increased by 10 percent to account for contingencies and un- anticipated increases in the water system service area. It was assumed that peak use will occur during the driest month (July) in a dry year. Table 4 indicates that peak day use is expected to be about 19.8 cfs. TABLE 4 PEAK WATER USE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT 23,000 POPULATION, 775 ACRES OF LANDSCAPING AND 100 -ACRE GOLF COURSE Peak Day CFS GPM Acre-feet Gallons 19.8 8,890 39.2 12,800,000 DEPLETIONS In-house domestic depletions will be measured in the actual operation of the augmentation plan. However, for purposes of estimating depletions to deter- mine augmentation requirements, in-house consumptive use was assumed to be 4 percent of total diversions. Irrigation consumptive use was assumed to be equal to application minus return flows. Table 5 details the total average and dry year water supply requirements and depletions for the development associated with a population of 5,200. Table 6 shows the total average and 1 O L Y c8 = N We ri VI e.. Z N_ IL 11 Ii J 0 F IC ' 0 0 W U. h- 0 Z J I- W L. Y N W W J N Estimated Diversions W La CP C attc C OHO 0 0' 0 of n n 090 u'flit elf 0 e 0nf O' r ul e 11 N H - OOON0f CO if 0 NI n - '0 N f 11f N a' 06n 9090 CO f N f N O V 0 f Cu a n n a n 9 0 NfJ 0 Nn O'-'0eN 4 H 0000 a -1p P-., n00 0 Ny.CID .'.00••n•N r 0ve '0OC NO N N IOII ro s. L an L LF L yVQ NI a u- V 0.1 0 W• c C C L L DIC - O G M T U C 0 -'a4ra=•Ja -Ja cJ S{��' Estimated Depletions -9- N N n 9 a n N 9 n N N .p O H-_ n r f '1 N y 44 a •d c C O 0•I1OnNO %On OO N V N O NI 0y n .ni N N J V 0 O. 0 •.1 OJ 3 N N N N N N N N N N N N f V N > 0. Fj 0 C C NNNCCOn in a .Ni .N. r .•rN E v u V 0 • 0 0 0 N N 0 ti O N n n O V ^^y�f n a C V V N L eJ d L Y L Yo E N N N N N N N N N N N N f N •/ • .0 N .+ c O y .. Y Ea Y T O! a▪ t al L. L L n n 03 L A J L� t5. d DDEGE aEC� '- fp c v L C.c L L c" 00 n t) 0 n 0 H u W 0 d 2 x LW C. • W U N I.. O CICO J W N ! 0Z CC —_-- 1-iW W C N d J g 0 Z Le GO 0 to L — J IA IG_3 S 0 S Q W W'6 -N d' WOC.- - J W U CCC J W~O v1 0 6 r ( r v V —.- et W 0 -OUc N C — W W C ▪ W L aoa Q 7 0 — rcr J C - O L d W Z W J - Q H 40 CO 4-40 O + W H O Estimated Diversions 1v -10- CO C Cu, 10.t Neff IN- CN CO 0 Cr,C—V1n Nb—SCC Win. ccr 0 O et PPP - 10=rNNPP.0C — N17eurlter . NN— —— 14" O n .� O O O n, o O O N N O 0 0 o 0 0 017 � P e CO n 1 0 0 Cr. PO N h—^ N P 'C en C41 0WN- N ••• • v WI LI a L C Pm�NMNo N'.pNe N P PPPPP T PP 17 CO CO O O, u n y P O 0 co CO ^+ N 171(11, O PI NI -- N 9• Estimated Depletions t -CCCCCCCGCq .n P �'- C 1O1O vfe N 001.0 b-1717N5cc V 000000‘0000.0w100 V1 O0OCC^1OeNNn0 - y110r1NPY10 1'1 IP cc Y'1— P• '- — O N 17ON—1' 1717N N N •rl — 00 O0 CO CO P CO N CO CO N CO N CO N cr. PGNOMON P e7 �'-�� P yLI. OP Co G LELCU W L S r L L D[. E q L C L— N W C. D LEG L A _I ZLV— LAi&OL 3 >lU— YI �Or1CUY 3 C C.0 LL AC — Ci... 2.• V C C•01- 1- f1C— PGr'>U C '��s'a'i3'oa9bi� a 41'212+3-3a'S'8€..E E -11 - dry year water supply requirements and depletions for the additional popula- tion of 17,800 which was not covered by the first Battlement Mesa augmenta- tion plan. Table 7 presents total average and dry year requirements and depletions for the ultimate development of 23,000 population. Based upon Battlement Mesa's projections, the Town of Battlement Mesa will be comprised of approximately 8,023 units at full growth, with a population of approximately 23,000 people. The water supply will serve this single - and multi -family housing, plus schools, churches, a community center, commercial facilites and a 100 -acre golf course. It will also be used to irrigate approximately 775 acres of public and private lawns and land- scaping. Assuming that (a) each individual will require 90 gallons of water per day for in-house use and assuring, as above, (b) an in-house consumptive use of 4 percent and (c) an irrigation consumptive use equal to applications minus return flows (see Table 3, columns (5) and (6)), it is estimated that Battlement Mesa will deplete the Colorado River by 1942 acre-feet in a dry year and 1630 acre-feet in an average year (Table 7). Irrigation return flows have been lagged by one month to approximate the actual depletion pattern. It must be emphasized that under actual operating conditions, all flows will be metered except return flows from landscape irrigation; therefore, the above assumptions will not be necessary to the administration of the augmen- tation plan because it will be administered on the basis of recorded data. However, these assumptions are necessary at present to provide a basis for estimating expected depletions and required augmentation water in the future and to demonstrate that the supply of augmentation water will be sufficient to replace depletions when the Dow, Eaton Pipeline No. 2 and the wells are called out of priority. d 112r 0 Z r I— Cl u wC N C U O H W 7 W 0 Inc f ,- ✓ W A 0 01 CC 6 W L IC Estimated Diversions d N 1) N 1 Domestic Use -12- 0)•t0O10r010NOmOW O 00,00 en PGtP"00 0 •N•rPm su'1 e'1000 rti11000—t— ^1 NN ry wr t`Lot 0NNN CO NOO rt, rO s 000000SIC000000 0 s. IP 0, •I CO 000 ...1 T CO0A 900 N n O Ns V N yZ LW O S 0)0000e00m0000)0m 0 O 00,0000000000 P N N N Si Cu N N N NNN N 0, •- • N W Si =F- O 1 r W H J J 6�rr W Li • d Q N r NW i I CO O CO O N O P O M• O CO P S J LO P 0• O N n•• r A 0 Cu ON•rMY P1D Io00 01 W U '+m LO C-^ P N N N e7 N s. m 1O O e•1 N N r 1— y tor r1 — 7 7— W H - C H 1 aIn OOO^�N�1G e'11000 0, C • 00000 ND..00r n0 n •Nr NI W 1.. n 1O .—JN^1r.. 0,1 N N1fl LSI N i N0�1 e'1r N S V N 0 •' d 0 0 0 9 O m 9 O m O W 0 0010000000,000 0, N N N CuNN N N N N N N P 1.. L A J L r N d D pEL• yEy A A A 0 L r N 44, D L 4d CL7 .1 Q CI CDLL�+C)0'.& U C CLLL �C II I 0 s -13- SECTION III WATER SUPPLY The source of municipal water for Battlement Mesa will be the Colorado River and the Colorado River alluvium. Battlement Mesa will divert water directly from the Colorado River under the Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline and Eaton Pipeline No. 2 water rights. It will pump water from the Colorado River alluvium by a series of wells: Battlement Mesa Wells 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, and 5A and Battlement Mesa Wells 81, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6 and B7. The locations of the various points of diversion are presented in Figure 1. The water rights to permit these diversions are discussed below. DOW PUMPING PLANT AND PIPELINE Under a decree dated November 10, 1966, the Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline was given the right to divert 178 cfs from the Colorado River with an appro- priation date of January 24, 1955. Water diverted under this right was originally decreed for industrial, mining, retorting, refining, power, domes- tic, and all other uses related to the production of shale oil and its by- products. The 1966 decree located the point of diversion on the north bank of the Colo- rado River approximately 1.25 miles upstream of Parachute. In a subsequent decree (W-2786), an alternate point of diversion was established approxi- mately one mile upstream of the town. In a decree dated March 20, 1981 (79 CW350 and 351), Battlement Mesa obtained the right to divert 20 of the 178 cfs at two other alternate points of diversion, one on the south bank of the Colorado River near the bridge just upstream of Parachute and one at the intake for the municipal water treatment plant. Copies of the original decree for the Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline and the decrees entered in Case Numbers W-2786 and 79CW350 and 351 appear in Appendix A of this report. The 1981 judgment also gave Battlement Mesa the right to use this water for muni- cipal, domestic, industrial, commercial, irrigation, sewage treatment, and other beneficial uses in connection with the new town. A copy of the 1981 decree appears in Appendix A to this report. I'1 1 T7S Raw It /1 PSM 7 r • • w TER TREATMENT PLANT UJ EL S 1A- 5A- ■ SWAGE TREATMENT PLANT CW PP + PL.. • -14- COLA) PP • PL WELLS SI -S7 pI mime EATON PI- *2 LOCATION OF POINTS OF DIVERSION AT BATTLEMENT MESA FIGURE 1 -15 - BATTLEMENT MESA WELLS Battlement Mesa intends to pump water for municipal use from Battlement Mesa Wells 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A and 5A (previously called Atlantic Richfield Wells 1A through 5A) and Battlement Mesa Wells 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, and 6-7. The legal descriptions are contained in the application (82CW107). On September 16, 1976, in Case No. W-2560, Battlement Mesa Wells 1A through 5A and Atlantic Richfield Well B were given the conditional right to withdraw water from the Colorado River alluvium for municipal, domestic, irrigation and industrial purposes under an appropriation date of March 1, 1974, and to be used as alternate points of diversion for the Dow Pumping Plant and Pipe- line. Battlement Mesa Wells 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, and 5A were decreed condition- ally for 0.22 cfs (100 gpm) each and Atlantic Richfield Well B was decreed conditionally for 1.10 cfs (500 gpm). Wellfield A and the B well were decreed as alternate points of diversion for 1.10 cfs each of the water pre- viously awarded to the Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline. Copies of the two decrees in Case No. W-2560 are contained in Appendix B. On April 20, 1981, the State Engineer issued well permits granting Battlement Mesa the right to divert Atlantic Richfield Well B at Battlement Mesa Wells 61, 62, and 83. Battlement Mesa Well 81 was permitted for 100 gpm; 62, for 200 gpm; and 63, for 200 gpm. A11 three of these wells were subsequently drilled, and, on April 26, 1982, Battlement Mesa submitted beneficial use statements for these wells to the State Engineer. In addition, Battlement Mesa has also submitted a permit application and beneficial use statement for Well 6-4 which claims 300 gpm for municipal use, and applications for permits for Battlement Mesa Wells B5, B6, and 87. EATON PIPELINE NO. 2 The Eaton Pipeline No. 2 was decreed conditionally on July 9, 1965, for 10 cfs for irrigation, manufacturing, industrial and domestic uses. By a sup- plemental decree, 4.25 cfs of this right was made absolute while the remain- ing 5.75 cfs was continued as a conditional right. The decrees for this water right are contained in Appendix C. -16 - SECTION IV WATER CONSTRAINTS The Colorado River has been gaged at Cameo, about 30 miles downstream from Parachute, since 1933. From 1933 through 1980, the maximum flow recorded was 36,000 cfs. A low flow of 700 cfs was recorded on December 29, 1939. Low flow in recent years has been greater than the "virgin" low flow of 1939 because of winter releases from Green Mountain Reservoir. There are over 10,000 water rights decreed in the Colorado River Basin in Colorado. Most of these rights with appropriation dates earlier than 1950 are decreed for agricultural purposes, with a few decreed for power, mining, municipal, and other purposes. In drought years and during some months of normal years, many of the junior rights on the Colorado River system can be called out because of insufficient water in the river. There are two major water right controls on the Colorado River. The first is the year-round Shoshone Power Right for 1250 cfs located upstream from Glenwood Springs (the Glenwood Power Canal). This right curtails diversions above the power plant which are junior to 1902 when Colorado River flow is less than 1250 cfs at the Dotsero gaging station. This control can prevent transbasin diversions to the eastern slope except when the river is aug- mented with reservoir replacement water (e.g., Shadow Mountain Reservoir for the Big Thompson Project or Williams Fork Reservoir for the Moffat Tunnel Diversion) . The second water right control is the "Cameo Demand," which is a group of rights that total about 1800 to 2000 cfs in the irrigation season and a smaller amount in the winter. These rights can call out junior rights above the Cameo gaging station. An important consideration of Colorado River water availability, other than Colorado state water law, is the interstate and international agreements for water use within the basin. These agreements include the Colorado River Compact of 1922, the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944, and the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948. -17 - The 1922 compact divided the Colorado River basin into an upper division (Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah) and a lower division (Arizona, California, Nevada). The compact granted consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre feet per year to both the upper and lower basins; however, the upper division cannot deplete the flow as measured at Lee Ferry, Arizona, more than 75,000,000 acre-feet for the preceding ten years or, on an average, 7,500,000 acre feet annually. The Lee Ferry measuring point is on the Colorado River immediately downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. The Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 guaranteed an annual delivery of 1,500,000 acre-feet to Mexico, half from each division of the Colorado River basin. Since the quality of water entering Mexico is poor and, at times, must be passed directly into the ocean without use, an agreement exists between the two countries for solution of the salinity problem. In 1970, the average salinity of the delivered water was 1278 ppm. The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 defined water use among states of the Upper Basin and established the Upper Colorado River Commis- sion to administer the compact. The State of Colorado is allowed 51.75 per- cent of the remaining Upper Basin allocation as defined in the Colorado River Compact of 1922 after deduction of 50,000 acre-feet per year for Arizona. Under present water use conditions in the upper division of the basin, Colo- rado River depletions are such that the compact delivery requirements have not required curtailment of any Upper Basin water rights. As conditional water rights are developed in the Upper Basin and more depletions occur, the compact requirements may affect the Colorado water rights. It is difficult to predict the year in which water rights will be shut off by enforcement of the compact because of the numerous water rights involved, the large number of conditional rights which may or may not actually be constructed, and the wide variations in climate and stream runoff in the basin. -18 - SECTION V PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION The Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline, the Eaton Pipeline No. 2, Battlement Mesa Wells 1A -5A, and Battlement Mesa Wells B1-87, are junior to the down- stream Cameo demand. During periods of low flow on the Colorado River, when the Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline, the Eaton Pipeline No. 2 and the Battle- ment Mesa wells are out of priority, Battlement Mesa will continue to divert; however, the town will replace out of priority diversions by releas- ing water from storage. The replacement water will be supplied from one or more of the following reservoirs: 1. Ruedi Reservoir 2. Mesa Lakes, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 3. Monument Reservoir No. 3 4. Battlement Mesa Augmentation Reservoir 5. Wildcat Reservoir REPLACEMENT OF DEPLETIONS At full development, Battlement Mesa will deplete the Colorado River by an estimated 1942 acre-feet in a dry year and 1630 acre-feet in an average year (see Table 7). Operation studies of the Colorado River for the hydrologic years 1941-1970, including the use of the Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline water right and releases from Ruedi Reservoir to replace out of priority diversions by the Dow, indicate that Battlement Mesa will require releases from Ruedi Reservoir of no more than 1127 acre-feet per year to permit diversion of water year-round under priority of the Dow right (see Appen- dix D). Battlement Mesa has contracted with the United States for up to 1250 acre- feet of water to be released from Ruedi Reservoir each year. If additional augmentation water is needed, Battlement Mesa will release water from the other reservoirs detailed above. -19- RUEDI RESERVOIR Battlement Mesa, Inc., has contracted with the United States for releases from Ruedi Reservoir at rates which would reestablish the normal flow in the Colorado River at Battlement Mesa's point of diversion. These releases will avert injury to senior water rights when Battlement Mesa diverts out of priority. Ruedi Reservoir, completed in 1968, is a part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Pro- ject. The reservoir is located on the Fryingpan River approximately 13 miles upstream from Basalt, Colorado in Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Ruedi Dam and Reservoir was authorized by the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Authoriz- ing Act of August 16, 1962 (76 Stat. 389). The primary purposes of Ruedi are (1) to satisfy the demands of senior diversions in western Colorado when Fryingpan-Arkansas Project diversions are made to the Arkansas Basin in eastern Colorado, and (2) to provide water for future users in western Colo- rado, in particular, the municipal and industrial water needs associated with the shale oil industry. In addition to the above primary purposes, recreation, flood control, and the preservation of fish and wildlife re- sources are purposes of Ruedi Reservoir. Ruedi Reservoir has an active storage capacity of approximately 101,280 acre feet and 1,087 acre feet of inactive and dead storage. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has determined that the firm annual yield of Ruedi Reservoir averages 77,800 acre feet. Of that amount, up to 28,300 acre feet could be used for replacement of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project diversions to protect senior western slope water rights. This leaves 49,500 acre feet available for municipal, industrial and other water uses to be sold and delivered pur- suant to contract. The 49,500 acre feet of annual yield was determined by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1975 using a period of study of 1949 to 1964 and conservative assumptions including: (1) the reservoir would be per- mitted one "paper fill" per year due to expected over -appropriation of the Colorado River Basin (a "paper fill" is the capacity minus the end -of -year content) and (2) diversions to the Arkansas River would deplete Ruedi Reser- voir inflow by 8100 acre feet per year. Two other studies of Ruedi yield by -20 - the Bureau of Reclamation using other assumptions produced similar estimates of yield. In January 1981, Wright Water Engineers completed a study of the pattern and dependability of expected future Battlement Mesa diversion under the Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline water right. (Wright Water Engineers, "Opera- tional Study of Ruedi Reservoir Releases for the Municipal Water Supply of Battlement Mesa," January 1981. For a summary of this study, see Appendix D.) The purpose of this investigation was to determine when the Dow water right would be in priority and the amount of augmentation water from Ruedi Reservoir which would be required to permit Battlement Mesa's continued diversion when the Dow right is called out of priority. Wright Water Engi- neers compared ultimate development water requirements for the Town of Battlement Mesa with estimates of water supply from the Colorado River based on historic flow and climatological data for the years 1941-1970 and future average depletions from the basin, including demand by oil shale develop- ments. The Colorado River Simulation program (CORSIM II) model studies served as a basis for this analysis. Wright Water Engineers verified the general reliability of the CORSIM simulation of the Colorado River under future conditions by comparing the results with Wright Water Engineers' forecasts made for the Colony Shale Oil Project in 1964, 1965, 1972 and 1973. CORSIM tended to show slightly higher depletions under senior condi- tional rights, using a higher level of development in western Colorado than Wright Water Engineers. Further study indicated that future transit losses for Ruedi Reservoir re- leases for the 80 -mile reach of the Fryingpan, Roaring Fork and Colorado Rivers between the reservoir and Parachute, Colorado would average between 3 and 4 percent. (See Wright Water Engineers, "Transit Losses Associated with Ruedi Reservoir Releases," May 1982.) The Executive Summary of this study is included as Appendix E. As a result of these two studies, Battlement Mesa entered negotiations with the Bureau of Reclamation for up to 1250 acre-feet per year of Ruedi Reser- voir water to serve as augmentation water when Battlement Mesa's Colorado River rights and wells are called out of priority. The United States and Battlement Mesa, Inc. signed a contract on May 13, 1982 allowing Battlement Mesa, Inc. to call for releases of this amount (Appendix F). r� -21- Under the terms of the contract, the U.S. government will use "all reason- able means" to guard against a shortage of water available to Battlement Mesa. To this end, the government will use 1977 hydrologic conditions to set a maximum limitation on its contracts to deliver water. If shortages should arise, however, the government would reduce delivery to all municipal contractors proportionately, up to 30 percent of their contracted amounts. Should the shortages persist, the government would administer releases to municipal and industrial users according to a priority system based on con- tract execution dates. If Battlement Mesa's share of water in Ruedi Reservoir should be reduced by the federal government because of drought or other conaitions which resulted in insufficient storage in Ruedi Reservoir, the Town is prepared to reduce its water demands by cutting back on lawn irrigation and to augment its out - of -priority diversions by releases from its other storage reservoirs. OTHER SOURCES OF AUGMENTATION WATER In addition to Ruedi Reservoir, Battlement Mesa may use the following sources of augmentation water: Mesa Lakes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; Monu- ment Reservoir No. 3; Battlement Mesa Augmentation Reservoir and Wildcat Reservoir. Mesa Lakes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were decreed for a conditional storage right of 103.7 acre-feet with an appropriation date of December 26, 1979. These lakes are located in the vicinity of the Battlement Mesa golf course and water treatment plant and can derive their supply from the Colorado River, hbnunent Gulch, and unnamed gulches which flow into them. Mbnument Reservoir No. 3 was decreed for a total of 500 acre-feet condi- tional for irrigation, piscatorial, municipal and domestic uses, with an appropriation date of July 24, 1973. Under a decree of the same date, Monu- ment Reservoir may be filled from Battlement Creek through the Huntley Ditch - Mon anent Reservoir Enlargement, which is entitled to 15 cfs conditional. Colorado River water delivered under the Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline -22 - right could also be stored in this reservoir. This reservoir is located approximately one and one-half miles to the southeast of the Battlement Mesa sewage treatment plant. Battlement Mesa Augmentation Reservoir was decreed for 240 acre-feet condi- tional for municipal, irrigation, domestic and recreation uses, with an appropriation date of September 22, 1981. This reservoir will be located approximately one-quarter mile to the southeast of the sewage treatment plant. Battlement Mesa will also replace out of priority diversions by releases from Wildcat Reservoir, which stores water from Wildcat and East Sno wnass Creeks. Wildcat Reservoir was decreed on May 27, 1971 for 1,140 acre-feet for municipal, recreation, irrigation and industrial uses, with an appro- priation date of September 28, 1968. Udder a lease dated January 1, 1980, Battlement Mesa, Inc. has the right to call for the delivery of up to 200 acre-feet of water from Wildcat Reservoir. This lease extends until Decem- ber 31, 1984 and may be extended at Battlement Mesa's option for an addi- tional three years. STATEMENT OF PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION The applicant is engaged in the development of the community of Battlement Mesa, situated on Battlement Mesa southeast of, and across the Colorado River from, the Town of Parachute, Colorado. The community will be served with water and sewer utilities furnished by Battlement Mesa, Inc. The maximum rate of diversion from the Colorado River under this augmenta- tion plan is 14 cfs. During a dry year, a maximum of about 3,900 acre-feet will be diverted under the rights detailed in Section III above. Under the combined plans of augmentation, 79CW351 and this plan, the maximum rate of diversion from the Colorado River is 20 cfs and a maximum of about 5,200 acre-feet will be diverted. Raw water diverted from the Colorado River and the Colorado River alluvium will be pumped and treated prior to distribution to the Battlement Mesa community. The treated water will be utilized for domestic needs and for the irrigation of lawns and the golf course. The community will be sewered, and the wastewater treatment plant situated south -23 - of the Colorado River will discharge into the river. Raw water diverted through the Eaton Pipeline No. 2 will be used for irrigation of the golf course and green belt. From time to time, Battlement Mesa will supply ener- gency water to the Town of Parachute. This will be metered. Depletions resulting from diversions and use of Colorado River water are represented by the small amount of water actually consumed by in-house dome- stic use plus that portion of the water used for irrigation of grass which is lost to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration. The depletion is measured by the difference between the diversion from the river and the return flow to the river from the wastewater treatment plant and the return flow from the irrigated areas. All diversions will be measured with suitable metering equipment. The dis- charge of the wastewater treatment plant will be measured with a continuous recording Parshall flume. The return flow from irrigated grass will be estimated using standard engineering formulae. Therefore, on any given day and for any given month, the diversions, return flow, and net depletions can be computed. The formula for computing the depletion is: D = Q - P - (Qm-1- HUm-1) x 0.20 WHERE: D = depletion of water to Colorado River on any given day in acre-feet per day. Q = rate of diversion in acre-feet per day at water treatment plant intake facilities, wells and Eaton Pipeline No. 2. These diver- sions will be measured. P = discharge in acre-feet per day from the wastewater treatment plant. This discharge will be measured and computed. average daily rate of diversion in acre-feet per day at the intake facilities, wells and Eaton Pipeline No. 2 one month prior to the the date for which the formula is being applied. Imposition of this delay factor is designed to account for the lag time from application of water until its return to the stream. Qm-1= HUm-1 = average daily delivery of water in acre-feet, one month prior to the date for which the formula is being applied, to residences, office buildings, schools, and other structures for internal dome- stic and sanitary uses. For purposes of this plan, HUm can be calculated as equalling measured discharge of the waste water treatment plant divided by 0.95. -24- 0.20 = the estimated increment of the irrigation application which flows back to the Colorado River. It represents the normal excess appli- cation of irrigation water over and above the evapotranspiration. This accounting formula for depletions is the same as the formula contained in the March 20, 1981 decree for the original Battlement Mesa augmentation plan, Case No. 79CW351. In addition, Battlement Mesa will measure and account for any water intro- duced into the Battlement Mesa central water and sewer system which does not originate from the points of diversion described herein. This will pertain mainly to sewage flows from the Town of Parachute. ADMINISTRATION The Plan for Augmentation for Battlement Mesa can be administered by the Division Engineer in the course of his routine duties. The Town will pro- vide continuous measuring meters at all points of diversion and measurable points of return flow. All water users within the Town will have individual household meters whose readings will be tabulated at regular intervals. Battlement Mesa will keep all records in an orderly manner and will submit reports in accordance with a schedule to be established by the Division Engineer. At any time that a valid downstream senior call exists on the Colorado River, Battlement Mesa will make up the full amount of the depletions from reservoir storage upstream of the potential point of injury. In order to compensate for transit losses, releases from Ruedi Reservoir will be 4 per- cent greater than total depletions and releases from Wildcat Reservoir will be 10 percent greater than total depletions. Thus, the net delivery up- stream of the point of injury will be equal to the total depletions caused by the operation of the Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation District. The difference in the carriage charges is due to the physical and hydrologic characteristics of the stream channels below the two reservoirs. Because of the proximity of Mesa Lakes, Monument Reservoir No. 3 and Battlement Mesa . Augmentation Reservoir to the point of diversion, transit losses associated with releases from these reservoirs should be negligible. s SCHMUESERGORDON MEYER ENGINEER 5( 5 U R V E Y O R S MEMORANDUM TO: Christina Montalvo, Senior; la er • FROM: Dean Gordon, P. - ., DATE: November 14, 200 RE: Battlement Mesa Rezoning — Comments from Consolidated Metropolitan District, Provision of information required by §4.08.05(7)(e)(i) and §4.08.05(7)(e)(ii) I have reviewed the comments made by Bob Jasper of the Consolidated Metropolitan District dated October 31, 2007 and have the following response. Mr. Jasper indicates that all of the area requested for rezoning is outside the District boundary. As a clarification, the area within Stone Quarry Commons was annexed to the District when that subdivision was platted in February, 2006. Parcel C, Monument Creek Village, Section 2 is also within the District. The remaining property is outside the District boundaries, however, it is all within the service area of the District. The service plan for the Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation District, prepared by Wright -McLaughlin Engineers in October, 1981, contemplates water and sewer service to the entire PUD. The approved PUD includes a mixture of housing types for a total of 8023 residential units, a major open space system, recreational amenities, sites for public and semi-public uses, and commercial areas. Master plans for water and sewer systems were developed, and infrastructure was designed and constructed in anticipation of a population of 23,000 people. The water treatment plant was designed to include a 13 MGD water treatment plant, raw water intake, five pressure zones with four main booster pump stations, six buried storage tanks with a total storage capacity of 9.5 million gallons, water transmission lines, distribution lines and a standby well field for emergency use. The infrastructure was designed in such a way that it could be phased in over time as development occurred. The water treatment plant has been constructed to a capacity of 6.5 MGD. The treatment plant is designed for phased construction with an ultimate peak rate of flow of 13.0 MGD. Water tanks and pump stations currently serve pressure zone A and pressure zone B, with storage capacity of four million gallons. Water transmission lines within those zones have been constructed. As individual areas within the "central core" area are developed, additional water distribution lines will be constructed to serve each area. Two areas under consideration in this application lie at higher elevations than can be served by the water infrastructure currently in place. These parcels include the "Old High School Parcel" and the eastern most portion of Stone Quarry Commons which lie in pressure zone C. In order to provide water service to these areas, additional components of the water master plan, including a storage tank, booster pump station and water transmission lines will need to be constructed. The 118 W. 6`", SUITE 200 GLENwOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 970-945-1004 FAX: 970-945-5948 need for and the timing of the construction of these improvements will correspond with the development of this property, as was always anticipated by the service plan for the District. The wastewater treatment plant is currently permitted with a capacity of 0.8 million gallons per day, and is currently treating 0.5 million gallons per day. The wastewater plant serves both the Town of Parachute and Battlement Mesa P.U.D. Because of projected growth in both areas, planning is currently underway to increase both the physical and the permitted capacity of the treatment plant. In addition to the treatment plant, the existing wastewater infrastructure includes a 24 -inch diameter interceptor sewer line designed to convey wastewater flows from the entire development to the treatment plant, and a lift station that pumps wastewater from some low lying areas into the interceptor line. Wastewater from the developed areas is collected in a series of gravity collector lines that flow into the interceptor line. Th'e wastewater master plan anticipates that additional collector sewer lines will be built as new areas within the central core are developed. The need for and the timing of the construction of these improvements will correspond with the development of this property, as was always anticipated by the service plan for the District. This rezoning application creates a net reduction in business/commercial space by increasing residential space. Specifically, the rezoning creates a net increase of 97 single-family detached residential units on 36.8 acres that is currently zoned business/commercial or public/semi- public/recreation. The increase in single-family homes in place of commercial space actually causes a net reduction in water demand and wastewater treatment demand. The attached TABLE A shows the projected sewer loading under different types of residential development, and compares it to the sewer loading under different types of commercial uses. The information is calculated based on Table 4-1, Recommended Sewer Loading Rates For Different Types of Developments, Appendix E, Design and Construction Standards and Specifications, Consolidated Metropolitan District and Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District , April 2005. It is likely that the residential development will be some combination of unit types, and the total sewer loading would range between 13,192 and 24,832 gpd. The commercial development would also have been some combination of the uses indicated. However, the most likely combination would be Neighborhood Shopping Center, Restaurants, Professional Centers and Office Buildings. Any combination of those uses would result in a significantly higher demand for wastewater treatment than the proposed residential zoning. The District does not provide a similar table for water demand. TABLE B shows the projected water demand based on a generally accepted figure of 100 gallons per person per day for residential water use, and is compared to the water demand for commercial uses. Irrigation demands are assumed to be similar for both residential and commercial uses, and are not included in the following calculations. It is likely that the residential development will be some combination of unit types, and the total water demand would range between 16,490 and 31,040 gpd. For water demand estimates, we first equated commercial/business zoned space to square footage of leasable space. We looked at similar sized commercial spaces planned or constructed in Garfield County and compared acreage with leasable space. 1 I8 W. 6'", SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 970-945-1004 FAX: 970-945-5948 Development Site Acreage Square Feet of Space Glenwood Meadows 45 490,000 Ferguson Crossing, (Proposed in Silt) 65 440,000 Based on the above table, Glenwood Meadows is a more dense development equating to about 11,000 SF of leaseable space per acre. If we apply that density to the space in Battlement Mesa that would have been commercial/business space (36.8 acres), we calculated that this land could have been occupied by about 405,000 SF of commercial/business space. TABLE B assumes a conservative estimate of 0.3 EQR per 1000 square feet of leaseable space, yielding a commercial water demand of 38,880 gallons per day. 8 W. 61", SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPR/NOS, CO 81602 970-945-1004 FAX: 970-945-5948 Industrial Factory !Industrial Warehouse Motels - Hotels Auto Dealers, Service Station & Trade Business Car Washes & Service Stations w/ Car Washes Professional Centers Restaurants & Fast Food Neighborhood Shopping Center Office Bldgs (3-8 story) Department Stores Office Bldgs (1-3 story) COMMERCIAL Mobile Homes Multi -Family Single Family Detached Single Family Attached RESIDENTIAL 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.8 0) rn 00 36.8 36.8 36.8 w .CO 97 97 97 97 Number of units or acres 80 80 CO0 0 80 Avg. Daily Flow / Cap (gpcd) N w -1 J 2.1 w N Household Size 0) o o 100 5,000 4,000 15,000 A -01 0 0 7,500 2,000 -s Ill 0 0 500 500 Avg. Daily Flow / Total Avg. Daily Acre (gpd) I Flow (gpd) 22080 3.680 184.000 I i A V o 0 o 552.000 165.600 276.000 73.800 55.200 18.400 18.400 17.848 1 -v w (0 (O(Ow N " rn N D) N A 00 N m 0 0 3 m z v m v fn m m 73 O r z Oto >0 yr zv o 1 WTm> m O p m A z -a > Ivo r m mz zo -I (n --C mcnn 0 m 0 m m r 0 m z m m O Z v 0 n 0 com °a Z1 W 0 r m —4 m z -i m rn 0 m 0 m m r 0 m z y Commercial / Business Space COMMERCIAL; Category of Use Mobile Homes Multi -Family Single Family Detached Single Family Attached n m cn v m z 1 a r Category of Use 36.8 j Number of acres 97 97 97 -4 Number of units b O O Estimated Leasable Sq. Leasable Sq. Ft. / Acre Ft. 100 .5 O O O O 100 Avg. Daily Flow / Cap (gpcd) A CT O O N W -+ V N W N 1 0 y N N co co Q w N 0 Avg. Daily Flow / EQR 38.880 1 vg. ai y ow (0.3 EQR / 1000 Sq. Ft.) 22,310 1 16,490 20.370 31.040 Total Avg. Daily I Flow (gpd) m m O Z v 0 n 0 com °a Z1 W 0 r m —4 m z -i m rn 0 m 0 m m r 0 m z y September 24, 2007 Chris Coyle Balcomb and Green 818 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT Re: Request for Zone District change from Central Area Residential (CAR), Business Center (BC), Thoroughfare R.O. W (ROW), Public, Semi -Public & Recreational (PSR), to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential (MDR), and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Dear Mr. Coyle, This office is in receipt of the rezoning application submitted by your office requesting a zone district change for several areas throughout the Battlement Mesa PUD, which include changing from Central Area Residential (CAR), Business Center (BC), Thoroughfare R.O.W. (ROW), Public, Semi -Public & Recreational (PSR), to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential (MDR), and Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Please understand that a determination of technical completeness by this office shall not be deemed a recommendation of approval, finding of adequacy of the application, or a finding of general compliance with any goal or objective of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations or the Comprehensive Plan. The application will be reviewed by Staff, a staff report will be generated and sent to you, and the Planning Commission will review, discuss, and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (the Board) at a public meeting. This meeting has been scheduled for the November 14th, 2007 Planning Commission which begins at 6:30 PM. (Notice not required) The meeting will be held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room in the Garfield County Plaza Building, 108 8th St., Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. [Note: Please submit 20 copies (for Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners) of the completed application to this office no later than October 19th, 2007.1f the copies have not been submitted by this date, your public hearing may be jeopardized.] Do not hesitate to contact this office should you have further questions. Sincerely, ae CC: Eric Schmela Christina Montalvo, Senior Planner 970.945.8212 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 • (970) 285-7972 • Fax: (970) 384-3470 The Battlement Mesa Company December 4, 2007 David Pesnichak Senior Planner 108 8`h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Battlement Mesa PUD, Request for Rezoning Dear David: The following information is being provided in response to comments made in the staff report for this application that we received on November 9`h, 2007 and to supplement that application. The comment, under Section V(c) Change in Conditions of the Neighborhood, indicated that the application did not contain adequate information to substantiate that conditions in the area have changed or that there has been an error in zoning. I would refer you to the application submittal requirements, as detailed in the Zone District / Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application. (See copy attached). Section 1(B) indicates that information regarding a change in conditions or an error in zoning is required only in cases where the proposed rezoning "would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan". The existing Comprehensive Plan designation for the Battlement Mesa PUD is "subdivision". No changes to that designation are proposed, and consequently, this rezoning application is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. These requirements do not apply. However, in order to respond to the comments regarding the changed conditions of the neighborhood, I offer the following: • When Battlement Mesa was originally approved, it was anticipated that build -out of the entire PUD would occur between 1982 and 1987. These forecasts were made under the assumption that Battlement Mesa would become "Exxon World Headquarters" and would house the work force of a vibrant oil shale industry. When Exxon suddenly closed their oil shale operations in May, 1982, the economy of this area plummeted. The already developed areas of Battlement Mesa were left nearly vacant for many years. The rezoning is proposed in order to respond to the changes in demographics that have occurred over the last 25 years. Rising real estate prices in the upper valley have forced many workers to move farther west in order to find affordable housing. In addition, the current expansion of natural gas exploration in the area has created the need for even more housing in the Battlement Mesa area. Under this application, lands that are currently zoned P.O. Box 6000 • Battlement Mesa, Colorado 81636 • 970-285-9740 • Fax 970-285-9721 The Battlement Mesa Company for schools, churches and commercial areas would be rezoned as residential in order to accommodate the increased need for housing. • Five sites that were originally designated as school sites are no longer needed by the School District and the Applicant has been so advised by the District. This has occurred for two reasons; a site within the Town of Parachute was selected as the preferred site for the Grand Valley High School, and the school has since been built on that site. The School District selected a different site, currently zoned Business Center, for their new Junior High School. That school is currently under construction on a site north of Sipprelle Drive. • During the years since Battlement Mesa was originally zoned, a significant amount of commercial development has been approved or is pending before the Town of Parachute. This development will satisfy, to some degree, the need for additional commercial development in Battlement Mesa, and make room for additional residential development. The rezoning will convert approximately 33 acres of land within the Central Core from Business Center to residential zoning. However, it should be noted that approximately 46 acres of undeveloped commercial land will remain. This is an area of approximately the same size as the Glenwood Meadows development in Glenwood Springs. • Because of technology now available, including the Internet and instant communication, it is no longer necessary for the larger energy companies to have on- site management facilities. Rather, their main offices are located in Houston or Denver. There is no need for "Exxon World Headquarters" in Battlement Mesa. Instead, there is an increased demand for housing of mid -management employees and blue collar workers. • As additional evidence of the changes that have occurred since 1982, I have attached an article that appeared in the Denver Post on November 13, 2007 entitled "Garfield County sees explosive growth". For all of these reasons, we believe that conditions at Battlement Mesa have changed since if was originally approved in 1982. We respectfully request that this rezoning application be approved so that the development is in a position to more adequately respond to these changes. Additionally, there are two corrections to the application that need be made. The total acreage under consideration for rezoning is approximately 413 acres, rather than 259 as mentioned in the staff report. The original PUD approval was for a community of 23,000 people, as documented by the information in the report by Wright Water Engineers, rather than 25,000 as stated in the original application. erely, Chris Coyle, Attorney for and Authorized Representative of Battlement Mesa Partners, LLC P.O. Box 6000 • Battlement Mesa, Colorado 81636 • 970-285-9740 • Fax 970-285-9721 St/Nn set I Sl/NO etc H .F L0((� JLG V'➢' V S380V 14796- to 5380V ark< S3&9V 9V90I N co w a a o ro 5380V 1,8'1 I - a o O a a s 0 o Pn co A O LOT 4, BURN/NG ROCK SUBDIVISION EX/ST/NG ZONING PROPOSED ZONING STONE QUARRY COMMONS EX/ST/NG ZONING PROPOSED ZONING PARCEL C, MONUMENT CREEK VILLAGE EX/S77NG ZONING PROPOSED ZONING BLOCK 3, TOWN CENTER F/L/NG 5 EX/ST/NG ZON/NG PROPOSED ZONING BLOCK 4, TOWN CENTER FILING 5 EX/STING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING OLD HIGH SCHOOL PARCEL EX/ST/NG ZONING PROPOSED ZONING AREA /2 EX/S77NG ZONING PROPOSED ZONING AREA /1 & PARCEL /3-10 EX/ST/NG ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 8.88 ACRES 0 a 0 t..) ri LI 40.25 ACRES 0 m O a NI 8.33 ACRES 0 3.15 ACRES 0 7.88 ACRES 208 ACRES 14.71 ACRES 0 O O 4584 ACRES 0 87.25 ACRES 20.9 ACRES 0 18.33 ACRES 25.68 ACRES 36.10 ACRES 0 9.1 ACRES (y e:Av N. C::' t U Co 0O to 0 40.25 ACRES A yo to \ Co no co 28.77 ACRES 27.23 ACRES 0 42.5 ACRES 0 97.2 ACRES 67.5 ACRES 84.23 ACRES 8.77 ACRES 9.9 ACRES ti A O A • 6•Mrinalln IS al FS. ••••••: PM IS Ow XV P.m War r tor 7 -7 - MA -4 -PA V DEC 0 6 2007 GAFF1,,,:LD•1C.INTY EU!LEANG&PANINING :MAIMIA3U4v.1' 1 k g 4. ti 11 II 8 'NOW 1110101010W 1i IP 1 - II: ILI , Ili i Pi 3 .11 ; 1 I trt 11 t tv t ' e . 1 : ez .g; 1; A 1 nilepixonttIlvl-II:60......• rod 03 em km) IS AA. ad 1. tolny• • 6 r • ITIL, rim Th., INLEA,,,,Syn LLis...t, DEC 0 G 2007 GARF 1:ILD P/31,..DNG &'PL41C1tar F9 L! Es: Pq I 14 Ei 1! I E