No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationrrrrIIIfrrI PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL MAMM CREEK INDUSTRIAL PARK A INDUSTRIAL/ GENEML SERVICE DISTRICT ofa PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Garfield County Colorado Rifle Land OWNER Associates, Ltd. Prepared By: T.V. Gare1, Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors. Marchr 1981 rtrI|TIITIftIIIIIEII r IT I I r I r I r I IT r II I PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL MAMM CREEK INDUSTRIAL PARK A INDUSTRIAL/GENERAI SERVICE DISTRICT of a Planned Unit Development Rifle Land Associates, Ltdo Garfield County, Colorado The following supplemental information is submitted with the accomp- lnying drawings, all in,accordance with Section 4.02, entitled, 'lPre_liminary Plan Requirements'f of the Subdivision Regulations ofGarfield County, Colorado as adopted January Z, L979 and subsequent amendments. Section 4 "02.0L Paragraphs: Preliminary Plan Brbrcrdrerfrgi See Sheet Nunber 2, Property Map ofIndustrial/ General Service District Sheet Number 3, Prelininary Plan Property Description: A Tract of Land situated in the South one-half (SL/Z)of Section L3, the Southeast one-quarter (SE1/4) ofSection 14, and the North one-quarter (N1/4) of Sec-tion 24 of Township 6 South (T65), Range 93 West (R93W) of the Sixth Principal Meridian- (6th P.M.);and Lot 4 of Section 18, T. 6 S., R. 92 Wo of the6th P.M., all in Garfield County, Colorado, and whichis more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of said Section 13thence N 00o Z7t 59" E a distance of 6?6.69 feet tothe True Point of Beginning; thence N 49o 00t 00'r W a distance of 391.65 feet;thence N 41o 00t 00" E a distance of 768.09 feet;thence S 87o 10r 00" E a distance of L08.ZZ feet;thence N 02" 50t 00" E a ldistance of 386"81 feet;thence S 60o 58r 06" E a distance of 445.79 feet;thence S 87o 10r 00" E a distance of 950.00 feet; thence S 02" 50r 00rr W a distance of 390.00 feet;thence S 87o 10t 00fr E a distance of 3r3S1.48 feet;thence N 02" 50' 00tr E a distance of ; 300"00 feet;thence S 87o 10t 00'r E a distance of 11894.94 feetto a point on the East line of said Lot 4 of Section 18;thence S 00" 27t 29" E along said East Line a distanceof L,L73.4L feet to the South one-quarter Corner ofsaid Section 18; thence S 88" ZZt 36'r W along theSouth Line of said Lot 4 a distance of T,620.91 feetto the Southeast Corner of said Section 13; thenceS 00o 341 04't E along the East Line of the N1/4 ofsaid Section 24 a distance of 885.76 feet;thence S 83o 3Zt LZtt W a distance of 2,405.23 feet; thence N 25" 54r 39" W a distance of 914"85 feet;thence N 04o 341 27" E a distance of 253.85 feetto a point on a curve to the rightl thence along acurve to the right whose radius is 2,392.29 feet andhaving a central angle of 03o 44t 51" an arc distanceof L56.47 feet to a point of tangent; thence N 78o O?,142't W a distance of 912.87 feet to a point of curve;thence along a curve to the right whose radius is7r4L7.42 feet and having a central angle of 03o 061 36'ra arc distance of 402"62 feet to a point of tangent; thence N 74o 56t 06tt W a distance of 386.88 feet to apoint of curve; thence along a curve to the right whoseradius is 21380"87 feet and having a central angle of06o 08r 22t' a arc distance of 255;t? feet to a point oftangent; thence N 68" 47 I 44'' W a distance of 445"3Lfeet; thence N 49o 00t 00" W a distance of 65.0i feetto the True Point of Beginning, containing 250.70 acres, more or 1ess. TIII.IIIIIIIITIIII IlrIIT PRELI},IINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL, Section 4.02.0L Paragraph h. Paragraph i o Paragraph j. Paragraph k. rrrr (continued) I I See Sheet Number 4, "Topographic Map" Not applicable Not applicable Total areaTotal areaTotal area Total area Percent of within PUD: total area: a)rr Page Tryo 1 r 698.85 acres + L4.75 percent I (1) " (z) " N{AMM CREEK INDUSTRIAL PARK Name of Owners: Rifle Land Associates 1td. 2000 Western Federal Savings Bld. 7LB LTth Street Denver, Colorado 8020?, Mortgagees: None Firn Preparing Preliminary Plan: T.V. GAREL, Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors ZgLg Applewood Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 z4z- 9s64 243- Z4Z? 81652 (3), Names and addresses of adjoining land owners: Garfield County Airport Authority % County Commissioners OfficeGarfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Andrew and Beverly Julius Route #1P.0. Box 768Si1t, Colorado Catherine Wal1 1940 EvergreenAntioch, California 94509 J. Cooke Wilson/ C.T. Garth 605 Lincoln Liberty Life BuildingHouston, Texas 7700?, Colorado Ute Electric AssociationP.O. Box 1149 Montrose, Colorado 8140L Public Service Company of Colorado 550 15th Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Total Acrage to be subdivided under this filing,(4) . of Lots t 203.60 acres +in Public right of ways z 47.L0 acres Fwithin subdivision: 250.70 acres E Usage shall besetforth underDistrict. Not applicable in accordance with provisionsthe PUD, Indus triaL/ General Service (5). TIItIIIIIIIIIIIII rIII PRELIMINARY PLAN Section 4.02.01 Paragraph k. I lr I r r I I SUBMITTAL (continued) Preliminary Plan (6). To be filed with Title Policies" (7) . See attached Legal Statement: rI I n I (8) " Page Three Total estimated area of nonresidential floor space is projected on the following criteria: (s) Total Lot Area: Projected area of coverage Projected area of coverageroof at 50eo of coverage: Projected area of off-street_ p-arking will be not less than 25% of floor area or 380r000 sq.ft. or 1r900 sPaoes. 8,712r000 sq'ft. @ 35%z 310491000 sq.ft. under r' i: L,5ZS,000 sq. f t. Section 4.02"02 Section 4 "42.03 Paragraph ao Vicinity Sketch Map See Sheet Number l, " Vicinity Sketch Map" Physical Information Geology. See Sheet Number 6, ttsurface Geology" Bedrock Geology: The subject property is regionally located near the axis of-the iiclance Basin-which contains a 20,000 foot thickness of sedimentary rock formations. The area is geologic aLLy stable having no known faults or io"Jr of-g"o15gic wbakness present on or near the property. The area is entirely underlain by the Wasat,ch formation of the Eocene Age. -The Wasatch sedimenta-ry formation ,r" -ornposed of"varicolored pastel, variably- beltonitic shales in,i.th iterbedded lentilular and cross-bedded tightly cemented sandstones. The formation dips re[ionitly westward 10o to 15o. Surface Geology The surface geology is basically a veneer of wind blown silts ind sands which overly older terrace giavefs and pediment deposits. The veneer thickness iaries;frorn irp to 15 feet in depth, with the greater depths to the north edge of the proPerty. During Pliestocene tine, the ancient colorado River and its tributaries, hyiaulically downcutted thru the overlying Green Riv6r ihates and their capping black basalt fiows into the Watsach Formation and thereby carving broad, sloping pediments into the wasatch rocks.- In this proceis, these pediment slopes were covered with cobbles and boulders derived fron the contenporaneous erosion of the overlying basalt ,}d shalesl all of which were reworked to form a conglomer- atic d6posit of gravels, cobbles, - and boulders in a matrix bf shaley-siltstones and clays derived from these formationi. The maximum observed thickness of these pediment deposits within the immediate area are upwards to 30 feet. Subsequent to the deposition of -the.pediment grave-I a"poritr, the meanduiing Colorado River scoured off toitions'of the pedimenl deposits "r,q re_placed portions thereof with teriace graveli composed of well rounded TTIIIA, IITIIf,ITI I r I r I PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL (continued) The clays and/or a s1 ightlythat may r I I I I I D I Page Four quarzites, granitic blown veneer was deposited overTypically, each of the depositedgreater depths closest to theout next to the Wasatch slopes. r cobbles and pebbles of varicoloredrocks, and a variety of geologicaLly older igneous and metamorphic rocks derived from up-river in the Colorado River basin. These coarse gravel deposits were hydraulically deposited in a conglomeratic sand- stone natrix in varying depths up to 30 feet. TheRiver subsequently increased is downward cutting rate and receded from the immediate area to the north, thereby preserving the deposited terrace gravelsin an elevated position some 100 feet above its presentflood p1ain. The subsequently r^iindthe terrace gravels. materials haue theirRiver bluff and thin Surface water run-off tributary to both Mamm Creek and Dry Creek have eroded some of the wind blownmaterial, and were erosion has been severe the terracegravels ar;.d/or pediment deposits have been exposed. Along Dry Creek r{ere down cutting has been the deepest,or gravel deposits were the thinnest, the underlying Wasatch bed rock has been re-exposed. contained in the pedirnent gravel depositspart of the Wasatch sedimentary rocks are expansive, therefor, aLl foundation materials be encountered are acceptable bases. Section 4 "02.03 Paragraph b.Soils, See Sheet Number 5, "Soil Survey Map" The soil survey map dhows the surface soil classifica.tions based on U.S.D.Ao Soil Conservation Servicesoil surveys and studies of the subject properties. The najority of the lands are rnapped as Units Number 10B or 10C, indicating slopes of under 6%" Other map units are created by surface erosion of those areas formerly covered with soils similar to mapunits described under 10B or 10C, the exception being the presence of outcroping bed rock. The soil charcteristics of the map units defined inthe before mentioned survey are sumerized herein. 3 6 Map Map Unit 10B, 1 tounit 10c, 3 to percent slopes percent slopes Soil Characteristics Depth to bed rock: Texture; Surface: Subsoil: SubstratumnUnified Classification: Permeability: Percent coarse Ph (surface) Shrink - swe1lPotential frost Flood,lllazard fragments ) potential more than 60" Loam CLay Loam Loam ML, CL moderate 06.6 to 7.8 moderate Low None B High Moderate action (surface) Hydrologic GroupCorrosivity; Bare steel Concre te rrIITI-IITTIIIII r I r I r I .PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL Section 4 "02.03Paragraph b.Soils r r I I!I r (continued) r I - Degree and Kind of Limitations; O is slight M is moderate S is severe Sewage Lagoons: Shallow Excavations:Dwellings: w/basements:without basements: Local Roads and Streets: Suitability as a source of.....Roadfill: Sand: Gravel: Topsoil: M o M M M Page Five s lope low strength low strength 1ow strength Fair Iow strength Unsuitable UnsuitableFair, sma11 stones These soils are called Potts loam and are deep, well drained soils situated on mesas, benches and va1ley sidslopes. They are formed in eolian material on alluviuns from sandstone, shale or basalt. Elevation ranges from 5 1280 to 5 1620 feet. The average annual pre-ipitation is about L4 inches, the average annual air temperdture is about 46 degrees F., with an average of LZ| frost-free days. Typically, the surface layer is brown loam about 4 inches thick. Yhe subsoil is reddish brown light clay loam about 24 inches thick. The substratum is pinkish white loam extending to a depth of more than 60 inches. Included with these soil groups are sma1l areas of 01ney, Kim, and Ildefonso soils which nay make uP to 10 to 15 percent of these units. Permeability of the Potts soil is noderate" Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Available water capacity is high. Surfaee runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is moderate" This soil is used principally for irrigated crops and hay, and for dry land farming. Crops include a1fa1fa, sma11 grains, and grass-legume hays. The native vegetation on these soils were mainly bluebunch wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, needle and thread, and big sagebrush" When range conditions deteriorate, forbs and woody shrubs increase. The presence of undersirable weeds and annual plants indicate range conditions are poor. Wildlife using these soils for habitat include dove, pheasent, cottontail rabit, some mule deer and squirrel Potts soil has a good potential for community and recreational development. The main linitations for these uses are strength, moderate piping and 1ow frost-heave. Conventional dwellings and roads may be econlnically designed to compensate for these linitations. Slope Stability: None of the slopes are potentially unstable. The ground adj acent to Dry Creek are quite stable as evident by the steep banks of this drainage course. Slope Hazards: The majority of slopes are under @offer no slope hazards. IIITIIIIITAIAIIII I r I I I PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL Section 4 .02.03 Paragraph b" Soils r I I rrI Page Six rr (continued)' I Map Unit X33BC Soil Characteristics These1to6soils forrned Depth to bedrock: Texture Surface: Subsoil: Substratum: Unified Classification: Permeability: Percent coarse fragments ) 3": Ph (surface) Shrink-swe11 potential Potential frost-action (surface) LowFlood Hazard Hydrologic GroupCorrosivity; Bare steel Concre te Degree and Kind of Limitations 0 is slight, M-Moderate, S- Sewage Lagoons Shallow excavations Dwellings w/basements :without basements Local roads 6 streets more than 60 inches LoanClay, silty clay loan CLay loam, siltyclay loam CL-ML, CL, CH Slow 0 7.9 to 9"0 high Rare D High Moderate Severe M slopeM clayeyS Shrink-swe1I: S Shrink-swel1S Low strength " " Fair, low strength Unsuited Unsuited Poor, too clayey Arvada Loam having are deep, well drainedterraces. They are from sandstone and sha1e. Suitability as a Source of.Roadfill: Sand: Gravel: Topsoil: soils are described aspercent slopes. These on sloping fans and highin high saline alluvium Typically, the surface Layer is pale brown loam about3 inches deep. The Subsoil is brown sity clay loamabout 14 inches deep. The substratum is light brownor brown silty c1-ay loam that extends to a depth of60 inches or more. Included with these soils may be smaIl areas of Limon,Kim, Heldt, and Wann soils all on similar s1ops. Permeability of the Arvada soil is moderately slow.Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Availablewater capacity is high. 0rganic matter content in thesurface is low. Surface runoff is mediun and the erosion hazatd is moderate. This soil is used nainly for wildlife habitat, limitedlivestock grazing, and some irrigated farming. The native vegetation on this soil is mainly saltgrass, western wheatgrass, alkali sacaton, and greaSewood" Aravada soil is used by cottontail rabbits and pheasantsfor shelter when the can obtain food from adjacent areas This soil offers a poor potential for community develop- ment and a source material. The high shrink-swe11potential, slow perneability, and soil salinity are the main liniting features" IIIIIITITIA-JTIII ITIIITT PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL (continued) Section 4 .02.03 Paragraph b. I I mapped as 10B, soils not under open stand of sage- forbs and other shrubs. I I ITI Page Seven Soil s Map Unit X62F, Loamy Breaks These soil groups occur on stoney ridges, breaks, and sides of drainages with some rock out croppingsadjacent to the Potts Loam range. This soil groupis present all Dry Creek were terrace gravels and pediment gravels are exposed. Map Units 30D, Rolling Loam, slope greater than 6%,is similar Map Units 108 and 10C, and is a smallarea lying between the Potts Loam range and the Wasatch bedrock out croppings. Map Units 41B, Salt Flats, are similar to Map Unit X33BC but is more deeply eroded and has exposed moregravels. See Soil Survey Map for additional information ofthese last three soil types which cover minor areaswithin the proposed subdivision. Paragraph c. Vegetation See Sheet Number 7, 'rVegatation Mapt' The Cad.astral Survey completed by the Bureau of Land Management in the year 1886 of subject lands werereported by Clark to be covered with sagebrush. The soils which have been mapped as Potts Loam have been historically cleared of sagebrush and farmed,first as dryland and later,as irrigated pasture and sma1l grain crops. Most all of the proposed development includes the remainder of the irrigated croplands which were theresidual from the land dedications for the airport. Included also are some dry land cultivated fields uponwhich smal1 grains are grown with some supplementalirrigation water in those years in which excess water from the rprimary irrigated lands is available. The remainder of the lands have been historically utilizeas r+inter grazing lands for a sheep ranch. Sincethe purchase of the sheep ranch by the present ownersin L97,?., the ranch has been leased each year for wintergrazing of sheep and has been overgrazed. Thus the number and variety of native grasses and forbs normallyoccuring on the various soil types are greatly reduced. The reported plant associations for the various soilunits mapped by the Soil Conservation Service are hereinidentified. Map Units entitled Sagebrush: These areas correspond to soil units 10C, 30D, and 41D and are the loamycultivated or irrigated farm 1ands. plant community is an abundance of grasses, Native grasses would nornally include Western Wheatgrass, Beardless Bluebunch Wheatgrass, Needle and Thread, Bottle- brush Squirreltail, Indian Ricegrass, Junegrass, Nevada Bluegrass, and Sandberg Blue grass. Native shrubs normally associated with the above vegeta-tion would be Ta11 ar.d/or Low Rabbitbrush, Gray Horsebrush, Snakeweed, Serviceberrym and cactus. The potential brush with an TITIIIITI;II)IJI r I r I I r r r r I I .PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL (contiirued)' Section 4.02,03 Physical Infornation rII Page Eight I Paragraph c. Vegetation Paragraph Native forbs normally occuring would be Anerican Vetch, Buckwheat species, Bluebel1s, Arrowleaf Balsam-root, Searlet Globerne11ow, Lupine, Western Yarrow Asters, and Fleabane. Species which presently dominate the plant communityis sagebrush with Cheatgrass, Needle and Thread, Native Bunch Bluegrasses, Bottlebrush Squirreltail, Mustard Species, Russian Thistle, Western l,tlheatgrass and 0puntiaCactus. Sagebrush presently makes up approximately 75 percent of the current years growth in dry weight. Map Units entitled Dry Washe:: These areas correspond to soil units napped as X53BC, and 41B and are light shale are bedrock derived loansor clay loams and are not presently farmed but used as range lands. These areas are sometimes refered toas salt flats and are variably eroded with stoney soils. The potential plant community in these areas are sparse grasses with scattered shrubs. Principal grasses would normally be Alkali Sacaton, Western Wheatgrass, Ga11eta,Saltgrass, Sanddropseed, and Bottlebrush Squirreltail. Shrubs normally occuring would be Four Wing, Saltbrush, Gardner Saltbrush, Greasewood, and Shadescale. Forbs normally ocurring would be Aster, Owl Clover,Gi1ia, Buckwheat species, and Evening Prinrose. Greasewood presently dominates the plant communitywith a sparse understory of Cheatgrass, Mustard species, Kochia, Green Mo1Iy and Asters. d. Wildlife The various species of wildlife which may have beennaturally present within the proposed developnent,either as rnigrants or as seasonal or permanent residents, has been altered by the ranching and farming of thelands which have changed the natural vegetation and smal1 mammal, bird, raptor, rllamalian, communities. The Soil Conservation Service indicateswildlife conmunity associated with the and reptile presently napped would include pheasent, mourningcottontail rabbit, squirrel and some mule deer. Mule deer have historically traversed across theproperty from their habitat to the south to the ColoradoRiver for water and feeding. The e1k have restrictedtheir movements along Mamm Creek where there is more cover. The Colorado State Highway Departnent and the Garfield County Airport Authority have individually and combinely have had constructed deer fencing to discourage movementof mule deer across the airport, and thereby have alsoeliminated deer movement across subject lands. With the continued development of the property, the lands will be no longer operated as a ranch and farningunit which will pernit natural vegetation and fauna toreestablish their respective communities in the desig- nated open space reserves on the properties. that the vegatation normal dove, TITITIAII IIIAIII r I r .PRELtrMINARY PLAN Section 4 .42.04 Paragraph d. I r r r r r I I IIT Page NineSUBMITTAL (continued)' Grading and Drainage Plan: See Sheet Number 11, "Road and Drainage Plant' See Sheet Number 18, "Major Drainage Plan'l Approxirnately 85 percent of the project area has ground surface slopes of less than 6 percent. Approximately 10 percent has ground slopes of greater than 6 percent but less than 12 percent. The renaining 5 percent has ground slopes less than 20 percent but more than LZ percent. b. See detail plans of roads, sheet nunbers LZ thru L7, for grading of lands adjacent to road cuts and fi11s with existing and final propsed contours on a two foot contour interval. Potentially difficult grade seperations are not shown to probable. c. See Sheet Numbers L? thru L7 for plan and profile of proposed street grades and drainage structures. See Sheet number 11, "Road and Drainage P1an", for calculated surface run-off accumulations and typical roadway structure. d. See Sheet Number 18, I'Major Drainage P1an" for existing water courses thru and adjacent to the proposed project with linits of tributary areas and calculated storm water run-offs. General: The lands of the proposed project are within two water- sheds tributary to the main stem of the Colorado Rivert Mamm Creek and Dry Creek. Flood Insurance Study: The Colorado River from mile 450.5 to nile 454.4 above Lees Ferry was investigated as existence and severity of flood hazards under the National Flood Insurance Progran as sponsored by the County of Garield. The upper reach of the study is approximately 1"0 miles west of the p.roposed project lands. The Insurance Program became effective in December, L977 for unincorp- orated areas of the County within the study area. The hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the study was conpleted by the U.S" Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, for the Federal Insurance Admin- istration. The stream bed of the Colorado River at Mile 454.4 has a given mean sea level elevation of 5305.5 feet with a high water stage of elevation 5319.5 feet for the 100 year flood as determined by the study. The Colorado River has an average stream gradient of 13.6 feet per nile in the study area. The projected high water surface elevation of the 100 year flood at the western linits of the project lands would be approximateLy 5334.0 feetabove sea leve1. The lowest ground surface elevation of the project lands is approximately 5440 feet above mean sea 1eve1, or some 100- feet above the high water stage of the 100 year f1ood. Mamm Creek Drainage: Approximately 30 acres of the proposed project lands I IITIITIIIlIIIIII I r I r r r r r r I I I I I 'PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL (continued)Page Ten Section 4.02.04 Paragraph d. Grading and Drainage Plan Drainage Study are tributory to the Mamm creek drainage and are elevatedsome 180 feet above the stream bed of Mamm creek, and some one-half mile west of the Mamm Creek Channei. Dry Creek Drainage: Tlru remaining 220 acres of the proj ect lands are withinthe Dry creek Drainage whose chinn6t courses thru thewestern limits of the project. Dry Creek has itsconfluence with the colorado River at a point approxi-matery 1.0 mile northwest of the west boundary of theproposed project 1ands. The calculated_ peak run-_off from the Dry creek drainagebasin for the 100 year frequency will b; dstimatedbased upon the following parameters and criteria; Area of Drainage Basin: Length of reach of stream: Differential drop in gradientalong stream: Elevation of water shed: Average stream gradient: or: Average precipitation on watershed; below 8000 ft. elevation: above 8000 ft. elevation: Exposure of watershed: Typg of precipitaion causing maximum run-off: Frequency of reoccurance: Source of significant precip- 1 tat10n : Duration of rainfall: Rainfall intens ity, source,U.S. Department of Commerce lrecipitation-Frequency Mapsfor Colorado, Oct. L967 7r900 acresr or L2.6 sq.mi. 52,000 1in. ft. , or9.8 niles 4,600 feet 5600 to 10r000 feet above sea 1evel. 8.84 feet per 100r 470 feet/ni. l0 to 15 inches/yr. 30 to 40 inche s/yr. Northeast facing Convection type sunmercloudburst storm. 100 years. Pacific Ocean 6 hours 2..0 inches g.r:"9 upon !h" previous cited Flood Insurance Studywhich also included_a hydrologic and hydraulic ,n"iysesof A1kali creek in Garfield county whith has its confluencewith the Colorado River at New Caitle. Tlu.physigr_l characteristics of the two drainages aresimilar with posslbly A1ka1i Creek having a sllghtlyhigher precipitation intensities. The study prgjected a 100 year discharge for the 15square mile drainage_basin at 850 cfsr-or an averagedischargg at its confluence of 56.61 Lts per squarenile of drainage area. TIIIIA'IIJIITJII I r I I r I r I I I I SUBMITTAL (continued)' Grading and Drainage Plan Characteristics of Channel Average width: Average depth: Average gradient: Where S R n For a a V A d By the Thus I I I Page E1even. of Dry Creek thru Project: 12 feet L4 feet 2 f.eetl 100 f t . .PRELIMINARY PLAN Section 4.02.04 Paragraph d.Drainage Study At the above discharge, and with a stream gradientof 3.0 feet per 100 feet, the stage of A1ka1i Creek was shown to be 8.0 feet in the flood profile curvesof said study. Estimated Peak run-off;56.67 cfs/sq.mi. X 12.8 sq.mi.=725 cfs. trn" value for Manning t s formula" 0.0SS to 0 " 040 [ = average velocity of flow = 1.486 R'667 S.5 n = .020 ft.fft. = Area of flow/ wetted perimeter of channel = coeficent of roughness = 0.035 = discharge of 7ZS cfs. = L?, .95 f t. / sec. = 56 se. ft. = depth of flow = 4.6 feet. rational nethod of calculating run-off; -cia Where = coeficient of runoff = 0.35 = rainfall intensity = 2.0 inches in 6 hours = drainage area in acres c = time of concentration = L.Z hours = 0.35 X 7,.0/5.0 X 7,900 l1-.2 = 768 cfs a c i a T a The previous estimated peak run-off under the sketchplan submittal was in amount equal to 4LT.J cfs whichwas verif ied by the county thru t,he corps of Engineers. The assurned value of peak run-off for the 100 yearstorm in Dry Creek thru the project shal1 be 7ZS cfs.as based on projections made by the U.S. Corps ofEngineers for Alka1i Creek. such flows shall be well contained within the presentchannels of Dry Creek. The County of Garfield installed a 108 inch archedcorrugated metal pipe with a effective end area ofof 101 square feet. Section 4.02"06 Utility plan ilIffi*uur 8,'?water production Facilities,, See Sheet Number 9, " Water Distribution System" see sheet Number 10, "sanitary sewer collection System'r Paragraph a. Phase One, l{ater Development plan The domestic potable water supply for the rndustrialGeneral Service District will be furnished waterfrom the existing ajudicated water springs which arenow presently providing water to the facilities atthe Garfield County Aiiport and Ranch facilitiesincluding stock watering. TIIIIIIIIIIIIII I r I r I I r I I I PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL (contiriued) Section 4.02.06 Utility Plan Paragraph d. Water Supply: The source of donestic water from springs and Crann Pipe The Crann Pipe Line Date of Ajudication: Ditch Number: Date of Appropriation: Priority Number 130 IIT Page Twelve supply will initially be Line. November 25 r1908 83 September L4, 1903 40 CFM or 0.667 cfs. I The water for fire protection will be furnishedfrom water welIs and/or from the Last Chance Ditchthru existing pump stations and pipelines servicingthe present irrigation system for the irrigatedlands within the total properties. At such tine as additional donestic water requirementsare needed in excess of the capacities of the springs,an other source of treated water will be provided andthe raw water distribution system sha11 be convertedto a treated water system for potable water and boththe domestic water system and fire protection system sha11 be one and the same. Domestic Potable Water System Source of l{ater Supply: Adjudicated amount of diver-sion for irrigation purposes: Priority Number 11 Adjudicated amount of diver-sion for domestic purposes: Source of Water: Size of Pipe Line: Terninal of Pipe Line: 20 CPM or 0.333 cfs. Springs situated ina gulch at a point whence the SE Cornerof Sec.24, T"65. ,R93Wbears S.18oE., 540feet. 3 inch dianeter Lot 4, Section 18 The above described pipeline has been replaced fromtime to time in the intervening years and is presentlya size 4 inch PVC pipe. rn 0ctober of 1978, the Garfield county Airport Authority,initiated plans to improve the collection and diversionfacilities at the intake to the Crann Pipe Line. There are six or seven seperate springs within thegulch as shown on the attached plans. The AirportAuthority plans were to develope three of these springsto develope a firm supply of 30 GPM to satisfy theirdevelopment needs as outlined in their Airport Master Plan " Planned improvements were initiated and completed in the sunmer of 1979 and included the construction of two underground collection trenches to intercept springwater below the ground surface, a enclosed Parshallwater metering flume, sedirnentation chamber and connect-ion to the existing 4 inch pipe 1ine. The water year 1978 -1979 represented the driest yearof record for annual precipitation and run-off. IITIIIIITIIIIII I r I r I r r I I I I 'PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL (continued) Section 4"02.06 Utility Plan Paragraph aa Domestic Potable Water System I I I Page ttiirteen Measuredflow from the two developed springs has variedfrom a minimum of ZS gpm to a maiimum of 5f gpn thruthe installed size 2 inch Parshall F1ume, over a18 nonth period. Minimum flows are experienced duringthe late winter months when ground water is normallythe niininal . The measured flow of the surface water being combinelydischarged by the remaining springs has varled from50 to 100 gpm through a size Z inih parshatl Flunewhich is located downstream from the enclosed system. Thus the measured combine flows will vary from TS to 150 gpm. Plans are to develope and conatain the remain-ing springs to provide a totally enclosed systemand to obtain maximum firm yields. The spring water is presently chlorinated and storedin facilities constructed by the Airport Authorityat the location shown on the attached plans . - Additional storage in the amount of S0,000 gallonsis to be constructed at the site shown-on tf,e plans. Donestic Water Usage Requirements Airport Usage: Itp Consulting Engineers for the Airport Authority,Isbi11 Associates, Inc., projected ttre daily usage lequirenents based on their growth projections asfollows I Next five year period: space and 9 The total proj ectedin Section 4.02.01, square feet. ten year period: twenty year period: 10,000 GPD 15,000 GPD 25,000 GPD Industrial and Commercial Usage on Airport Property S,000 GpD Total maximum projected usage:S0,000 GpD In addition to th9 above projected domestic usage,at such time as the Airport Authority provides fiieprotection, their projected fire flow iequj-rement atdevelopment would be 3,000 gpm conbined fire streamfor a 4 hour duration. Industrial/General Service District Usage. area of floor Paragraphs 8 under roof was 38 0, 000 Assuming City of Grand Junction standards, domesticwater requirement on peak day would be equal to 10 GpDper 100 square feet of Industrial floor space: Projected peak daily usage = 3800 X 10 GPD = 38,000 GpD Assurning the Airport Authority Criteria of LZ GpD/100square feet of Industrial Floor area, average dailywater requirenent would equal to 3800 X IZ GpO =45,600 GPD average flow X 1.35 = 61,500 GPD peak f1ow. Using the more conservative assumptions, the total est-imated peak daily water usage requirement for domesticneeds would be as follows: Airport Usage:50,000 GPD Industrial/General Service District: 61r500 GpD 91,500 GPD Total Peak Daily Use: IIIIIIITIIIIIII I r I I I I r I I I I I I I ,PRELtrMINARY PLAN Section 4.o2.06 Paragraph ao SUBMITTAL (contiirued)'Page Fourteen Utility Plan Domestic Potable Water System Average Daily Usage = Peak DatLy/l.35 = 91,500 GPD/1.35 = 67,800 GPD Average daily usage will be satisfied by water productionfacilities and peak daily usage will be-net froir treatedrrater storage facilities: Assuming 5 -peak days out of every seven days, thequantity of treated water storage required ai ultimatedeveiopment would equal to 5( gt,S00 -- 67,800) = 5(23,700) = 118r500 gallons Thus domed.tic-water supply at ful1 development isprojected as follows: Capacity of Treated twater production Facilities = 67,800 GPD = 47 GpM Treated Water Storage: 1201000 gallons First Phase of Construction: Capacity of Treated Water production Facilities = 16,950 GPD tZ GpM Treated ltlater Storager, 30 r 000 Gallons Fire Requirements: The water distribution system as shown on SheetNumber 9, rfWater Distribution Systemil is sized tos-atisfy the fire flows shown thereon, which are asfollows for the criteria herein defined: Hydrant spacing, maximum: Length of hose line: Size of hose line: Nozzle size: I.lozzle discharge capacity: Hydrant residual for pumper: Punrper presure'discharge : Nozzel pressure residual : Number hydrant on maindistribution line: Maximum flow in main line: Pressure loss a11owab1e in main line; flow from twodirections or 600 GPM Maximum line extension: Maximum Line Loss: Elevation of storage tank: Elevation of highest hydrant: Minirnum differental: r 600 feet 300 feet 2.5 inches 1.75 inches 3OO GPM 40 psi 100 psi 30 psi 4 each 1,?00 GPM 3.5 psi/1000 ft. 4,000 1in.ft. 14"0 psi 5740 feet 5580 feet 160 feet Hydrant residual, 40 psi= gzft. Main line loss = L4 psi = 32 ft.Transmission loss - 16 ft.Contingencies: 14 ft. Total system loss: 154 ft. Maximum differental: ZZO feet, 117 psi. TIIIIIIIIITIIII I I I PRELII\4INARY P[,AN Section 4 .02 "06 Paragraph a. IIITITI SUBMITTAL (continued) . Utility Plan Fire Flow Requirements: Minirnum main size criteria I Flow requirement:Friction loss:Velocity of flow: Minimum size of Pipe: The fire duration shal1 be 4 hours. Assumption shall be there would be two Elevation of High water surface in Raw water storage tank: Elevation of water surface of Pump Station : Elevation differential : Friction 1oss, 6 X 10t = 60 feetor= Total discharge head on pumps: Fire storage required: (5,000 gpm - 1500 gpm) ,X (ax60) = IIII Page Fi.fthteen 600 GPM3.5 psi/ 1000 t 3.8 ft/ sec 8 inch 1.00 cfs 448 8 gpm 3,5 cfs L,57 0 gpm 11.0 cfs4,940 gp* 160 acre feet. s irnul taneous f ires . One fire with three hydrants, and the secondfire with four hydrants, a total of 7 hydrants. Maximum fire flow = 7 X 300 GPM = Z,LOO GpM Therefor the airport criteria of 5000 GpM is thegreater requirement. The source of water for fire flow and fire storagewill be either fire wel1s or direct surface wateidiversions out of the Last Chance Ditch, Pumping capacity of proposed pump station is2,000 gpm with a standby diesel engine for onepump. Standby pump is presently installed at theexisting pump station shown on the attached plans. Capacity of the existing 10 inch pipe line at alimiting velocity of 6.00 ft/sec is-3.404 cfs, 91 1,_500 gpm at a head loss of I0 feet per 1000lin.ft. of pipe line" 5760,0 feet 5 390 370 feet, or 160 psi 25 psi 185 psi 360,000 gallons First stage storage will provide a 1000 gpm flow for 4 hours = ZS0r000 gallons paragraph a' iilT;:;;:,1il";,:::t:irn. held on the subject landsas conveyed by warrenty Deed are summarized as follows; _L1st Chance Ditch out of the ColoradoRiver, Priority no. 73, dated 3-23-872 S.68 cfs" Crann Pipeline Ditch out of springs 1,650 gprn on Property, Priority No.11 q No. 130, dated 9-14-83 Enterprise Ditch out of West MammCreek, priority No.111 , Z-1_91 L & C Ditch out of Beaver Creek,Priority No. LLZ, dated S-16-92 Vaughn Reservoir, Priority No.2,dated 3-L4-92 - IIITIIIIIIIIIII I I I I r I r I r I rII Page Sixtee4 of 1981 River bybut willfor fire Pipe 1 inefor domesticin use. for domestic, I PRELIMINARY LAND Section 4.02,06 Paragraph a. SUBMITTAL (continued) Utility Plan Water Supply 1) Sources of Supply ir b. Historic Use The Crann Pipeline Ditch has been used continuously since its construction for domestic use, stock wateringr oD a yeatly basis and during the irrigation season fororchard, garden farm and grain crop irrigation usage. The pipeline and its appurtances have beenrepaired and replaced from time to time, and mostlrecently irnproved. Present minimumwinter time, drouth yield has been measuredat not less than 75 gprn with an average flowof 150 gpm. Summer yields are greater when ground water activity is greater. The proposed water wel1s will have as their source of supply the subsurface hydrologic system of the Colorado River. The ColoradoRiver in its downcutting has deposited exteri-sive river gravels which underly the over- burden of the plains adjacent to the river. These gravels are encountered at a depth of LZ feet at the existing pump station at thenortheast edge of the property near MammCreek. The depth of these a11uvial gravel deposits vary but are generally 30 feet in thickness along this reach of the Colorado River. Capacity of wells are a funCtion of thehydraulic draw down in the well casing andthe infiltration rate, both of which arerelated to the casing diameter and penetra-into the al1uvial gravels. Thus wel1s may be engineered and constructed to capacitiesin excess of 1000 gpm yield rates. Wel1s will have a ajudication date which will be cal1ab1e out of thesenior rights for domestic usage; not be subject to being ca11ed. outprotection purposes. Change in use: The water rights out of the CrannDitch were originally adjudicated use and will not require a change The new we11s will be adjudicated municipal and industrial usees. Not applicable. The Crann Pipeline Ditch has been utilizedas'a potable water supply for alnost 100 years and since L979 as potable water supply to theGarfield County Airport which has met both County and State Health water quality standards" Inaccordance with the PUD submittal, the project lands will be included within a lfater and Sanit;r-,,tion District The procedure to be followed in establishing this c)) d) e) z) ITIIIIIITITIIII s) I I I I I I I I I I r I I I PRELIMINARY PIAN Section 4 "02.06 Paragraph a. SUBMITTAL (continued)' Utility Plan Water Supply In January of 1977, theto the State of Coloradopurpose of constructing treatment facilities andservice areas within and The proposedgrant request The question sewer line byission becafie expressed by Page Seventeen ?,) Water and Sanitation District is prescribed byStatutes of the State of Colordo. Facilitiesconstructed, maintained, and operated by theDistrict may be funded by various methods avail-able to such a entity. Present water improvementshave been funded through resource of the present 0wners and the Garfidld County Airport Authority,with provisions for reimbursement by Rifle LandsAssociates, Ltd. or its successor. 5) Not applicable. 4) Not applicable Not applicable although a Plan of Augnentation was completed, subnitted, reviewed by the StateEngineers Office for the State of Colorado, andtherein recieved a favorable comment by the State,and accepted by the County under the pUD submittaiprocedures. Paragraph b. Sanitary Sewage Disposal See Sheet Number 10, "Sanitaty Sewer Collection Systemt'. Inaccordance with the submittal information andsubs-equent responses to questions raised by theGarfield County Planning Department at that time,sanitary wastewater treatment facilities were to beon site and consist of aerated sewage lagoons. The capaclty ofthe initial facility was to be suchas to properly treat 30,000 to 501000 gallons per day. subsequently, several intervening events have occuredwhich may have some effect upon the method of waste-water disposal for the proposed Industrial/ GeneralService District. The resolution , Resolution No. 77-I, approving thePlanned Unit Development amendment to tha ZoningResolution of Garfield County was adopted by theCounty Commissioners in January 1977. In November, L976, the City of Rifle had completedtheir ?,0L Facilities Plan for review by the variousa$encies effected by the Plan. The service area in-cluded in the Plan were defined as those areas northof the Colorado River that were within the City ofRifle or its future annexations, and an area southof the Colorado River within the Service Area of theRifle village south Metropolitan District which easterlyboundary limits was the West Line of Section L4, somel/2 mile to the west of the property under the ipproved PUD" 'rDistrict't made applicationfor certain grant.s for thecertain sanitary wastewaterinterceptor sewer line toadjacent to their District. projects of the "Districtrs'r and their were opposed by the City of Rif1e" of the site approval for the interceptorthe Colorado-ilater Quality Control 'Comm- a primary issue in the total concernsall entities envolved. TTIIIIIIIIIIITI I I r I I I I I I I I r I I I PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL (continued)Page Eighteen The proposed interceptor sewer Ii-ne was to be con- struttea adjacent to Interstate Highway 70 and extend from the "Districtrs" plant facilities to,a point 1000 feet east of the Rifle Interchange. The location, size, ownership, and operator of the interceptor line were all contested and thoroughly studied by all envolved. The "District'r presented data and information that the line should be sized, and site approval given, to serve some 2 1754 acres south of the Colorado River whichwas projected to have a contributing population ultimately of 31r396 persons, requiring '2liZe ?,L inch pipeline at the lower extremities of the interceptor sewer line. The line was to extend to the County Airport and included afu1 the PUD south of the Airport. This density was objected to by the City and the State. The first revision to the City of Riflers 20L Facility Plan, dated March of L977, reduced the requested capa- city to serve an ultinate population of 31r000 persons to L2rZ3Z persons or approximately 3,200 single fanily- dwelling units or an e(uivalent thereof. The projected peak design flow for the above interceptor line as set forth-in the Amended Facility Plan for the L21230 persons was 3,L791800 gPd, or 21208 gPm, or 4.9? cfs. The maximulh grade in the 2 miles of distance between the "Distric!trtt plant site and the Rifle Interchange waS 0.0022 feet per foot. The capacity of a 18 inch diameter pipeline at the ao-ove stated maximum obtainable grade is 5.00 cfs. Thus, or April 5, L977, the Colorado Water QualityControl Comnission gave the District site approval to construct a size 18-inch interceptor sewer from its plant site to a point 1000 feet east of the Rifle Interchange at I-70 to eventually serve L21230 persons. The amended 20I Facilities Ptran of 0ctober, L977, and of June, 1979 reflect the final accepted concept that lands south of the Colorado River would be served through the Rifle Village South Metropolitan District and its sanitary sewer facilities. The size 18 inch interceptor Sewer line has been const-- ructed from the "DistrictrS" wastewater treatment facil- ities to a 1000 feet east of the Rifle Interchatrg€, which point is approximately the West Line of Section 15, or 2 miles west of the proposed project. Incoordination with the ?01 Facility Plan planning pro- cess, the developrnent of 'the 208 Management Plan by the Colorado West Area Council of Goverments was being completed under the 208 Planning Process. This compteted plan encompasses the ZlL Facility Plans within the Garfield and adjacent counties. Within this planning study, the approved PUD south of the airpoi't, refered to as the l'Rifle Airport Indust- rial Park was included as apart thereof. The projedted population for this subdivision !y this "Plan'r was ioire 4r800 persons from residential development and L1255 employees from industrial development. The "Plan" designated the PUD as another Point Source within the study area, and designated its point -ofwastewater disclarge is the Colorado River at river rnite LL7Z"9 with the "Districts, at mile 1L70.7 IIIIITIIIIIIIII PRELIMINARY PLAN Section 4,02.06 Paragraph b. SUBMITTAL (continued) Utility Plan Page Nineteen Sanitary Sewage Disposal The imput data for the 208 Plan Design Assumptions and Water Quality Impacts for the PUD was as follows: In summary, the majarrty of all past planning has concluded that the PUD would be another point sourceof wastewater to the Colorado Ri.ver. Physical Considerations : The present situation concerning lands above theinterceptor line as constructed will be reviewed here in. Population: Wai tewater d.ischarge :Receiving Stream flow: Change in receiving water qualLty; Dissolved oxygen Anmonia 5,400 perdons 0 .84 cfs,1,105 cf s no change Increase from 0"145 to 0.156 ^e/ 1 with a 0.323 ne/L a11owab1e concentration 153 acres 10 acres f84 acres 34 acres 381 acres 1,520 SFDU 5? SFDU 22 SFDU 37 SFDU 56 SFDU 75 SFDU 40 SFDU 44 5 ,SFDU 725 SFDU LLZ SFDU 370 SFDU 120 SFDU Anderson Lands, South of I-70 and not within present Subdivision: Scarrow Property: Powers Property : Layne Property: Total raw land west of Lane: Number of projected units based onpresent planning completed in this area and tributory to interceptorline: 580 X 4.0 units/acre: Area South of Rifle Interchange; Existing residential, singlefamily units: Existing multiple residentalfanily units; 4 structures: Mote1, 65 units with restraunt: Planned multiple fanily unitswithin platted subdivisions :8 sites with 56 units: Motel planned within PlattedSubdivision, 150 unit with Resturaunt: Commercial within Platted Area: Southside Center PUD, 50 acres, Proposed development will have a reported 155,000 GPD domestic water demand: Firm development within platted or approved subdivisions in area southof Rifle Intershange: Additional raw land adjacent toexisting development uider plan- process: 14 acres of conmercial: ZZ acres of multiple family: 30 acres of 1ow density: Total under sketch ptranning:602 SFDU G. H. Maximum Building He'i ght: 0ff-Street Parki ng: Bui lding with 4 or fewer dwel I ing units shql I have not less than two (2) spaces per dwelling unit. Bu'i lding with more than 4 dwel I ing un i ts shal I have not less than 1.5 spaces per dwel l ing unit. llobi le Hone Park Distrlct, llHP A. Uses by R I ght: Single family mobile home units or modular home un i ts ut i I i zed for res i dent i al occupancy and customary accessory uses, park ' open space, common laundry or other utility faci- I ities provided for the use and benefit of the residents and guests. Conditional Useq: Camper vehicles. 35 feet at a density based onfinal plat. 35 percent commercial off i ce s, III. B. C. D. E. F. Speci al Uses: None. Minimum Lot Area: 6,000 sq.ft. noT-To exceeE-F.o units per acre gross area within each fi I ing or Maximum Lot Coverage: Minimum Setback: Front yard: S i de yard: Rear yard: 15 5 10 feet fee t fee t G. Trailer or Building Height: 16 feet H. 0f f -street Par!-ing: Two (2 ) park ing spaces Fer rrnTT. IV. Conmercial/Alrport Servlce Dlstrlct, C/AS A. Uses by R i sh!: Ai rportHofe1, motel, lodging faci I ities with assoc- iated businesses and incidential uses, al I conducted within the principal bui lding as required to serve the principal faci I ity, i nc I udi ng, but not I imi ted to, restaurant, coffee shop, cocktai 1 lounge, car rental,jndoor amusement bus'iness, gift shop. Airport terminal operation faci I ities, P ark i ng I ots, Fl ight school,rcraft service business,rcraft repa i r and sa I es, A A B. 0ther air transportation oriented businesses, including professional car rental and servicing. Condi ti onal Uses: None. c.Special Uses: None. D. E. Minimum Lot Area:25 ,000 sq. ft . M4xiryqm Lot Coverage: More than oneoF-6@laced on any onevided not more than 90 percent of the i s covered. Minimum Setback: structure I of pro- I of area F. G. H. Front lot: 20 feet or limits of power lines S i de I ot: 10 feet Rear lot: 15 feet or edge of power I lnes. Maximum Building Heiqht: 45 feet 0ff-Street Parking: Motels, hotels, lodges, l space per each guest room, plus 1.0 space per each 300 sq. ft. ofbusiness and office space. Aircraft oriented commercial business, 1 spaceper each 3 employees. 0ther offices and businesses,1 space per each300 sq.ft. of floor area. Uses by Right: Convenience services and retai I businesses wh i ch genera I'ly prov i de f or the needs ofthose working or residing within the localarea, i nc I ud i ng, but not I imi ted to, conven-ience grocery store, S€rvice station, drugstore, beverage outlets, I iquor outlets,laundromat, and other similar retail outlets and persona'l services. Conditional Uses: None Speci al Uses: None Miqi4qm Lot Area: 7,500 sq. ft. l,laximum Lqt Coverage: 90 percent: More thanone sTrucTure oF-EiTlding may be placed on onelot providing the total number of square feetof bujlding area does not exceed the lot coverage for the fi I ing on the flnal plat ofthe District. Minimum Setback: y.Conmercial/Convenience Retai I Dlstrlct, C/CR A. B. c. D. E. F. Front I ot: Side lot: Rear I ot: 50 feet None 10 feet G. H. Maximum Building Helqht:25 feet 0[!1!tqeet Parking: 0ne (1) space per each 300feeTlT-EmTA-f,ng-irea, unt6ss otheiwi se Justlf led. UI. Industrlal/General Service District, I/GS A. Uses by Risht: 0ffices for conducting business includingcommercial, professional, manufacturing;research and 'l ight manuf acturing; wholesalebusiness, sales and/or warehousing; trarehous- !ngi storage; genera'l contracting-facilitiesincluding off ices, shops, and yaids; anycommodity manufactured and/or fabricated. B. Conditional Uses: Plant forgoffissed natural lpecial Uses: Plant for processing naturalresources and/or agricultural materials. Maximum Lot Coverage: Minimum Setback: 20,000 sq. ft. 90 percent fabrication of resources. F. C. D. E. Minimum Lot Area: utility i s greater. utility i s greater. Maximum Building Height:No ne. H. 0ff-Street PaL!-L!.g: 0ne (l) space per every 3-empJ oyees. VII. Connercial/Otflce Research Dlstrlct, C/0R A. Uses by Right: 0ffices for conducting of business, lncludingoffices for the profeisions, real estate,government, corporations, financial institu_t!gns, administrative offices, executiveoffices or other businesses which do notinvolve personal non-professional services orretai I sales of personal goods. B. Condi t i onal Uses :No ne C. lpscial Uses: None D. Minimum Lot Area:7,500 sq. ft. 90 percentMaximum Lot Coverage: Minimum Setback: G. Front lot: S i de I ot: Rear lot: 20 feet or edge of easements wh i chever None. 10 feet or edge of easement, whichever feet feet fee t E. F. Front I ot:Side lot: Rear I ot: 50 5 10 G.Maximum Bui I di ng Hei ght: None 5 ?GARFTELD trtrUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWtrOD SPRtNGS, trtrLtrRADO Bl5trl 2O14 BLAKE AVENUE December 17, L976 PHtrNE 945-EJ212 MEM0 T0: Board of County Commissioners FR0M: Planning Department - Robert hlitkowski SUBJECT: Recommended Action on the Airport Industrial Park Complex I recornmend that the Board approve the zone change request for PUD zoning for the above project subject to the following conditions: (1) Aporoval of the zone change is conditioned upon approvalof the proposed plan for augmentation and change of water rights by the Division Water Court. (2) Pre-treatment of industrial wastes be allowed for in the design of the seurerage system for this project. (3) Proposed locations of future school sites are qeneral in nature and subiect to change pending a specific agreement between the developer and the school district. (4) The engineering standards to be used in the construction of al1 public improvements be compatible with those standards used by the City of Rifle when such standards are at least as restrictive as those presently in force i n Garfi e'l d County. GARFIELD trtrUNTY PLANNINE DEPARTMENT GLENWtrtrD SPRINGS, trOLORADO Bt5trl 2O14 BLAKE AVENUE PHtrNE 945-EJ212 The follow'ing maps are in the Garfield County Airport Industrial Park: l. Drainage Easement I'1aP 2. Topo Map 3. Airport Industrial Park PUD Map 4. Pre'l imi nary Pl at 5. Water and Drainage Map (l Drainage Map) 6. Traffic Conditions Map (l and 2) 7 . 51 ope Study B. Geologic Map 9. Sojl Study .l0. Vicinity Map (l copy) ll. Surficial Geology James M. Bowers and Inc. Urban, County and Regional Planning Environmental Planning and Design January 19, 1977 l'1r. Bob Wi tkowski Planning Director Garfi e'ld County 20.l4 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8.l60] Dear Bob I am sending th'is letter as the means of expressing rny appreciation for the assistance you have given us in the planning and processing of the Garfield County Airport Industrial Park Complex. The proiect has benefited from your involvement. Thank you for your time and ideas. Bob Chancellor, Tink Garel and I believe that the County's action in approving the zon'ing and PUD plan is a major early step'in the realization of a desirable development. However we recognize that it is only an early step and there are many more that w'ill need to be taken before the proiect can be determined successful from both the County's and Mr. Chancellor's v'iewpoint. Therefore we look forward to continu'ing to work wiih you and other members of the Garfield County government. LIith that in mind Llr. Chancellor has asked me to serve as the corffnunication link with the County government for p'lanning matters concerning this project. l4r. Garel r.rill do the same in regards to engineering matters. Therefore I will keep you informed as to planning activities that are being taken in regards to this project and I would apprec'iate it if you could feep ry informed as to any pending or proposed County actjons that might affect it. These actions might include such things as the development of a land use and circulation p'lan for a'l'l or a part of the County; implementing the p'lan for the County A'irport; and changes in the County's zoning and subdivision regul ati ons. I look forlard to continu'ing to work vrith you on this important Cevelopment. Yours tru'ly Branches: 1300 Canyon Boulevard Boulder, Colorado 80302 3031444 3230 650 Main Street Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 303/243-7921 JAI4ES M. BOI'IERS cc: l'1r. Bob Chancel I or lilr. Tink Garel 1801 York Street Denver, Colorado 80206 303/388 9259 GARFTELD trtrUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWtrtrO sPRINGS, COLORADO BlSOl December 29, 7976 A. GarfieTd Countg Airport IndusttiaT Park CompTex Phase f: Emplognent - 430 ResidentiaT units Phase If: EmpTognent - 4L0 Resjdenti a7 ttnits Phase III: EmpTogtent - 475 ResjdentiaT Units 7,255 PHONE 945'A2122O14 FjLAKE AVENUE B. BattTerent Mesa Phase I: Residentiaj Phase II: ResidentiaL Phase flf: ResidentiaT *71877 units in Phase r C. Grand Va77eg IndustriaT RecreationaT 1,1r. David Durant NeTson, Haleg, Patterson and Quirk, Inc- Engineering Consultants 760 Horizon Drive Grand Junction, Colorado 87507 Dear Dave: EncToseil is the infortnation You requested this torning in our con- versation. - 300 - 340 - 860 7,500 units - 31390 units - 2,823 units - 2,764 81977-*11877=71700 and II wil-7 be Phased out Park VehicLe Pads - f00 SincereTg, <-/,-l-.*ii'-//(1r( Robert A. Witkowski PTanning Directot RAw/7c LAVV OFFICE3 PETRq., ZIMMERMAN & SHELTON THE PROFCSSIONAL C'NT=R PoST OFi C5 DRA/Jll aCO GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLOEAOO AI6CI P.C aREA COOa 303 94s- 6522 December 28, 1976 Mr. Gerald D. Hartert County Attorney L{rNCER, LARSON & HARTERTP.O. Box 850 GARFIELD CO. PLANI{ER Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Garfield. County Airport Industrial park Complex Dear Jerry: Recently we discussed the language to be included in aresolution of the Garfield Planning Commission pertaining tothe approval of the above captioned PUD, which language I presume will be carried over and made a part of the resolutionof the Board. of County Commissi-oners In an effort to more completely understand the problem, I have carefully reviewed the Garfield County PUD Amendment tothe Zoning Resol-ution and the Zoning Submission prepared by James I{. Bowers and Associates, Inc. I have also carefully reviewed the Water Augmentation Plan submitted by T.V. Garel and the letters and responses to the plan of both the Divisionof I'Iater Resources in Denver and the Garfield County PlanningDepartment. I have not seen anything that finally approvesthe plan, but r14r. Garel te1Is me that this was in the formof a letter addressed to the Garfield County Planning Department. In connection with the PUD approval, Mr. Garei- also submitteda detailed plan for the development of the water for thearea. Both the Augmentatj-on Plan and this report were reviewed by Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers, and a copy of their report was included in the zoning submission. A11 of these documents amply demonstrate the sufficiency ofthe quantity of water available for the PUD development, but none of the reports go into the specifj-cs of the nature ofthe physical system that is proposed to be used to deliverthe water to the subdivision. I discussed this fact with[Ir. Gare1. He advised me that it was his understanding that the PriD approval as outlined in the PUD Amendment to the Zoning Resolution only went to the broad. concerns as to the availability CIEC 2 e 1976 GEORGE J. PEYPE iICBERT S. Z!MM=NMAN VERNON T. SHELTCN DAN KERST I4r. Gerald D. i. :ert Page 2 December 28, L976 of water. This seems to be substantiated by the amendmentitself in that it makes reference to the ad6quancy of waterby requiring the appricant to include with his writtenrequest "provision for water... " and a written statement bya licensed engineer which shar-r- provid.e evidence of ', theproposed water source adequate to service the puD..." Thisarso seems to be the approach taken by the Garfierd countyPranning Department as r noticed in one of Mr. witkowski,iletters he is concerned with the avairabirity of domesticwater, the dependability of physicar supply ind priority ofrights. EIe continued, "whire r do not ieel this means anactual water decree, much of the anaryses preceeding such anacti.on might be necessary." ?he varlous documents that f analyzed adequatery demonstratethe dependability of the physical supply, the piiority ofthe rights and the adequancy of water avairable. The probremsof adequacy of a derivery system, potabirity of the water,pressure, design of the system and other matters should beleft to that point in time when actuar subdivisions aresubmitted for approval r have discussed with Mr. chancellor and I.{r. Garer theseproblems and it is their intention to adequately d.emonstratethe viability of the water system as it pertaini to eachsubdivision for which approval is requested. r arso pointedout to them your concerns and the languagd of the PUD Amendrnentto the Zoning Resolution which provid.es that: "Each stage within a pUD sha}l be so planned and sorelated to exi-siting surroundings and available faciltiesand services that failure to proceed to a subsequentstage will not have a substantial adverse impact on the PUD or its surroundings. ,' with this background in mind and. after revi-ewing othercounty resolutions approving PUDrs, r wourd propose that theresolution contain a finding that: "That a detailed plan of augmentation for adequatedomestic water supply has been prepared and submittedto the Division of vlater Resources and this commi-ssionfor review and additional and. supplemental reports,data and information have also been furnished. Theproposed lfater Augmentation plan has been approved bythe Divsion of water Resources and the adequacy of thereport has been substantiated by Black and. Veatch,Consulting Engineers, a Supplemental Report by themhaving been submitted to the commission, which informati-oncollectively indicates the adequacy of the proposedwater source to serve the puD, subject to the imSlrimentation I Mr. Gerald ilartert Page 3 December 28, L976 thereof and further subject to detairecl engineering andother information that may be required at the time thatsubdivisions are requested within the area incl,udedwithin the PUD. " r would then suggest that the resorution itself be subjectto a condition pertaining to water i-n the language as forrows: "satisfactory evid.ence of the i-mplimentation of theI{ater Augrnentation Pran to the extent that is necessaryto provide adequate, potable, domestic water shal]_ besubmitted for approval by the planning and Zoningcommission at the time any subd.ivision prans within the PUD are submitted for approval. " i will send a copy of this letter to Bob witkowski for hisconments on the concept that is proposed.. The languagesuggested can be red.rafted as you may suggest. I'Ie would like to get this matter resolved as soon as possibre. Yours very truly, PETRE, ZlMltERltAN & SHELTON P. C. GJP/cb cc: Robert ChancellorT.V. Garel Robert I{itkowskip,/ rr of transmittal James M. Bowers and Associates City, Regional, and Development planning 1801 York St., Denver, Cotorado 80206 303/388-9259 To Mr. Robert hlitkowski, Garfield County Planner 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8.l60.I Attention December 7 197 6 Project Garfield Countv Airport Industrial Park Compl ex Gentlemen: Enclosed please find Project Number o176 12/7 /7 6 Copy of form letter sent to property owners in Garfield County concerning pub'lic hearing on zoning appl icqtion List of Property 0wners abutting Complex who received above letter These Are Transmitted n For Approval I For corrections Remarks n For your use n For resubmittal n Accepted o For your a Checked as noted i nformati on These letters were mailed December 7, 1976. Return Receiot Reouested. Signed Copies to Date Copies _() , rl ;'' it, I t;lll Drc t_JL_ - GAii,-jr,u, You are hereby no'uified tirat Ril'le Land Associates, Lid. has file.i an applica- tion tlith Gl:^fieli Count;r to amenci r.he 0arfield County Zorrinq tesolut'ion tu seek a zot'le chanEe from A/RiP.D - Agricr.rlLural/Res'iciential/Rural Serrsity'uo PUD - Planned Unit Deve'lopment. The Boar,j of Ccunty Commissioners cf Ga:"field County, Colorado, r,rill holC a publ ic hearing 'in the County Comm'issioners' Rootn in t,he Garfi el d coun+"y courthcuse, Gl enwood spri ngs, col orado, on Monday, December 20,1976, at l:30 p"nr. for the purpose of considering the zone change request. The amenCrrent is being requesled for 1,775.4.18 acres, more or less, in theGarfield County Airpcrt Industrial Park Comp'lex located in the Eeneral area south of the existing County Airport, east of Rifle anC morc part'icular'ly described as follcws: The South one-hal f of the Ncrtheast oi-,e-quartcr {S/2, NE/14), the Soutlieast one-quari.er of t,he Northwest one-quarter (SE/4,N!f/4),lot Number Two (2), and the South oie-hal'f (S/?), all lyirrg in Section '13, Township 6 Suuth. Range 93 l^jest of the Sixi,h Principal Meridian (T65, R93l.J rrr the 6th P.M, ); .ulre Southeast one-quarter (SEr/4) of Section i4, the lrlortheast one-quarter of the Southeast oiie-quarter (Nt/4, SEr'/t) ef Seciion 23, ail of Seciton 24, and tlre East one-nalf (E/Z)of Section 25, said Townsliip 6 Sor.ith, Range g3 liest; a.nrl L.';{-: 2, 3 arid 4, all l.y:r:E in Sei;t.ic;: .l3, T{r',.'t;l-.ii: 6 Scuth, Rar.ge 92 Llest of rhe Sirth Principai t,ter.'!ciiarr (t6S, R92iii,.rf ihe Oth P.il. ); Gariield Couirty, Culorado. James M. Bowers and Associates, lnc. Urban, County and Regional Planning Environmental Planning and Design December 7, 1976 Copies of the appiicatien Garfielri [ounty Plannir:g bethreen tne hcurs of 8:0C Very truiJv you! s iA!,lES I'1. BOI,JERS AND ASS0CiATES, INC Sl fe manner?or -Rifle i-and 4ssociate:, Li.C. 1976 i ,,.,.il;'JtJ t'.rii{i,lER and naterial are cn file for inspccticn at the Department, z0lti Blake Avenuc. Glcnnood Sorings, a.m. to 5:00 p.nr., l4on.Cay through Friday. 1801 York Street Denver, Colorado 80206 303/388-9259 Branches. 1300 Canyon Boulevard Boulder, Colorado 80302 303/444 3230 650 Main Street Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 3031243-7921 : August 3, GARFIELD PRO P E RTY 197 6 COUN TY Ot^lN E RS A I RPORT ABUTTI NG INDUSTRIAL PARK COMPLEX TO RIFLE LAND ASSOCIATE S, PT PROPERTY T.6S. 124 126 - R. g2l.l. Valley Farms, Inc. Box 248 Si I t, Col orado 8l 652 Andrer,r & Beverly JuliusRoute #1, Box 7GBSilt, Colorado 8l652 Cather i ne hla t t I 940 EvergreenAntioch, California 125 127 /54 - 136 . 144 94509 J. Cooke Wilson+-- tr Ga-r..Lh ' 603 Lincoln Liberty Life BuildingHouston, Texas 7l0Oz 00-006 Ja ke and Fri eda Shaeffer 0447 346 Road Ri fl e, Col orado 8l 650 128 T.65. - R. 93t^I. I69 Ri fl e Land Associ ates, Ltd. Benzel Livestock Company0437 I 3l Road Gl enwood Spri ngs, Col orado iq!._Billings'l ey and Company200 Durango CourtIrvi ng, Texa s I 5062 125 160 8l 601 t ot) L - /i ,{, ,, ' , ,7 .1 ,,L/ t' il'"* "n' // 1 f'"u( try 956 126 122 I73 t 20 127 lt7 'l l9 I-70 Bureau of Land Management Gl enwood Spri ngs Resource Areall3 9th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Colorado Ute E'lectric AssociationP. 0. Box 1 'l 49Montrose, Col orado 8l 401 Agnes Hunt Craig Star Route Ri o Bl anco, Col orado 8'l 65.| Frank Cooley, AttorneyFirst National Bank BuildingMeeker, Col orado 8l 641 City of Rif'le Mayor and City 337 East Avenue Ri f I e, Co'l orado t Kent--bfil-son 8+6.--12& Ri fl e, Col orado Mile Hi AviaticnGarfield CcuntyRifle, Colorado Council 81650 , ,/'"'r, ' .t (t"// 81650 Garfield County Airport Authority % County Commissioners 0fficeGarfield County Courthouse Gl enwood Spr i ngs , Col orado 8l 60'l Col oradDistric 606 Sou Grand J Colorad Enginee 0279 16 GI enwoo (r/r./trr, {/r. ., ! v /F,'/" ,g/u$a.:,*-.) A i rport 81 65 0_r_- o Division of Highwayst 4, Richard Prosenceth 9th uncti on, Col orado 81 501 o Di vi s i on of Hi ghwaysring 0ffice4 Roadd Spri ngs , Col orado 81 60.| lls il4 Guy C. Snyder 3495 346 Road Ri fl e, Col orado 81 650 James G. Snyder 3879 346 Road Ri f] e, Col orado 8l 650 D GARFIELD trOUNTY PLAN N IN TJ DEPARTM ENT GLENWOOO SPRINGS, trOLtrRADO Bl6trl 2O14 BLAKE AVENUE PHtrNE 945-A212 Deceniber 74, 7976 MEMO TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: PTanning DePattnent SUBJECT: Certification of PLanning Commission Action on Gatfield Countg Aitport Industtial Park Complex PUD Request' At their reguTarTg scheduTed neeting of lilondag, December 7jth, the nenbers of the Countg Planning Conmission considered the above request. During their djscussjon, the PTanning commission discussed thZ water rights for the project, its reTationship to nifTe and the repTies trom the various State and Fed.eraT agencies reviewing the project. The members of the PTanning Corunissjon, prior to acting on a recommend.ation to the Board fourtd that because of the industriaT Tand uses contempTated in the 7958 Countg GenetaT P7an, and the adopted Master PTan for the Countg Airpott, the provision for tesidentiaT units in the above PtlD request is in keeping with the Countg's GenetaT P7an. Theg also found that because of its generaT reLationship to the citg of Rifte antt its specific teTationship to the cowttg Airport the Airport IndustriaT Patk CompTex is included within the Rifie South pTanning atea- Arnold MackTeg then moved that the PTanning Connission reamnend approvaT of the above P{.tD request to the Board of Countg Corttnissioners subject to the foTTaning conditions: (7) ApprovaT of the zone change is conditioned upon approval of the proposed pLan fot augrentation and change of watet rights bg the Division Water Court. (2) The intention of the countg in approving this zone change is to jnsure that industrial activitg ptecedes residential deveTopnent. To that purpose' jt js required that a minimum of 75% of the total Phase r empTognent be provided, or 75% of the totaT Phase I industriaT/office Board of Countg Conrnissioners Page 2 (3) (4) (5) The engineering standards construction of a77 pubTic project be compatibie with bg the Cixg of Rif7e, when equal to Coultg standards. acreage be deveToped, ot comnitted to be deveToped, within 72 ranths of ang residentiaT subdivision. As deveToptrent contjnues throughout the Tife of the project, a ratio of four industrial jobs to three residential units wi77 be naintained tntiT Phase fff of the project. fn a sjtuation where it might be advantageous to provide an existing housing basb to a najor industriaL operation, the deveToper shaT-L use the a77owab7e gear titre Timit between approvaT of the preTiminary pTat and approvaT of the final pTat for the industriaT parceT in order to process the residentiaT subdivision. Pre-treatnent of industriaT wastes be al-7qted for in the design of the sewerage sgstem for thisproject. Proposed Tocations of futute schooT sites are generaT in nature and subject to change pending a consensus regarding Tocation between the deveTopet and the school district. to be used in the improvements in this those standards used such standards are Ke77eg Meger seconded the motion whiclt carried unanitrouslg. t rT?alV l)n,W tLL LY- ).. ,ii\ .'/i ,! t')rr"'' 6nn !^7 i -l1r n pt'' lt Y/'! t/:). C.J. KUIPER State Engineer DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street - Room 802 Denver, Cotorado 80203 Admini stration (303) 892-3581 Ground Water (303) 892'3587 November 3 0, I97 6 Mr. Robert A. Wltkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 B1ake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Rifle Airport Industrial Park Complex Dear Mr. Witkowski: This is to acknowledge receipt of additional information concerning the water supply plan forthis development. As requested, I have reviewed this information with respect to my previous comments on this rezoning application and have no objection to the approval of the rezoning applica- tion. I would recommend that prior to submission of the preliminary plan that the proposed plan of augmentation and change of water rights applica- tion be approved by the Division Water Court' If I can be of further service, please feel free to contact me. . Jeris A. puty State Danielson Engineer JAD,/HDS:mvf cc: L. Enewold, Div. Eng. Land Use Commission rrl truly yours ,^:c iltu RICHARO D. LAMM Governor DtC- 2'l',)16 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SACRAMENTO DISTRICT. CORFS OF ENGINEERS 6EO CAPITOL MALL SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNTA gEAt4 REFLY TO ATTENTION OF SPKED-T 17 Noveubet L976 !Ir. Robert A. Ifltkowekl, Dl.rector Garfleld County Plannlng Departuent 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Sprlnge, CO 81601 GARFIELD (jO. PLANNER Dear Ur. Wltkowakl: I{e revlcwed the hydrology preeeuted in thc Storm Dralnage plan eectloo ofthe report, rrlfater aad Sanltatlou Servlce Plan for Garfleld Couuty Alrportradustrlel Park complexrt'aB reque8ted ln your 6 oetober 1976 letter. The procedure Preaented for estlnatlng peak runoff waa etralghtforward aadeasy to follorv. However, cautlon ehould be ueed ln analyzrng ttre gagedpreclpltatlon aad rruroff data. The analysls for Dry Creek rae baaed onthe ruaoff recorded oa Beaver Creek, whoie naxLmun ieak diecharges arefrou aaonmelt, and a ratlo of 100-year to lO-year rala etorug. Ratn andenormelt flood events ehould be eeparated and analyzed lndlvtdually topreveot lnconeietencles occurring ln the cal.culatloa. If the ralo andsnonaelt eventa are each analyzed etatletlcally, then the trc peak dle-charge frequency cullrea can be coablned . - - !e have completed eeveral hydrologic etudiee la Garfleld County. Aleo wehave developed reglonallzed etatlitice for the area ln and arouod lleeaaad Garfleld Countlee. Uelng these studlea and the regl.onalized atatla-ttcal criterla as references, a peak dlscharge frequency curye for DryCreek ras developed and la lncloeed for your-revl.ew. It ehould be uader-stood that the peak dlscharge valuee for frequenciea rarer then ihs 50-yearevent are asauned to be cauaed by hlgh lntenClty ralns occurrlng when tLeeoll aad vegetatLve cover ls wet. The nore freiuent flood events areaesuued to be caueed by elther raln or enowuelt runoff. AddLtloual revLew rae made to deternlne lf the 100-year peak dlecharge(fron the frequency cunre) of 650 cfs uould exceed Lt. ""p""lty of theexLstlag channela and lt ras eetlDated thet the capaclty rould uot beexceeded. . -( a.i '7OJat:i'r:1., ,; ,i"'.;r,.'i-i i-, . L i':o.:jt;'. .'rl: Jl::.i.,:tf ?ii-..,. .':.:.i irri.lrlit; 'rJ;'rrill] l-i j:;l-i:ii ' ,:,;i1;;1..;\ :, .t -i--. .:-i.L,i irt:'r.,. a:] . r::.lrji:rr3 .l:or;r*r:r !'f ; -l :ialir:;if il'l .:ill -:i::rt ..-6',.; 61';:-,:,r;; 't;iJ I,:'rS-1 1.',.1'1 ';, ' j.ra,' ,:il-. 'l:,- i.',t" ..'Tir":-r:- !i;:I ..' 1.llr.',r'.'': .,.1:li ti .J.r,-i :rJiir.tt)'--1, j./ -,' :) I:. i .o l::rl.rii ' i$\ri -,ilrt'r'1.) ''." '; :r::r:. ;1::)irT$ tj te.i.;, -:i.1,1.,. (i. ; ;_",;lt rt j ,. - . eni:,i-,j i: l.t: r:'i I,i' ..-i ii'',.ivi;Jri. i-'e:."i. ':i!tt t' il:f ',1 ,i; ti "r .ii'.)t), -e-i ]. ;: ': -lr: 6r'rJ : lt l', :!' ) ,?i \). -: ,....t ! -t r, jF: :,air -(r._, -,,.i.^-t ,,'- . ,rii-U --'t-r Tr,i,'J- 1ii.. ..,;,J l;,:-. ;."ii',,' Iorr,.'i .i.;.,,. !;fi.;.:,1..;:-i lil,.., :in:l rtg:l..i5ielrTr.1 ..::rlt.':i:)(.,-I:.i :,){il : -t'<'t) ':).; .,-I,itt ,:lr ,:(ii.:llr--,--' .f 1Jr/ir'rOi) . ,"'I l(j;' '-i:' 1!?i't i:,:i p..:;,1:.,;,f l,r: St.ij' - trJ.Si- -i -1 ()tjir'I ir.j !, i tl.l -'r.Jif,l iU^r;' ' ;, t:,,tr 1 ! ?it' ., . -'.r',,11.) :r3!.rLiiii .1:ti ];: .-'I'):i'-'l -':, lr:ilI JiiJ .r j. :. : '.. :r' ..1 'r ! iO , . -:f--.i::', - -,1 !,.;l:l- '.r{ie rlli-,'.iI r I i t.f'.;ri :,.[t;1}.r ];; ,,-lir;'..r ;r'r'll : i."'* {'i'a -i(,ij.l;3f j'.:i ,.,r1-) 1r-:- .,If-i:r:{U:.'it.t ? r.'f ',j . ':'r ' ilri'::' i :i;r$Vr'''rri "\..1,]..njj:ja:iJrr::.-.-: ,,:Jr?:"[$i;S, ';'.,,:.-9 '1 r'. iJ,:i' .v9 j l-'lil :':,ne .l,l;:1. '.r 1(t"i't r;l"li i, -r-1./:tl) '-ilri::i)ii^iJ !:.::'f lili1.) . ir1r,i;;ii. ,r-l -i - '.i.:;, i.i-i: Pr,r.i L:-:ljP ';..i r;rl;tl-'fur'1 I l6'19r'r!U lrs j ]-l ( ';:r svliti :rli t.ili j'tt.) 1.r,...:: :,.1 .l]::-i..; '>t.:l ':,;1 1, 1;-i -;;1j-.1 ti.. ]:gs-.i8ri r-l .i :t Ir"r'r-i;'1r';3i: Sfjli' i..f,S.i-.1.f;1,,;.:.i,iT .ifiJ i:tr,i e...;.i.ilt.;i. ',2'rl:l .rlfi, ::: i 'e::j jrrr",1i f, I','i ': TFS lrflt; .. :..'i :' ';3:.I.1It,],.:'!:',. .-t:.;'.ii"::');i: j )iil :.".! tl .;".':)tJ3::a1 '-t -.- ;'i:r"Ji::' 'Iit:'i 3 .;.;,f1;r;11.,- .i i ...i..''-,,I]-' Ttri)i, -{(r'i i.;,.r?tt.l.:it" ,,.1', l.'r"' h5;in{,qtt:r:, ',':3'; :iu$}''1 .;l.tt:j 'fr -;r.'t r:i)i:-,.i,:irl'.,f I Tri.i e:iii,I!-lv 1.).g:ii:,l1i.,i',-' .ll;5" 1"1; 1Bri3 i'r:oje '.rj-'1:^:Tr"i:)i).: ::;;-i.i'-l '-I).;z:.'-;-1;;t t':t-iti -":l Llral t'c fl': '-f i"--t;"^'2:''5 i)'J!: jij-gvli :.(ir:iv5.i i:,6r:.1-i l-llr't;:'','t- '-i-",''i 'iii': .:j': ai- rs':61 ii.ri-ti'f g:lfi'; !rr'i' iir;:l .:.1.::')r:Ii:i i.'..'-.1i7..;;ii? '.. 1 'ri '::t -:'.''i:j i:"' 'rrj ll:li'i'lll:i :; I "''J j:"rl"l'ili-li; --':-ila-:.zi'..1 ;;iii]r., 'tt.l./'.r-.Lt: : ..!'-; :;.: l;i-.i[.'r",J'';! I'i ';: ;: I i',\ | :!)]{J'! l'ftr: ':i i i'L'i t' slti:l .lr; :7'1 .:)t,('a'r ''.1 J i-''-:.;i-.'1., ''.i-:,1-;'"i l.::1 :) 'l r' 1'1r l. ';fL;:; "r;:lI11 "':: l:';,lil'l)-i-i ) :r.,,.) ui..tioid '.-i.l::;... ;1J .....:, ii. .. lr3Jfir:;.llllr .-; '.; : i i'' l,; !'sr;rtr,lii :trt-]:f ei:):9 . h$ i.::r.',}i -: ' i',., -(r', /:1-r.t,,tl .srrg'r-tl{r. Robert A. Wltkowskl, Dlrector Ife are returnlng your report. If hydrologlc analyels of Dry Creek,(9ro) 44O-2sL7. 2 Incl Ae stated 17 November L976 you have any questlons ln regards to our pleaee contact l{r. Eerbert Hereth, Slncerely youra, Sxoasd,*nso froque:r,]X psr t,t,fo*A ;4oars "99--19 5o 5o 40 ,a 20 ro vt'q d $ ,{ft *t \: h_ r^ I g Rgg gg A Gr tn O Eroeedrnoe Luternal ln Srcara D.A,= /i 5q. >,,r1. n' ,,r./ =41,1, .5 - :4.4 , G = /, O '?: n r- f /l*:r; tt/;,tj'i-,1 t u; u'E 9rf C rrt x l.t*;n furt{ 6/fft/t p lar,uTf T,upusrretnt y-y' it/( la,rtrtr,( Cor?a 9; nrgtncera; Ssefr*uto, Callf . i 2L. Prelnred: l*j'i.,! Frtr.r[ e. GARFIELD trDUNTY PLANN!NG DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRtNGS, COLORAOO Bl60t 20I4 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-EJ212 November 26, 797G Iqr. James M. Bowers James M. Bowets & essociates 7807 York Denver, CoLorado Deat Jim: Here is mg wording for a condition of approvaT concerning thetiming of residentiaT and industriaL deveTopint, and al-so the statusof other points concerning the p7an. rn reviewing the exact wording and sequence of the subdivisionReguTation, r feeT this timing of industriaT/residentiai deve1oprentcan be handied entiteTg within the current provisions of the ordinance.section 3'08 of the subdivision ReguTation deais with the action of theBoard of countg comnissioners upon the preliminarg plan. rt states,,...ApprovaT of the prel-iminarg subdivision pl_an shal_L be vaiid for aperiod not to exceed one uear from the date of Board approvaT un-zessan extension of tine is granted". rf an industria: uslr goes throughthe process of fiJing and getting approved a preTiminary p7at, thenr feeT the countg couJd rmke other decisions based upon the probabiTitgthat the industria-z use wif L be d.eveJoped. rn that caser a gear wouLdexist within which residential pTatting and construction couLd. conflu,nce,and the finaT pTat for the industriar user fired. consequentrg, rwould suggest the forl-owing wording might go into a resorution: The intention of the Countg in approving this zone changeis to insure that industriaT actiiitg p-recedes residentialdevelopnent. To that purtrDse, Lt Ls required that aminimum of 15% of the basic new ind.ustriaL emplognent beprovided through existing industriar deveTopnent beforeang residentiai subdivisions in this project are approved.As deveTopnent continues throughout tne li/= of thisproject, a ratio of four industriaT jobs to threeresidentia-r, r:nits wirr be naintained., untir phase rrr ofthe project- rn a situation where it might be ad,vantageousto provide an existing housing base to a iajor industrlialoperation, the deveroper shair use the aiiowabie gear tineTinit between approval of the preLiminanl pTat and approvaTof the finai prat for the ind.ustriai pur""7 in order ioprocess the residential subdivision. Mr. Jafies M. Bowers Page 2 So much the Division As soon as I bg Tetter or for tining. As of get, I have not received a replg fromof water Resources on Mr- GareT's Tetter to the countg.do, f wiLl notifg both gou and Tink. I expect sone wordphone on ltlondag, November 29th. A copg fTow figures probJen with r think resolution I treatnent of sgstem if it of the repTg from the Armg Corps offor the project is incl_uded here. them. Engineers on the fjadf do not see ang we have aTreadg taiked about this briefJg, but for thewould propose a specific condition to reguire that pre_:ndustrja L wastes be provided in the overaTT sewerageis determined that Ls ,?ecessarg. Another specific condition wouTd be the requirenent that the totalLand dedicated to the schooi Board over the r_ife of the project be 5/.of the gross l-and area of the project. This wour-d occur bg requiring5% of each finaL plat grross area be credited towards those sites shownon the PUD pfan as potentiar schoo.l sites . on the school question, rhave a neeting with the RE-2 schooT Board scheduTed on November 30that 7:i0 P'I,I' in Rifle, at which time r wifT discuss the proposed l-ocationand required Tand for this request. rf it woul-d be convenient it woujdbe good if gou couLd ajso attend.. r have received a Letter from Mr. Lgnn Behrns of Rifr-e which isincLuded here, in which he raised the guestion of an annexationagteement between the devel-oper and the Town of Rifle as a conditionof countg approvaT. r reaiTg do not know whether that is possible,or even desirabTe- Before r give a finaT answer, r wourd r_ike to tarkto the countg Attorneg- r was, however, going to incjude the cond.itionthat aTL pubLic improvenents be onstructed to the standards of theTown of Rifle. If gou have any questions, pTeasegour patience in short jead tines and give me a caL7. Thank gou fot overdue repJjes. SincereTg, ffi.fl( t/ri,4 Robert A. Witkowski Director RAW/kag EncTosures PC-14r. T. Gare j CITY OF RIFLE N!FLE,COLORADO tr060 November 12, l-976 Mr. Bob Witkowskl Garfield County Planning Dept. 2014 Blake Glenwood Springs, C0 Bf6Of Dear Bob: We are in receipt of Mr. Bowers revised plans for the Garfield County Airport Industlal PUD and a copy of his letter to you dated November l-, i_976. Ptease be advi-sed that after review we find no with the proposal. Members of our technlcal- review have had the opportunity to examine the p1ans. To only the Highway Department has taken that step, and no detrimental comments. (See attached copy of their Because of the similarlty of city and county proce- dures, we antlcipate that atl of the more detailed matters will- be adequately handled through your office without need for comment from Rifle. Mr. Bowers and Mr. Chancellor have expressed agreement with developing to Rifle's standards. We expect that within the next two weeks we will have completed the package of developer deslgn and construction criteria and the Council- should be able to adopt them by December l-st. I have also completed a draft revision to the mobile home park regulati-on which should go to Planning Commission and City Council shortly. These documents wll-l- be passed on to Mr. Bowers for his information and to see if he conslders any of the pro- visi-ons to be detrlmental to his project I will also be send- lng lnformational copies to your office shortly. Because of pressing matters for both the City and the developer, we have not yet worked out the arrangement for utility provlsion and service. We anticipate that we will have a lift station across the river within 4 months, proving good faith. Gordon is already at work on the engineering p1ans. Negotiation with Mr. Bower shoul-d take place soon. problems committeethis datethey haveletter). Both Dan and myself would rike a formal annexationagreement executed. we thought that it might be p""t of autility management agreementl out if that does nol come about,we woul-d like for it to be one of the requirements for finalplat approval. This would arlow the maxlmum tlme to finishnegotlations before reaching a point-of-no-return. whatfeeling do you have on this matter? ff there are any other mattersment of the City of Rlf1e, please 1et us that need the lnvolve- know. Yours truly LPBlvr Enc1. ,1 /1L Lynn P. BehrnsCity Planner STATE D PARTMENT OF HI {WAYS JACK KINSTLINGER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS E. N. HAASE CHIEF ENGINEER EXECUTIVE D]RECTOR DISTRICT 3 R, A PROSENCE DISTRICT ENGINEER . (3o3t 242-2862 STATE OF COLORADO P.O. BOX 2lC)7-606 SO.gYH ST. ' GRAND JUNCTION' coLO. Al5ol Novenrber L, L9'16 l4r. Lynn P. IEhrns Cit1, of Rifle Rif1e, CO 81650 Dear Lynn: This conrnunicatj-on is in relatj-on to the proposal of Rifl-e Iand Ltd. to develop a PUD near Rifle Airport. It is the poliry of this office to revier,v developnent proposals and to conment only on thre translrcrtation syston impacts as they affecr- the Division of Hiqh- ways. In t].is case, we clo feel that the exLensive clevelopment pro6rcsed could necessitate the crcnstruction of an ader:Tuate interchange at l4anu':r Creek Road and Interstate 70" As per the existing conrnitrents of this agency, that interchange would be oonstructed as the actual demand materiali-zes" At this early date, there is no need for action on tl-ris Snint given the uncertain phasing of develolrnent. Ttre site does appear to have scme aclvantages, but the tinre trame is certainly adequate for: pre-planning to meet contingencies. Verlr 1;s1O Yours, Ii. A. PI1OSENCE DISTRTCT trNGII'JIJER .- /'-. ]/'.":'/' - ' '' I Stanley Qltnnn Land Use Planncr SGlbev cc: Prosence File By BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING ENGINEERS 15OO MEADOW LAKE PARKWAY KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI 64114 AOORESS REPLY TO I2075 EAST 45TH AVE, SUITE 333 DENVER. COLORADO AO239 Anee Coos 3O3 . TEL 371.11?O Garfleld County Airport Industrial Park Complex November 8, L976 !tr. James M. Bowers City and Regional Planner 1801 York Street Denver, Colorado 80206 Dear Mr. Bowers: Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I have: read Mr. Theron V. GarelrsttAnalysis'of Proposed Water Supplytr pertinent to the proposed Garfield County Airport Industrial- Park Compl-ex; read a letter dated November 4, 1976 fron Mr. Garel to !tr. Robert A. Witkowski; and have vislted the siteof the proposed devel-opment in company wi.th Mr. Garel I have not checked any calcul-ations, diversion records, irrigated areas,ownership nor other factors involved with the water supply. I wilL wishto do this if I am to be called upon to tesEify or submit reports concerningI[y or.rn specific knowledge of and opinions on these matters. The followingis to-Present my general impressions based upon a cursory review of Mr.Garelts work. This review has been sanctioned by Mr. Garel. Projected water Demands. The demand projections by Mr. Garel appear tobe quite realistic provided no industry is contemplated which requiressignificant amounts of process water. Projected Water Consumption. The consr:mptive uses projected by Mr. Garel aPpear somewhat liberal. I would expect lesser consumption, especia}l-ywith respecL to the non-irrigation classificat,ions of use. Ilistoric Waqsr Uggre, and Consumption. The records on water usage areincomplet. a"dr-Tn a co"rt aetion, will probably have to be supplementedby testimony of those famil-iar with the ranching operation. Mr. Garelfs methods of analysis are most acceptable and, given the data he used, hi.sresults appear qui-te reasonable. BLACK A VEATC" Garfleld County AirPort Industrial Park ComPlex November 8, L976 Water Supplies. Mr. Garel cites yield from various water rights in both ttilenafysis .f Proposed Water Supply" and the November 4, 1975 letter to !Ir. Witkowski. These yields appear more than adequate quantitatively to meet the projected demands even during drought periods. If not, additlonal supplies appear readily available from the Colorado Rlver. Water qr:altty is not mentioned. We assume that appropriate water and wastewater treatment ls plarured for the develoPment. Further Work I Black & Veatch. We wi]-l be pleased to provide further ffies-ff nec""sary Uut wiff not do any more work on the project until requested and until correlated with llr. Garel. Very truly yours, -L Charles V. Hallenbec jal r cc: Mr. Theron V. GareL RrrlE Laruo AssoctATes. Lro.llov I 1e15 555 ' SEVENTEENTH STREET ' 9r6 PATTERSoN BUtLotNG . DENVER. coLoRADo gozo2 . 303-292.r35o November 5, LgZo IttAV I Z ,,,...J UJ. 1976 -..-, t r-,i,'llJE ir-ti;il . i rl,i ll 'ill R Mr. Ja^nes M. Bowers James M. Bowers and Associates, Inc.ISOI York StreetDenver, Colorado 80206 Dear Jin: r arn in receipt of Mr. Ifltkowski's oetober 20, tg76 retter toyou and your November rst response. Mr. Garei wili promptrysupply the county with his response to the comments of thecolorado Division of water Resources. we have retained theDenver consulting engineering firm of Brack and veach, whoseMr. charres Hallenbeck, a re-ognized specialist in watermattersr is assisting Mr. Garel in assirring that our inputto the county satisfies Mr. lfitkowski's needs in this regard. Excrusive of the strictly engineering aspects of the water pran,as you know, there are monetary expeiditures which practicairyspeaking under our circumstances w6 ha.ve felt courd onry betriggered by approval of the p.u.D. lyithout an approved p.u.D.,it is most difficglt to justify at this time the considerabreexpenditures involved in the construction of storage tankfacilities for and initiar fulI utilization of tne"tti-.lt.p.s.of domestic water from the springs on ihe ranch. rt is thiswell estabrished water source which in fact has since before1900 served the ranch that will serve the initial needs of theP. U. D. Tl:_:Tt:T1:"^?f tlg_i.rrigated area as olanned will require theeYs4t g ullg ,i:::=.}llli?"^?I_3 $rs9.,oc6 pipeii*" io"irity extendins from fire age pond in the southwest portion of the propeity.- It s99ms logical the timing of construction of these facilitiesshould be coordinated with initiation of industrial activity and1i1n9r! expansion. similarly coorairr"iion or the planning of thelnitial sewage. treatment plant with the needs and desires of theai-rport seems the method of preference. For these reasonsr upto this time we-have purposeiy avoided specifics as concernsthese aspects of water and sewage. rf my understanding is correct, the important pointoyT_ownership of water rights be fulry sufficibnt ifutilizeii to serve the lonf term needs of the p.u.D.been demonstrated to be t[e case is thatproperly This has Mr. James M. Bowers November 5, L976 Page Two My understanding at the Plannithis group is not interested i government entities if such It ls ury hope that if some ainties exist in Bobrs mind onthe water matter, Black and Veconsultant can add a degree ofnot be available to Bob at p As a strictly personal note, Iin answering Bob's request forTlnk has over the past couplebllity for a number of unantlcmatters. Having been preoccupI didn't realLze this situati and Zoning meeting was thatbringing in a bunch of outside be avoided. ch, an independent, uninvolvedconfidence in our data which may ent. owe you an apology for our delay response on the water matter. f months had to assume responsi-pated and time consuming family ed with oil and gas endeavors, existed. incerely yours, FLE LAND ASSOCIATES, LTD. g,L4 rt E. Chancellorneral Partner O, UTLINE : POIN : A, GENERAL REGIoNAL C0NSIEERATI0$IS ,,i' ' ,, OF S OF DIS Q, ; i { i' , .i ,. i, r 1, i .l i t ; ,l CUSSION ; 'I l. Does this or could thii-prbject represeirt,the outqn bolDdaiy,of Rifle town influenceforthepurpo.eSiof,rirbanservicesorfutgre,ann9xation? 2. Is this a logical activity center in the County if plans for the airpqrt ar€ deve'loped? Do the dctivities and development proposed in tlnis.PUD'make. sense with respect to the airpor.t? 3. Close cooperation should be considered with any project in this the Town of Rifle concerning: (a) Genera'l attitude of the Town. (b) Standards to which public improvements are installed. (c) Short and long - range arrangements for operation of the sewer and water plant. (d) Potential annexation - is it feasible, is it agreeable with both parties? (e) Disposition of water rights at the time of future annexation. (f) 'Standards to be followed in the development of the mobile home par.k. (E) Conrpatibility of proposed major_streetswith any: approved major street plan for Rifle ' (h).Rote of Rifle as the major retai'l trade center for. this development at least through initial development. 4. Existence of or probability of an employnent base to justify a dl^6a wirth arge rezoning water Bu ,l; SPECIFICS ; r.'t l:.'.,Differences between the materia'l supplied by'Bowers' & Associates and the .': material supplied by the engineer, T.V. Garel concerning: .,(,a) Total residential units planned. , (bJ Nature of the sewerage treatment sustem. (c) Timing of the proposed phases : , Could the convenience conrrrercial be delayed until Phase II or at ieast the', later stages of Phase I? , 3. Pofnts raised by the Division of Water Resources on the rights and supply: pr0pos ed {lal ,, i '- l '"i " i:,.,.iq.-.i'tt- j,:: r*,.._.,. !i- -l : ':-" ,';-r, +,-"r j ;i i"a :! ib. (a) Difference of opinion on water:dVnilability to the Crane Pipeline -- the engineer for PUD states that the u,ater comes from springso the Division states the -water comes from Flann ,Creek, the Division also says those rights arejunior to'bthers in Mann Creek, Division also. wants,to . SeeananaIysisofthephysica1dependibi1ityofthe spri ngs (b) Is the minimum flow of Mann Creek sufficient for the supp1y counted on in the Sliding Ditch? 4. Are there any covenants proposed for this project at this time? 5. Is there a map'showing developnent in the maximum phase? ..i ' 6. Dobs the amount of water computed as necessary in order to susthin lawn' , growth cover the amount that peopld usual'ly use to actual;ly watgr thelr i awns ? . 7. Thg plan states industrial employment sustains the residential {eveloprnent - How can we arrange a timing sequence so that industrial d€.veloHirent, ot" ,its assur^ance, piecedes reiidential platting? T 8, What is the intention of the lar.ge segment of rrnnufactured housing? Is . half the development to be a mobile home pank? If modu'lars.are ', contemplatedtherereaIIyisn|taneedtodifferentiate.themfr0n,]: conventionalhousingaSiongastheymeettheUniform..BuiIdingCode.If modulars.are going to be developed, will they be at the'sanre density_ , as the mobile hoqe park? Some though,t should be given to the cost/bengfit aspects of this Civbtopment if one ha:lf of the developnent is going tolbe, a.mobile home park. . .o i 10. Explain the agr,icultural reserve conqept land to other uqes. .1 The 100 year'flood analysis for the major drainage ways on the property should be reviewed -.probably by the Waterr Conservation Board - for their accuracy and reasonableness. il.Is the open space shown on the plan 'logical and developmmt as planned? useable to the fesidentlal t .'. shwna's,cormercial di rectly d '..,r-= : ;11 'r I. I -;1 1.. + : i'"- o 4-. , '; i ;I' ' '+' " ' 12. Does Rif'le Lands Assoctgt'eson +he;two north of the airport pr6pei^? i Parcel s il ' i ' ! .:1 i,, -2- conversiori:r.and eventual l + .: . .'.,:. :. ' I.'. !! ' '..i. :- i .' . :- i. 1 .,-.; ' '', \,'i. :... -: _i EDWARD F. CARPENTER. P:E. TIIEBON V. GAREL, P.E., L.S. PLATEAI.' 'INGINEERING, INC. Consulting Civil tsngineers 521 ROOD AVENUE, SUITE B GRAND JUNCTION, COI.ORADO' A1601 (3O3) 245-1310 November 4, 1976 by Plan 460 Single Farnily Equivalent 276 Single Family Equivalent L27 Single Family Equivalent Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 20L4 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Rifle Airport Industrial Park Complex Dear Mr. Witkowski: The following is a written response to the comments offered Dr. Jeris A. Danielson, Deputy State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State of Coiorador'relative to the Water Augmentation for the above mentioned development. 1. Rsfsrence to Paragraph 1, _Regarding Adequacy of Supply for . The original Augnentation Plan was based on the following Single Family Equivalent Unit (SFEU) criteria: Residential Living Units, Original Augmentation Plan Single Family Multiple Fanily Mobile Home 460 Units 401 Units 230 Units Total Residential Units 1091 Units 865 Single Family Equivalent The PUD submittal by James M. Bowers G Associates, Inc. is based on the following criteria for residential living units: Residential Living Units, PUD Submittal, August' 1976 Single Fanily Units 720 Units 720 Single Family Equivalent 480 Single FamilY Equivalent 165 Single Family Equivaleqt Manufactured Units Mobile Home Units 480 Units 300 Units Total Residential Units 1500 Units I 365 Single Family Equivalent Based on the above criteria of L,365 Single Farnily Equivalent Units in the revised PUD Submittal, the estimated drought year domestic water usage requirements for the irrigation months would be as follows based on accepted criteria in the original Augmentation Plan: Mr. Robert A. Witkowski November 4, L976 Page - Z Estimated Drought Year Domestic Water Usage Requirements Residential, In-House : (1) Residential,Out-House : L,365 SFEU x 304 GPD = 4L4,960 GPD 1,365 SFEU x 280 GPD =382,200 GPD Total Residential Usage: 1,365 SFEU x 584 GPD = 797,L60 GPD Airport Operation 11,600 GPD School 10,000 GPD Industrial Employees 12,800 GPD Note (1) Based on the average daily domestic water usage requirement of 852,000 gallons per day, including landscape irrigation during drought year, th6 total estimated average yearly water usage requirements {o,i drought year would be as follows based on accepted criteria set forth in the-Water Augmentation Plan. Total Estimated Drought Year Domestic Requirement for PUD Submittal: The 0ut-House usage is based on which all water for this purpose source of supply. Water Usage 831,560 GPD or: 578 GPM or: L.287 CFS landscape irrigation inis from the domestic 1365 SFEU x 2L3,000 gallons Per Year 2g0,745,000 gallons per year 4,27 0,000 gallons per year ?,750,000 gallons per year Residential Usage Airport Schoo 1 Industrial Employees = 4,690,000 gallons per year Total Estimated Drought Year Domestic Water Usage Requirements = 302,455,000 gallons per year or 928.264 acre feet Per Year The estimated annual water depletions during a drought year for the 1,565 single family equivalent units as set forth in the PUD sub- mittal would be as follows based on criteria set forth in the Augnentation Plan: Mr. Robert A. Witkowski November 4, L976 Page - 3 Residential Depletions: 1,365 SFEU x 64,550 gallons per year = 88,110,000 gallons per year Airport 300,000 gallons Per Year School 270,000 gallons Per Year Industrial Enployees 240,000 gallons per year Municipal Usage and System Losses 14,950,000 gallons per year Tota1 Estimated Drought Year Depletion 103,870,000 gallons per year or 3L8.7 9 acre feet Per Year The Augmentation Plan estirnated the average annual historical quantity of-water depletdd fron the hydraulic system under past usages as 666.62 acre feet per year, of which 644.16 acre feet per year was from agricultural iriigation. Since only an estirnated 6 inches,of precipitation per year was credited to the evapo-transpiration losses-of 32'.05 inchel per year for agricultural irrigation, the dror.rght year depletion water histbrical usage would not substantially increase, and tha drought year depletion for-purposes of this analysis would be the same as for the average annual depletion. Therefore, the proposed development under the PUD Submittal would require that approximately L46.9 acies of the total 296.85 acres histori- caity under iriigation be'dried-up to provide for the plojected deple:: tions to the hydraulic system under the proposed domestic water usage during a drought year. The original Augmentation Plan indicated 101.10 acres of irrigated land be fried-up for the proposed developnent with 836 single family equivalent units, or a ratio-of 0.12095 acres of irrigated land per single family equivalent unit. The delivery of system was presented be reviewed and more water during drought year yields in the original Augmentation Plan ful1y defined. 1-A. Drought Year Yields From Under Irrigation The various daily yield of Water Rights Held on Land water from the combined water rights held on the subj ec irrigated lands domestic water usage requirernents water trom the comblnecl wAter r1gnrs necessary to satisfy the average daily for the PUD fu1ly developed under to the hydraulicbut will herein drought year conditions would be projected as follows: Mr. Robert November 4, Page - 4 A. Witkowski r97 6 Gal 1 ons Ga1 lons Cubic Feet Average Daily Diversion During Non-Irrigation Months Average Daily Diversion During Irrigation Months Average Daily Diversion During Peak Month Description of Water Usage The adjudicated water marized in the Augmentation as follows: rDa rDa 554,500 385 832,000 578 1,159,000 806 r Second 0.858 1.288 L.793 The difference between the average daily water usage during the -peak month and daily airurrions during the summer months will be made-up from raw and treated water storage. fte amount of storage required will equal 9,810,000 gallons or 50.10 acre feet per year' Therefore, the water rights to be utilized ment must satisfy the following criteria during 1. Amount of Direct Flow Diversion During Drought - Year *:t1 f ?: I ;3.?:i' 31,, o,, ?,. Total QuantitY of Water Produced During Drought Year 3. Total Maximum DePletion During Drought Year 4. QuantitY of Irrigated Land To Be Dried-uP To Provide For Depletion Under Domestic Usage rights held on the subject -lands were sum- Pian and amounted to ttre direct flow rights L G C Ditch out of Beaver Creek, Priority No. LLz, dated 5-L6-92 Crann Pipeline Ditch, Out of Springs on ProPertY, Priority No. 130 Enterprise Ditch, Out of Mann Creek, Priority No. 111, dated 7-1-'9L Last Chance Ditch, out of Colorado River, Priority No. 73, dated 3-23-87 Sliding Ditch and First Enlargenent, Out of Mann Creek, Priority No. 50 and 78, dated 4-23-86 Vaughn Reservoir for the proposed develoP- the drought Yearz L.288 cf s 0. 858 cfs 928.264 acre feet 318.790 acre feet I 46.90 acres 11.0 cfs 1. 0 cfs 3. 5 cfs 5. 68 cfs 2.3 cf s 160 acre feet Mr. Robert A. Witkowski November 4, L976 Page - 5 reported diversions of water out of t g water to the subj ect property by th trict 45 to the State Engineer are no e not able to be presented for years ted. The Augmentation Plan attempted d based upon the available recorded d to irrigate the property and the info owners, Alvin Woody and Loren Jewel. ,ln" the Yd-Yopriorilty. Jr" furni Jtri.t Water Disyield{ arnot rQpor year /ierutil ided previfus Jn" mated at compilled rights out of Mann Creek are now presently being diverted thru Ditch, which has not been adjudicated a ditch number or he various ditches e Water Commissioner for t complete and yearly in which diversions were to estimate a drought ata for the various ditches rmation attained from the average yearly yields from the various water Sources was esti- 1,892.8 acre feet per year. This figure was indicated to be from available data and the former ownerrs statements. The drought year yields for the various ditches will be herein summari zed. L G C Ditch out of Beaver Creek Stream flow data available since October, L952 Average yield for water year for feriod of record 3,155 ac.f,t./yr Minimum yield for period of record, water year of 1963 Drought year yield of average yi:eld Average yield from L & C Ditch Drought year yield Mann Creek Ditches Stream flow data not available for Mann Creek. Diversion flow records for ditches out of Mann Creek have not always been reported. Based on the available data for the Sliding Ditch and Enterprize Ditch, it was estimated that the drought year yield from Mann Creek would amount to approximately 64.0 acre feet, which is about 40% of the average yearLy yield of 161 acre per year. 1,850 ac.tt./yr s9% 131.8 ac. ft . /yr None Mr. Robert A. Witkowski November 4, L976 Page - 6 Last Chance Ditch out of Colorado River Stream flow data available at Cameo Gaging Station below theLast Chance Ditch since 0ctober, 1933. Diversion flow records for ditch has not always been reported,but available since L920. Since the late 1940rs, the Colorado River has been regulatedby storage reservoirs. Low flows in River are regulated by the Shoshone Power Plant, seven miles above Glenwood Springs byreleases from storage reservoirs. The Power Plant has an adjudi-cation of L250 cfs. The minimum flow in River of record was 700cfs in December of 1939. In recent years, minimum flows are inthe range of 1000 to 1600 cfs. The drought year yield of the Colorado River past the CameoStation has amounted to approximately 55% of the average yearlyyield. The Last Chance Ditch has one ditch senior to it out of the Colorado River in District 45. The quantity of water called by the Last Chance Ditch is notparticularly related to the run-off in the Colorado River in thatthe year of its maximum diversion of 50 cfs for 200 days of theirrigation year of 1963. This was in a water year when only 62eoof the norrnal yield on the Colorado was produced which was nearthe drought year yield of 55% of average. Thus, based on its priority within Water District 45 and the Colorado River, there would be sufficient water in the River tosatisfy the call of the ditch in drought years. Based on the most consecuative analysis using the historicallydiverted by the Last Chance Ditch in recent years, the apportion- ment of water under the rights held on the subject lands would amountto 736 acre feet per year as indicated in the Augmentation Plan. Taking a grought year apportionment of 55% of the average year wouldproduce a yield of 405 acre feet. This amount of water wouldsatisfy 87% of the in-house domestic needs of the proposed develop- ment in the amount of 461 acre feet per year. Thus, the water rights hald on the subject lands out of theLast Chance Ditch out of the Colorado River in the amount of 3.68 cfsare adequate to satisfy the domestic water needs of the proposed development in drought years, based on its historic apportionmentof 1472 acre feet during a dry year on the River which nearly approached the drought year yie1d. Thus, the Augmentation Plan would be herein amended to include conversion of water rights out of the Last Chance Ditch in that amount necessary to satisfy deficiencies in yields from the other Mr. Robert A. Itlitkowski November 4, L976 Page - 7 water sources in yields from the other water sources in drought years. In addition to the above analysis of drought ygar-yields watei--rights, the former owners oi the ranch have indicated with the-Lasi Chance Ditch water right they have always had quate water to irrigate the 375 acres in all yeaTs of below precipitation. 2. Reference to Paragraph 2 The ninimun yield of held on the subject lands, of that ade - normal water out of the Mann Creek under Rights Sliding Ditch and Enterprise Ditch, dur- The crann Pipeline was decreed a Priority ryo._110 in water District 45 on Noirember 25,1908, with a domestic Priority N9. 11. in the amount oi 20 cubic ieet per minute dating from Seqternbe'.14, fgOS; and an iiiigation Priority tto. 119 in the amount of 40 cubic feet per minute dating from September L4, 1903 ' The source of water for the pipeline was-given as certain springs, ru"pr!"-rta surface wateir-th9 location of which was in i|-li[:'si-7'/q"of Section 24, and in the NE L/4, NE 1/4 of Section 25, Township 6 South, Range ?i West' T!" Pr-neline was ;i;;; ;r s inches i; diametei and-Laid at !.Brade of s2.8 feet per fiif". The pipeline ran one mile North to discharge on lands in Section 15 of said TownshiP. The existing pipeline is also 3-inch diameter piPe and_extends from the same pol"t bf origin to the same terminal-point' The elevation of the intake is'at 5670 and elevation of discharge- is at 5580 and is appioximately 6000 feet in length' The-hydraulic.. irpr.ity of the biirtirrg 3-'inch-plastic line is approximateLy 9.44cfs. Prior to-ttre pipeiine haviirg been partiqf U silted in, the previous owners havb itated the pipeline ran ful1 continuously without diverting all of the watbr^ being discharged from the numer- ort springs afon[ the draw within which-the springs are located. The various springs tributory to -this source of water supply -will have to be :.nbivi6uaLLy deveioped and collectively discharged thru a common pipe to physitally determine ttre quantity of f1oy. i1 is intended'tirat thbsb springs be so developed and metered to determine the physical capatity-and de-pendability of this source prior to platiirg-of the first phase of the development. Provided the springs produce less than the quantity shown in the preliminary Augmentltibn P1an, additional water from the Last Chance Ditch Right"would be util ized to offset this deficit- Uy-onverting agriEultural water rights to municipal water rights' 3. Referenc@ Mr. Robert A. Witkowski November 4, 1976 Page - 8 ing drought years was indicated to be approximately 63.96 acre feet. Yields of water from the Mann Creek watershed are not of record, therefore, only the records of the Sliding Ditch are available for analysis. The Mann Creek drainage basin has approximately 60 square miles of watershed on the Northerly and Easterly slopes of the Mann Mountain and Battlement Mesa which receive heavy winter snow packs. Beaver Creek drainage basin has approximateLy a 16 square mile of watershed within the same geological area. Recorded stream flow data on the Beaver Creek drainage indi- catesthat drought year yields are approxirnately 60ro of the average yearly yields. The average yearLy yields from the Sliding Ditch have amounted to approxinately 161 acre feet per year. Drought year yield would amount to not more than 96.6 acre feet. Based on drought year yield on Beaver Creek, drainage of 115.6 acre feet per square mile of draina1a, the drought year production from Mann Creek would be estimated at 6937 acre feet. During drought year , 40% of the run-off occurs during the 150 days of the irrigation season, or 2774 acre feet. There are 10 ditches out of Mann Creek sneior to the Sliding Ditch having a total decreed diversion right in the amount of 1399 cubic feet per minute or 23.32 cfs. Land irrigated under these Rights amount to approximately 1158 acres. The estimated amount of water depleted from Mann Creek surface flow under these Rights would be 2698 acre feet at a evapotranspiration loss of 28 inches per year, leaving an available amount of water for the Sliding Ditch of 76 acre.feet. This is in close agreement with the mini- mum historic diversion of 61.04 acre feet for the year 1968 which was not a drought year. In summary, the drought year yield of water from Rights held on the subject lands would be as foIlows. Mr. Robert Novenber 4 Page - 9 A. Witkowski , L976 Source of ltlater Estimated Drought Year Yields Non-Irrigation Irrigation Total Season Diversion Season Diversion For Year [215 days) (cfs) (150 days) (cfs) (acre-f-gp1Q L & C Ditch Ort of Beaver Creek None None None Erterprise Ditch Out of Mann Creek No Record No Record No Record Sliding Ditch Out of Ittrann Creek 0.40 cfs for 165 days, 131 acre feet 0.78 cfs for 4L days, 64.0 acre feet 195 acre feet Crann Pipeline Fron Springs on Property 0.44 zr5 187 cfs ileys, acre for feet 0.44 cfs for 150 days, 131 acre feet 318 acre feet Last Chance Ditch Out of Colorado River 1.825 cfs 165 days, 597 acre 1.855 cfs for 200 days, 736 acre feet 1333 acre feet for feet Total Available Water in Drought Year 2.665 cfs 915 acre feet 0.858 cfs for 165 days, 280 acre feet 3.075 cfs 931 acre feet 1.633 cfs for 200 days, 648 acre feet 1846 acre feet Dorpstic Demand 928 acre feet Therefore, a combination of the above water rights are sufficient to supply the domestic water usages of the PUD fully developed under drought year yi:eIds. The final determination of what Rights will be converted from agricultural usage to municipal use will depend-up9n the determina- tion of the physical capacity of the springs and the actual Court transfer of tnb Sliding- Ditch diversion and Enterprise Ditch Diver- sion to the headgate of the New Yo-Yo Ditch at which point these ditches are presently being diverted. Very truly yours, PLATEAU ENGINEERIN INC. TVG: embCC: James M. Bowers Robert E. Chancellor Theron V.Garel , P. E. , L. S. EDWARD F. CARPENTER, P:8. TIIERON v. GAREL, P.E., L.S. PLATEAT- INGINEERING, INC. Consulting Civil ongineers 521 ROOD AVENUE, SUITE B GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO, A1601 (3O3) 245-1310 November 4, L976 projected forwith the PUD be as follows: Mr. Robert A. WitkowskiGarfield County Planning Department20L4 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Garfield County AirportIndustrial Park Complex Dear Mr. Witkowski: The following is a written response to your letter ofoctober 20, r976, to Mr. James Bowers concerning sanitarywastewater treatment facilities at the above development. The revised hydraulic wastewater loadingsthe above mentioned development, in accordanieSubmittal by James Bowers ind Aisociater, would First G SecondFirst Phase Phase Total 0f A11 Phases 2s5 550 SFEU 1565 Peak Daily Ioad LLz,2OO GPD 242,000 GPD 600.000 cPD Design Plant Loading 140,000 GpD s00,000 GpD _ 7s0,00g_q!. TIr" design plant loading is 725eo larger than the estimated. peakd"ilf loading to ensure that only 89% of ite plant capacity is b;i;gytilized upon-the cornpletion of 6ach phase to be in aicord'withState Regulations. The initial SW L/4 of Sectionproperties . plant facility would be located in the NW 1/4,13, Township 6 South, Range gZ West on the project he initial facility would be located immediately East of DryCreek and South of the proposed-A_irport boundary on ; sma11 draiirageditch that drains thru irrigated tairds to the N6rth and East. " The initial facilities, as proposed, would be non-d.ischargingaerated lagoons with the wastewater overilows from the lagoonsbeing applied on irrigated hay lands as a land appliCatioi. Subdrainages to Dry Creek atponding area of approximately S.spgnd with LZ foot sidewater depths lity under a land application ior553 single family equivalent units this location provide a naturalacres. Total volume of aeratedwould furnish a treatment faci-approximately 71340 persons, orat a 30 day retention time. Average Daily loading 85,935 GpD 185,js0 GpD 460,000 GpD Mr. Robert A. Witkowski November 4, L976 Page - 2 This method of treatment would require stage construction to provide proper wastewater processing at low flow conditions during early phases of growth. Thus, the initial facilities would be sized to provide an initial capacity of 30,000 to 50,000 gallons per day flow, or a facility to accommodate 80 to 150 units. There is presently subsurface ground water return flow from the irrigated lands which are discharged into these sub-drainages.the lrrlgatecl Ian(ls whI-Ch are Ct]-SCnarged ]-nto IneSe suD-orarnage Thus during initial stages, these return flows would be diverted into the ponds to provide water for dilution and to maintain water deoths in coniunction with withdrawls for irrigation purposes.depths in conjunct with withdrawls for irrigation purposes. Initial construction of these facilities will cost from $1,000 to $500 per unit for sanitary wastewater facilities. At such time as other sewage treatment facilities were avail- able from the City of Rif1e, and sufficient growth had occured to make it economicaL1-y feasible to connest to their facilities, these facilities would be abandoned for wastewater treatment purposes Very truly yours, PLATEAU ENGINEERI Theron V. Garel , P. E. , L. S. TVG: emb CC: James M. Bowers Robert E. Chancellor James M. Bowers and Associates, lnc. Urban, County and Regional Planning Environmental Planning and Design November 1, 1976 l4r. Robert Wi tkowski Di rector Garfield County Planning Department 201 4 Bl ake Glenwood Springs, Colorado Bl60l Dear Bob: The fol'lowing is written in response toIt covers those points which I can speak nication with you on the water and sewer I. TIMING OF RESIDENTIAL FIA'IT{EN your letter of 0ctober 20, 1976,to. Mr. Garel will be in commu- ques ti on s . In our PUD submittal, dated August 30, 1976, we said that "phases of employrnent will be developed within the Complex before or at the same time as the start of development of the housing areas.rr In your letter of 0ctober 20th you made the suggestion of a further definition which would result 'in residential development being allowed after l5% (land or jobs) of the Phase I industrial area has been developed and/or conrnitted to be developed w'ithin a year. This further detailing of when residential development will be allorved in the Complex is gen- erally acceptable if it is understood that the owner has the right to appear before the County and ask for a specific modification of this restriction if it is found that a specific, desirable industry wi'll only come into the Complex if housing is available there. Based upon this sort of logic we would be willing to have the following statement included as part of the Garfield County Airport Industrial Park Compl ex PUD. Empl oylent/Hous i ng "It is the ownerrs intent to develop housing in numbers equal to about 75% of the iobs generated during the first two phases of the project. Furthermore, in order to 1801 York Street Denver, Colorado 80206 303/388 9259 Branches: 1300 Canyon Boulevard Boulder, Colorado 80302 30314443230 650 Main Street Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 3031243-1921 N()V - 4 1976 14RFIEtD Mr. Robert Witkowski November l, 1976 Page Two minimize unbalanced front end costs to the local government serving the area, residential development will be allowed to take place with'in the Comp'lex only after 15% of estimated Phase I jobs or Phase I office/'industrial acreage has been provided or developed and/or committed to be provided or developed within l2 months. It is understood that the owner has the right to ask the County for a modification of this provision if it is determined that a specific, desirable industry will only come into the Complex if housing is available in the Comp1ex." II. OPEN SPACE REQUIRE}4ENT You have noted that there are .l,610 acres of land in the total PUD. The County requires 25% open space or 402.5 acres whereas we show 386 acres of open space. However, approximately 2ll acres of the PUD is proposed to be dedicated to the County for airport purposes. Therefore we believe that the fairest way to calculate open space needs would be on the acreage within the PUD after the proposed airport land has been sub- tracted from the gross acreage. If this approach is acceptable the required open space would be as fol lows: Total Gross Acreage: (Less amount to be deeded to the County for airport purposes): I,6.10 Acres 211 Acres I,399 Acres I,400 Acres 350 Acres 386 Acres a good one. We to you has a good point out some 195 the south central Net PUD Acreage: 25% of 1,400 Acres: Amount of 0pen Space Shown on submitted PUD Pl an: III. OPEN SPACE LOCATION say Your point on the useability of the open space is believe that the PUD plan that has been submitted mix of the different types of open space. As you acres of the open space consi sts of the knol I s in I'tr. Robert l,li tkowski November 1, 1976 Page Three part of the project. It'is our intention to keep this as close to its natural state as possible and not use it for intensive recreation. 0n the other hand we believe that there is more than enough land availablefor developed park purposes. Part of the l5 acre elementary s'ite will be available for use as a developed park as would part of the junior senior high school site if that becomes a reality. We also foresee the likelihood that a portion of the Comrnunity Service area will be developed as a park. Perhaps more significantly, certain areas along the drainageways can be developed for intensive park use. The drainageways will be designedto carry the estimated 100+ year storms while also having developed paths for pedestrians and bicyclists. The drainageway cross sectionswill be designed to reduce erosion and vegetat'ion will be planted to do the same. l4ost of the neighborhood parks will d'irectly abut the drainageways so as to increase accessibility to the parks. [.Ie have been remiss in not discussing with you our general conceptsfor the layout of the residential areas. It is our intent to set aside park areas within the various residential areas. These areas would consist of small (l to 4 acres) parks which would be reserved and ultimately developed for the use of the residents of that particular neighborhood. These neighborhood park areas would be in addition tothe permanent open space reserve, parkland and greenway areas shown on the PUD p1an. These neighborhood parks have not been shown on the PUD plan since their location will be the result of detailed design studies leading to the platting of the various residential areas. As you know the maximurn number of residential units has been calculated by multiplying the proposed overall residential densities (2 DU/acre for single family; +.5 DU/acre for multi fanrily and 5 DU/acre for mobile homes) by the planned acreages. It has always been our thought that the use of these residential densities within the various residential neighborhoods will allow us the flexibility to provide park and open space within the neighborhoods while still arriving at the allowedresidential density on a gross acreage basis. IV. HOUSING MIX Your understanding of our p.roposed housing mix number of residential units proposed for Phase is correct. The maximumI is as follows: Si ng'le Fami 1y l4obile Homes l4ul ti Fami ly 150 1 00' 50' 300 Dwelling Units l'4r. Robert Novernber 1 , Page Four Wi tkowski 197 6 By mul ti fami 1y we mean Uniform Building Code. family units, duplexes, homes. V. RIFLE TIES dwelling units that are designed to meet the Included in this category cou'ld be single apartments and condominiums but not mobile It is our intent to annex to the City of Rifle when that becomes feasible.In order to allow this to occur without having physical fit problerns withcity systems, it is our intent to develop the water and sewer systemsto City standards and specifications and to meet City right of way requirements for all streets. upon receiving approval of the project from the county we will plan to keep both you and the city of Rifle infornred on key activities planned for the Complex. This communication might best be handled by having formal briefing sessions with the City and the County on a once a year basis with add'itional sessions held for those activities which do not fit within this type of time schedule. The Complex has been p]anned with the belief that the commerical facilitieswithin the existing city of Rifle should and will serve as the main commercial center for the Complex. It has always been our intent notto develop a retail commercial area within the Cornplex which detracts from the existing commercial facilities within Rifle. To that end we have limited the retail commercial area to a maximum of 2 acres by the end of Phase I and 5 acres at time of ultimate development. we havealso lim'ited the allowed uses to convenience commercial uses such as "convenience grocery store, service station, drug store, laundromat, and simiIar uses." If you have any questions about any of this please call me. I look forwardto meeting with you at 4:00 p.m., Planning Commission that evening. Yours truly, l4onday, I'lovember 8, and with the County C*-fu JAMES l,l. BOWERS cc: l4r. Robert E. Chancellorl{r. Theoron V. Garel GARFIELD COUNTY ATRPORT AUTHORITY September 27, 7976 GarfieTd Countg planning Commission Glenwood Springs, Colorado g160l Dear Conunission Members : The GarfieTd Countg AirSnrt Authoritgconsideration of the Master plan forIndustriaT Park. We are unanimous in urges gour the Garfield our suptrtortof this area. It shouTd be made clear that sented bg RifTe Land, Ltd. is is based on its merits.. suppnrt and timeTy'Countg Airtrnrt of the deveTopment out support of the conceptuaT pTan pre-' independent of the J.and donation and 1) rt is complimentarg to and. herps implement the rand. usepmttetn recommended in the Master PTan for the Garfield Countg Airpnrt. 2) rts implementation wi77 aTLow the most economical developmentof utiTitg and road sgstems to setve the airport. 3) rts Tong range deveTopment wiLl provide sound. economic -Zeaseand needed empTogee housing for future deveTopment at the airport. SincereTg, GARFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORTIY RICHARD D. LAMM Governor C.J. KUIPER State Engineer PLAil}IER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street - Room 802 Denver, Colorado 80203 Admini stration (303) 892-3581 Ground Water (303) 892-3587 September 15, 1976 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 8160I Re: Rifle Airport Industrial Park Complex Dear Mr. Witkowski: This is to acknowledge receipt of a water augmentation plan for the above referenced deveiopment. As requested, I have reviewed the plan and the following comments are presented for your consideration: 1. This development is referred to as an industrial complex but the report indicates that the primary water demand will be from l09I dwelling units. If so, then the water supply planning should be based upon supplying an ade- quate and dependable domestic water supply as required by the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. There has been no discussion on the dependability of the water rights owned with respect to being in priority during periods of below average precipitation. 2. The water supply plan for the proposed development is based to a large degree upon utilizing the Crann Pipeline for the fully decreed amount of 1.0 cfs year around. The report indicates that it is diverted from springs but our records indicate that it is diverted from Mann Creek which has numerous water rights more senior than the Crann Pipe1ine. The evaluation of this source of water is not sufficient to indicate that it would always be in priority. If it is from a spring source, this spring should be evalu- ated for physical dependability. SEP z 0 1916 GARFIEI"O Mr. RobertA. Witkowski -2-Sept . 15 , 197 6 The remainder of the water supply is to be provided by converting irrigation water rights into municipal water rights. The report indicates that the Sliding Ditch on Mann Creek would be utilized for this purpose. The minimum flow of Mann Creek has not been evalu- ated to indicate that the necessary flow is available to this Ditch especially during a dry year. Other aspects of the plan of augmentation appear reasonable with the final determination subject to the District Water Court in Glenwood Springs. 5. I would recommend that a Water District be formed to operate and manage the water supply on behalf of the residents of the development. I trust that these comments are useful; and if I can be of further service, please feel free to contact me. truly yours, 3. 4. JADIHDS:mvf cc: L. Enewold Land Use Comm. a fir*^lw . Jeris A. lputy State Danielson Engineer Rlrue LeNo AssocranEs. LTD. 555. SEVENTEENTH STREET . 9I6 PATTERSON BUILDING . DENVER. COLORADO 8O2Oi}\ September 5, L975 Board of County Commissioners County of Garfield Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gent lemen : This will inform you of our sale to Colorado-Ute ufectrB8t'{BJ8-' ciation of the 4o-acre ttact outlined in red on the accompanying maps. The proposed route of Colorado-Ute's new Rifle to Silt transmission line is shown in orange. The enclosed letter from them should be self-explanatory. I have asked Mr. Puckett to have the Colorado-Ute planning consultant contact the County in order that Colorado-Ute work will be coordinated with that being done in connection with the airport. IYe were pleased to receive word of the good reception given the environmental impact statement for the airport expansion pIan. It is our assumption that sometime around year end the Final Environmental Impact Statement will be presented, allowing us to proceed with further plans and submittals for the Airport Industrj-al Park Complex. As concerns the donation of airport expansion lands to the County, we would hope that the Final Impact Statement can be finished and approved in time to make possible this donation during L976. lTe believe a final trlaralIeI runway concept providing expansion to the fuII development potential here is the most desirable. The area of land donated by us for a reduced or compromise plan would necessarily be smaller. As such, land acquisition for fullest development, if needed at some future time, could conceivably be more difficult for the County. In anticipation of the end of the waiting period resulting from formulation and official approval of the Airport Master P1an, the County Planner has been furnished new maps of the Airport Industrial Park Complex. They incorporate Mr. Sundell's paralleI runway concept and the change in the original airport expansion atea. It would seem appropriate that the County Attorn€yr a representative of F.A.A. and our lawyer, Mr. George Petre, meet in order to explore the best means for our land donation and the timing thereof. Hin Ccrise l,,lar.tivi tt' d tr ----n ry 1 sEP B 1975 Board of County Commissioners County of Garfield cc: September 5, L975 Page Two As you know, since the commissionersr approval gl_lhe P.U.D. Sketch Plan for the Airport Complex in January L974, w€ have continued with work on the prelininary plan which you have agreed can be presented in a phased manner. Ite believe we hive kept infoimed on the vari.ous changes in the County's handling of these matters; however, your comments or suggestions at this time would be most helpful from a procedural view point. Yours very truly, RrFLE LAND ASSOCTATES, LTD. Chancellor Garfield County Airport Mr. George Petre Mr. R. H. Sundell General Partner Authority Enclosures Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc. P. O. Box 1149 Montrose, Colorado 81401 August 26,1975 Mr. Robert E. Chancellor Rifle Land Associates, Ltd. 916 Patterson Building Denver, Colorado 80202 Dear Bob: Craig-Rifle Transmission Line Proposed Easement Rifle Land Associates, l,td. Please find enclosed a copy of Rifle Land Associates, Ltd. pre- liminary plat of the Garfield County Airport Industrial Park Comple>r with a red pencil drawing of our proposed tie line location between the CoIo- rado-Ute substation site south of Rifle and the LTSBR substation southwest of Silt. The drawing is not a professional job (t drew it myself), but it does show the easement width of 100'and its routing from our substationto Beech Avenue where it runs adjacent to Beech Avenue roughly from piper Avenue to Douglas Avenue where it leaves your subdi.vision and crosses onto the WaIl property. While this sketch is obviously noia final routing, it is reasonably close to the location we would like to follow unless you have any major objections that we wilt be able to accommodate. Please give me a call after you've had a chance to study the pro- posed route. I look forward to hearing your comments and/or suggestions. Very truly yours,g*ru&r Paul Vl/. Puckett Right -of -V/a y Coord inator P\W/me Enc. GARFIELD CDUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORAOO Bl6Ot 2OI4 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 943-EJ212 October 20, 7976 Illr. James M. Bowers James Bowers & Associates 7807 York Denver, Colorado Dear Jim: The foTTowing are points that I feel must be addressed before a finaT decision is made bg the Countg on the request for PUD zoning. f expect to trrut this item on the Planning Commission's reguTar agenda of November 8th for discussion. Some specific Tanguage and nun{bers must be deveToped to set up a point where the deveToper and the Countg can expect residentiaT pTatting to take pTace within Phase I- I feeT a minimum threshoTd of actual residential- need shouTd be establ-ished which triggers residential pTatting when equaTTed or surpassed. Part of the rationaLe behind ng thinking is to avoid a sjtuation where the commitment bg a singTe compang, or even severaT, who do not suppTg a Targe numbet of jobs, xriggers substantial residentiaL subdivision which would probabTg tore than fu7ti77 the actuaT need. Another reason for this minimum amount of deveToped or soon-to-be deveToped industriaJ. uses deaTs with the off-site impTications of this project. The approval of residentiaT deveLopment in this project is keged to the need generated bg industriaT development. Ang deveTopment is obviousTg going to have a Tike effect upon the area as we77 as the subject's propertg. Establishing some minimum threshold of industrial activitg ties future Countg actions to this project's actions and assures a situation in which the Countg couTd review future subdivision proposals in the general- area with a better idea of tining. Expressing this minimum amount of industrial activitg can be expressed in empTogment, or actes of deveTopment. I am using the tetm "industriaT activitg' to mean either compTeted construction ot pTanned deveTopment which has been scheduTed for construction within a gear after final pTatting. The combination of jobs/provided and jobs/imminent wouTd trigger the residentiaT platting procedure. One method of setting Mr. Jim Bowers Page 2 t)te nuniber might be to cost out the minimum pubTic improvements needed and estimate the number of residentiaT Tots that must be subdivided in order to assure a feasible project. That nuniber could then be factored up to provide the empTogment quota. ft seens; to me that a figute of 75Z of the totaT jobs anticipated for Phase I would be a reasonabTe starting p7ace. Again, theg a77 wouTd not have to be existing, but incLuded in a tight time frame in a finaT plat proceeding. The comments made bg the Division of Water Resources concerning the water rights to be used for a domestic water suppTg shouTd be addressed. Questions concezning the dependabiTitg of phgsicaT suppTg as we77 as the prioritg of those rights should be cTeared up before the Countg can expect to make a zoning conrnitment. ?{hiLe I do not feeT this means an actuaL court decree, much of the anaTgsis preceding such an action night be necessarg. In ang eventt dfrg furthet conments on the water situation wouTd be referred to the Division of Water Resources fot their review. The totaT amount of open space shown on the phase maps is 386 acres. One minor ynint js this fal-Ls short of the 25% requirement in the PUD zoning ordinance bg 76 acres. f reaTize tlnt the estirates of acreage are rough considering the sca7e, but I think the minimum acreage shouTd be shosn. Anothet comment I have concerning the open space rel-ates to the ground around the base of the majot eTevations shown as the pernanent open space in the centet of the ptoject. bes the open space provided a77ow fot amounts of gentle sTope around this area so that it, in effect, is more usabTe? AlTowing a hi77side, which is basicaTTg undeveTopable, for otrren space is certainTg acceptabTe if area around the base is aiso incTuded. The hi77 then becomes, in mg opinion, much more TogicaT fot open space/recreationaT purposes. As an exampTe of mg thinking, wouTdn't that naturaT feature be note practicaT if some of the 30 acres inmediatelg southeast of tJte tentative jr/sr high schooT site were aTso shown as part of the open strnce? Another question concerning the open s[Ece js the provision for future deveToped open sgx.ce or active r*r@.tion areas within the PUD espxiaTTg kegd to the mobiTe home p.rk. Is tlat to be treatd within the park design itseTf , or wi77 it invoTve other portions of the PUD, or is it pTanned for at a77? fs ang speific treatment of the drainage wags shown on the open space designation contempTatd? Definite statenents must be made with regard to the tgpe of sewage one hoTd true? ff not, whg not? ATso f believe some of Mt. GareT's projected sewage l-oads have to be adjusted to gour unit totaTs for the project. treatment pTanned. As of now, the engineer's statement proposes plant in the northeast portion of the proj*t- Does this sti77 Mt. Jin Bowets Page .3 The finaT corwnent is just to be sure take gout recent suppLemental naterial to mobiTe homes are pTanned for phase I with within the other housing categories. we understand one another. f mean that a totaT of 700 ang modular units incTuded Conditions which would reTate to the reTationship of RifTe and the ptoject wouTd invoTve constructing to citg specifications, continued conanunication with the citg and some language recognizing Rifle as tfte main commerciaT center for this projxt. If gou have ang corwnents gou would Tike to djscuss with me, pTease do not hesitate contacting me. There is a possibijitg r wi77 be in Denver l-ate next week. SincereTg, RAW/kag Robert A. Witkowski Directot REV I SED GARFIELD COUNTY UN IT BREAI(DOWN INDUSTRIAL PARK COMPLEX 8, 1976 Dl.lELLI NG A I RPORT 0ctober PHASE SINGLE FAMiLY I4OBI LE HOME MULT I FAMI LY TOTAL I II III 150 60 410 100 120 BO 50 160 370 300 340 860 TOTAL S 620 300 580 I ,500 . .. ,:;{, . ',. ij--.$',':. , a:,:-il. i- ": i' j' { -i'f,",1,', , ,. 4i:': j.,. ,l ' . ' ,,",..:. fl-,ir::ilt,:. .i" ,ti t ':-a ,'!.'..i:i ,.1,. 5,;:- ' .ii ii 4:'ari .!. '- t "-;-L'1"f$"{ii.t': I '--*-r., ::;^,., 1t '+*.;t ui '1I ' ri'i ';';:-,'' -i ' &*:,t.'*.:Ui+r'r' "; irF,i ' tr- <.i, a & ,:; .t' t r. 13" ffl.r'.,+. "..t;l ,' I ili' i tq ;f *' .' * ,lt ')"k:ri .i: , !., {fI lt ,ii. .a T6. i11r t:i! i"".|...lt:; l:.,t fii,;-irr,;;,'t':,t#;l i * *}..,ffi ''. *'i {ir;S'',?#t: '.-*,. _,ff'.;,.iq ..;.:, +1:i: .;i ).: I Jal .; !'i-;#":.[,:rt-ri,". f \'f] , if -]t.:,-ti...l;ii ;..'"-Ii': " - n; -,r',f, :"' * ti':,:)''.: .--,1. !. . -.- --: '-.,. S;.'. + :, '+' *-. 'l.l- ::: Bob t^li tkows k i 9qyltv Plannins 2414 Bl ake Gl enwood Spri ngs EDWAND F. CARPENTER, P..E. THER,ON V. GAREL, P,E.. L.g. TVG : embCC: Jim Bower and AssociRobert Chancel or PLATEA INEERING, INC. Consulting CivilYngineers 521 NOOD AVENUE, SUITE B GRAND JUNCTION, COI.ORAD(O, A16()1 (3Oa) 245,1A1O August 23, L976 0ffi ce , Col orado 81601 Re: Ri fl e Land Ltd. Very truly yours, PLATEAU E I NEERI NG, Gentl emen: Enclosed herewith are 3 copies each of the written supportinginformation on wq!gr, sewiie, storm o..inuge and NaturarHazards for the Ri ft 6 L;;d"Limi tea pIbl' /t Theron V.Garel , ates OUTLINE OF POINTS OF DISCUSSION A. GENERAL REGIONAL CONSIDEMTIONS 1. Does this or could this project represent the outer boundary of Rifle town influence for the purposes of urban services or future annexation? 2. Is this a'logical activity center in the County if plans for the airport are developed? Do the activities and development proposed in this PUD make sense with respect to the airport? 3. Close cooperation should be considered with any project in this area with the Town of Rifle concerning: (a) General attitude of the Town. (b) Standards to which public improvements (c) Short and Iong - range arrangements for sewer and water plant. (d) Potential annexation - is it feasible, with both parties? (e) Disposition of water rights at the time annexation. are installed. operation of the is it agreeable of future (f) Standards to be followed in the development of the mobi'le home park . (S) Compatibility of proposed major streetswith any approved major street plan for RifIe. (h) Role of Rifle as the major retail trade center forthis development at least through initial development. 4. Existence of or probability of an employment base to justify a large rezoning project. B. SPECIFICS l. Differences between the material supplied by Bowers & Associates and the material supplied by the engineer, T.V. Garel concerning: (a) Total residential units planned. (b) Nature of the sewerage treatment sustem. (c) Timing of the proposed phases. 2. Could the convenience commercial be delayed until Phase II or at least the Iater stages of Phase I? 3. Points raised by the Division of Water Resources on the proposed water rights and supply: (a) Difference of opinion on water availability to the Crane Pipeline -- the engineer for PUD states that the water comes from springs, the Division states the water comes from Mann Creek, the Division also says those rights arejunior to others in Mann Creek, Division also wants to see an analysis of the physical dependibility of the spri ngs . (b) Is the minimum flow of Mann Creek sufficfent for the supply counted on in the Sliding Ditch? 4. Are there any covenants proposed for this proiect at this time? 5. Is there a map showing development in the maximum phase? 6. Does the amount of water computed as growth cover the amount that people I awns ? necessary in order to sustain lawn usually use to actually water their 7. 8. The plan states industrial employment sustains the residential development How can we amange a timing sequence so that industrial development, or its assurance, precedes residential platting? What is the intention of the large segment of manufactured hous'ing? Is half the development to be a mobile home park? If modulars are contemplated there really isn't a need to differentiate them from conventional housing as long as they meet the Uniform Building Code.If modulars are going to be developed, will they be at the same density as the mobile home park? Some thought should be given to the cost/benefit aspects of this development if one half of the deve'lopment is going to be a mobile home park. Explain the agricultural reserve concept and eventual conversion of this land to other uses. 10. The .|00 year flood analysis for the major drainage ways on the property- should be reviewed - prbbaUly by the Water Conservation Board - for their accuracy and reasonableness. ll. Is the open space shown on the plan logical and useable to the residential development as planned? 12. Does RifIe Lands Associates own the two parcels shownas commercial directly north of the airport proper? 9. -2- i.ttiiiw.; i.,. 4*l$ .-'r*;.. ,D:I '..'-'/ -\.-,'-fi-..Wi'frT:l :t ...,ffi:f -\--" 4W,I '\L',ira : M::;ifi#:t\'::-.;=::;|, - : : : ;1-l .'$, .: .' - ,i ,fi,t)1,.i,,i:i f-b+_i: : .---- - - i:Wnffi, 3g=--- ',,#,', '," ii'tl ,,',l i: lT---"-r,:;}]"::'*Ui"t'lo ,,111",r" ,,,' ,l ,r' ,,,' ,,'' ,l .',,i ,i ,'!r' ,,' Y. l:;:?,fir"1 l_wonn*. fiii ,"i',;'" _Two po- Two PoLE I93tI* t-1.ixi*t'rs:r?\:'l: ),)'! ,i i ( ,_._ . l- IJ: .'."I'r',".#$i31. J;,JJilui"'bi couoRADo -; -; { ' PUBLIC S ,''rfr" r;," .'ri/,' .'1',1' k - ell .' l'= 2OO' 2 Feet , ! ,i.',i' ," t"'a .... "''' "' ,' \ ...'/' Nl'=:h'.'...'li'..:fr'..-oo?d \ ..., 1ry:';' "r'/ 4I I lii t >r\i ,.'... 4-"r.1 'r'1;' "' Horizontol Scolei Ccntour intervo I : fl- idB^.'- \'---- 4t -- -- \