HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 CorrespondenceSTATTIS (;OMMEN'TS
(lornp. plart cottsistencY zR 4.04
a. Allbldable horrsing ConrpreltensiYl: Plittt
Section III.2
Fro Conr€Cjtton,
,-?W. vYl\\-'{\:t+e
d 'r:C\Ntfn c\evtlo,x
E&*ru$pn{r Sffigtb. 'l'ransPoftation'-
optional modes
Cornprchensive plutr
Section I Il.3
c, Well-designcd streets Compreltettsive Plan
Section Ill.3
:r-bO,r.. 6et+:rt.r.
\u.iod'rnS \€,r'. -
d,'l)'affic rnitigution Cornprohensive plarr
Section IIL3
*rat6c
t rt\Qt
e, Vistral corridors Cornprchcnsivc plntt
Soctit'rn Ill,5
-l oacresp t.ru
-20
f, Adeqrratc rccrculional
opporlunitics
Conrprchcnsivlt Platt
Sr.:ctiorr lll,.5
g, l(erairr/cnhanoc
exisriug ol)en spaca
Cornprclrcnsivc ;:lntt
5.s116n |il.5
h. Ralling/lishing nccess Crlrrrprchonsive plau
Sgction Ill,5
i, Pr-e.servc rural
Itrrrdscnpe, ng. ttses
Cionrprchcnsivc pltn
Scotion Ill.5
.i. l)cvclop trails C-lornprchcnsivu plart
Sectiou lll.5
k. Wildlilt hubilut
irupact nlitig,ation
Cotnprchcn.sivc pllrt
Soction lll.5
l, (lontrol ot'privato
\ry rlter'/sewet' systenl s
(lornplelrcnsivc plnlt
Suclioll II1.7
>(-tl"l urtr r {1] W' AYr
!{*u-rt: hd6 z Pc
shsn r:Qrn*\ hnot I
rn. Rccogrrizc
et)virennrental cttnstruinls
Conrprchrinsive lrlan
Section lll.8
TEL:0ct 16'97 7:57 No.00L P .02
ROSE RANCH PUD PROPOSAL
GARFTELD COUNTY
l0ltsl9l
KE,Y ISSI.JE MATRIX
;
1t
dJ.
TEL:0ct t6'97 7 :58 No .001 P .03
/
(
SOURCE/
AUTHORI'TY
STN TtIS COMMENTS
n, Pl'otcct rraftrral
drtrinages
Coltlprchensive plan
Scctiorr lll.8
/(* re+ , ?a'. Y'ratet'A-uat f'i -ierv,l.n,r^arhtL -4ns#irg odS rat,t'lx
o. Protcct t'ipnrinn arcas,
wetlnuds
Comprehensivc plun
Section lll.8
1N(;/ y€of tatlrt ruFt
i{D'^ Ntl Lo\ I -?6
p. Address soil
cOnslrflints
Conr;lreherrsivc plan
Section Ill.8
q. Protecl natural, scenic,
ecological I'esourccs.
Cornprehcnsive plarr
Sucliun Ill,8
r, l.)isr',ourage excess
uutting/filling
Coutprchcnsive ;:lnrr
Scction lll.8
s.
t
u,
Relationship to
sunrrundiug nrcu
7,R 4,07.03(t)
Adctluate internal strcct
circulalion
7,1t 4.07.03(2)
Adccluute parking zt\ 4.07 .03(3)
Opert spucc/;rres. of nntl.
fcnturcs
zR 4.07,03(41
2R 4.01.09
Variety in housing types,
othcr facilities, nrtd opcn
sp{lcc
zR 4.07,03(s)
Adequate privucy
betwccn dwellings
zR 4.07.03( (;)
Pedestriurr wuys zR 4.07,03(7)
Mux, brrilding height
incrense
7,1\ 4.01.04
Min. lot aren/nrin. sctback
decreascs
zL\4.07.A5
I,la.n conccpl
rorlr.riremettts
zR 4.08.0.5
a. Max. dwclling units
l
TEL:0ct 76'97 7 :58 No .001 P .04
SOURCE/
AUTHORTTY
STAiI'US COMMEN'IIS
h. rjpcn .sPace dedication
c. I.and rrsc/acrcage
d. Major iuternnl
circulntion systerrr
c. Sclrool sitc acreage
cledication,
f . L,riliry provisiorr
g. Otlrer rcstrictions re
selbacks, etc,
h, Aclcqu.rte wnter s()urcc zr( 4.08.0"5(7)-j'r.pae\ oF dl-a.rj-
_E6,J. C_cr.r.^-r-nrta Lr
t+6N N-{+\b6ntl9rl.l 'vvctlsYi. Sewagc trcallDent
k. Storm druinage
Norr - \troet.t rf?\ nerr
l. Hazard nruu trcatnlent
rtt. l-egal acccss
n. Prcs. of wildlil'c, natl.
veg., unitluc natl,4rist,
fcalurc.s.
Phasing/stages
consislcncy
7.R 4,09.03
Open spacc mainicnance zt\ 4.t0
lbuff?r\y
3 Not rnteqrztLed
Plarrv'r-$
TEL :0ct 16'97 7:57 No.O01 P.01
ClarionAss ociates
1700 l)ruudway - Suitc 400
l)cnvr,r, CO 80290
303/83()-2890
Fu: 303/tJ60- I B)q
FAX'TMNSMISSION COVII( SHDIIT
Duto:
7'.0:
hux:
Subjcct:
Seuder:
/o //o
0 ,r{o r,( 6, , q4dq
YOU SHOULD KECEIVE 4-PAG|1(S), INCI.I.]DING TIIIS COWR SIIEE'T.
IT." YOU DO NO7. RECEIVE ALL TI IE PAGES, I,LEASE CALL 303/8,?0-2890,
.lJI'IIfif.ff.nlf
RE:
DATE:
Scott Balcomb Attorney
Tim Thulsom, Attorney
Ronald Heggemeier, Applicant
Victoria Gannola, Senior Planner
Don DeFord, County Attorney
Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan
26 August 1997
The following outline contains a list of the major items absent from the submission package for
Rose Ranch which the applicant must supply to the Garfield County Building and Planning
department before staffcan make a recommendation of completeness regarding this proposal.
These items must be submitted to the staffof the county by 1:30 PM Friday, 29 August 1997 so
that staffwill have sufficient time to review the items and to prepare a report to the Garfield
County Board of Commissioners by 9:00 AM Tuesday, 2 September 1997.
The applicant shall provide evidence of ownership or rights of access to the property
located to the north west of CR 109 proposed as a Golf Access Easement to the golf
facilities, including holes 15 through 18, and as access to the Active Recreation Park
including the following amenities: picnic facility, volleyball, horseshoes, trails, and parking.
The applicant shall include an outline of the proposed traffic improvements as
recommended by High Country Engineering in the Preliminary Traffic Study prepared for
Roaring Fork Investments including the signalization of the intersection of CR 154 with
Highway 82 which is currently operating at a Level Of Service F.
The applicant shall provide a copy of a floodplain analysis which is site specific since the
site contains land within the floodplain and dwellings are proposed adjacent to this area.
The applicant shall provide clarification of the discrepancy throughout the report as to
whether 320 or 354 units are proposed. The final determination on the number of units
will ultimately impact several reports prepared by the various professionals involved with
this project. The reports which used a different unit figure than that which the applicant
determines will need to be revised in accordance with the agreed upon figure.
The applicant shall resolve how the 7 holes of golf which are located oflsite, yet which
are an integral component to this proposed PUD, constitute an integrated development.
Please refer to Section 4.06, Internal Compatibility of Planned Unit Developments.
The applicant shall remove the references throughout the document regarding the ability
to alter designs in the proposed plan at final platting stage since this alteration is not
permitted in the county ordinances.
m
IV.
I.
[.
V.
VI
The following outline contains a preliminary list of a number of deficient items in the submission
package for Rose Ranch which the applicant must readdress and resubmit to the Garfield County
Building and Planning department so that staffcan make a determination regarding approval or
disapproval to the Garfield County Board of Commissioners and Commission. These items must
be submitted to the staffof the county by 5:00 PM Friday, 26 September 1997 so that staffwill
have sufficient time to review the items and prepare a report.
I. The applicant shall provide evidence of the ability to supply sufficient water capacity, and
quality, to the proposed 354 units since the Water lnvestigation prepared by Zancanella
and Associates, Inc. determined that the current augmentation requirements exceed the
historic use credits at the time, and that additional water right acquisitions will be required
at the current demand levels. In addition, this report was prepared using the figure of 320
residential units (and an 18 hole golf course) while in contrast the applicant has indicated
in their General Introduction that 354 homes are proposed. The correct number of units
must be utilized in the report.
il. The applicant shall provide evidence of the ability to treat the total sewage capacity
generated from the site since treatment will be by a district located oflsite and up-gradient
while traversing through property not in the applicant's ownership. A copy of the
agreements and the easements shall be supplied to staff. This report must be signed by a
licensed engineer in accordance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution for PUDs.
m. The applicant shall submit a detailed drainage report which relates directly to the proposed
site since the Drainage Report prepared by High Country Engineers is severely limited in
scope and very generalized in its descriptions and recommendations rendering it rather
useless as a evaluation tool. This report would include a detailed discussion of the surface
hydrology. An outside engineering consultant will review this report (along with the
floodplain study) to provide staffwith comments and recommendations.
IV. The applicant shall submit a wildlife inventory prepared by a wildlife specialist since the
proposal noted the presence of wildlife and the reservation of open space corridors to
protect the migratory paths on-site. The report would include a determination of the
species present and the extend of open space required to protect their migratory routes.
V. The applicant should conduct a cultural resource survey on the site beyond contacting the
Colorado State Historical Society. This report would include an inventory of the existing
structures proposed to be removed from the site to determine any historical significance.
VI. The applicant shall submit a phase plan of the proposed amenities on the site since none
was submitted. It would appear that Phase I and Phase III contain a number of units
which will not have access to a roadway since the road to those select units is contained
within a later phase. Failure to proceed to a subsequent phase cannot adversely impact the
PUD as required by the ZorungResolution, Section 4.09.03.
Ix
X.
XI.
vII.The applicant shall reevaluate the internal street circulation system since the Garfield
County ZorungResolution requires that such systems be designed for convenience and
access which arguably 13 cul-e-sacs do not provide [Section 4.07.03(2)| In addition, it
would appear that at least two (2) cul-de-sacs exceed the permissible length.
The applicant shall provide the layout of all parking areas as required by the Zonng
Resolution since it is impossible to determine if parking is adequate in terms of location,
area, circulation, safety, convenience, separation, and screening when such data is not
shown on the plan [Section a.07.03(3)].
The applicant shall supply a means of addressing privacy between units, such a narrative
or landscaping plan, since it is not possible to determine if privacy between the units exists
as required by the PUD Zoning Resolution [Section 4.07.03(6)].
The applicant shall submit a trail and pathway/sidewalk design since staffcannot determine
if the pedestrian ways are adequate in terms of safety since no circulation plan was
submitted with the level of detail required for this type of review [Section a.07.03(7)].
The applicant must address Section 4.O7.04 regarding increasing the height of buildings
above the maximum permitted since this justification has not been presented to staff.
VIII.
)il. The applicant must address Section 4.07 .05 regarding decreasing the minimum setback
restrictions below the minimum permitted since this justification has not been presented to
staff.
)ffI. The applicant shall show the location of all buildings, structures, and parking facilities, as
well as all other site locational data on the plan per Section 4.01.02, Section 4.08.03, and
Section 4.08.05(4) which includes the existing structures on-site.
)rtv. The applicant shall revise the location map to show the location of the site to public
facilities, commercial and cultural facilities, and surrounding land use as required by
Section 4.08.05(3).
XV. The applicant shall submit the dates for construction of each Phase per Section
4.08.0s(7)(B).
/
The following outline contains a list of the items contained in the submission package for Rose
Ranch which fail to meet the goals and objectives of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant must readdress and resubmit these items to the Garfield County Building and
Planning department so that staffcan make a determination regarding approval or disapproval to
the Garfield County Board of Commissioners and Commission. These items must be submitted to
the staffof the county by 5:00 PM Friday, 26 September 1997 so that staffwill have sufficient
time to review the items and prepare a report.
I. The county greatly appreciates the generous offer of $200 per constructed home to be
granted to the Housing Authority. However, the goal of achieving affordable housing on-
site has not yet been addressed. Staffwould be willing to work with the applicant to
attain this goal of the county plan.
il. The goal to provide a means to alternative modes of transportation has not yet been
addressed in the proposed plan. Staffis also willing to meet with the applicant to achieve
this goal of the comprehensive plan. The applicant shall also address the traffic safety
problem and road deficiencies which will be exacerbated by the proposal.
m. The goal to preserve and to continue the operation of existing agricultural uses has also
not been addressed in this proposal. Staffwill consult with the applicant to meet this goal.
/
GARFIELD COUAITY
Building and Planning
To: Mitch Black, Dullea
From: Victoria Giannola, Garfield County
Date. 16 September 1997
Regarding: Transportation issues .ll', t
Attached is the Open Lands Heritage Program map showing the proposed trail/bike system. I
have highlighted the trail as it runs along County Road iO9. A copy from the Conserving Open
Lands for the Future of Garfield County document is enclosed which references trail design.
Also, attached is the RFTA Bus Schedule with the route along Highway 82. I have highlighted
the route on the map along with the associated schedule. You should contact Paul Hilt, Director
of Operations, at (970) gZb-tgOS (extension 203) regarding establishing a covered bus stop at the -:*
entrance of 154.
I will follow up with information regarding agricultural preservation and affordable housing after
my Wednesday meetings - incidently one of which concerns trail.
109 Eth Street, Suite 303 g4sa?lzl?frs-1912 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8160x
To:
From.
Date:
Regarding:
Mitch Black, Dullea
Victoria Giannola, Garfield County '%
8 September 1997
Historic Inventory Building Form from the Colorado Historical Society
Attached are four additional pages for the Preservationist/Architect to use during the building
inventory of the structures proposed to be demolished on the Rose Ranch property. If you have
any questions regarding this form, you may contact Suzanne Doggett, National and State Register
Historian with the Colorado Historical Society at (303) 866-4683.
In other news, Kirk Beattie came by our office today to pick up a series of maps to be used during
the wildlife inventory on the same site. When I spoke with Mr. Beattie last week, we agreed that
he would consult the local DMsion of Wildlife regarding the species in this region to be
inventoried. We also agreed that he would review the files of neighboring developments and
consult with property owners in the area. [n addition, he will be conducting a site visit. He made
copies of a series of pages from the submission package last week as well.
I will follow up with information regarding public transportation, the bike path, agricultural
preservation, and affordable housing.
A.lhasing Concept
Following approval of Rose Ranch PIII and Sketch Plan, platting will be undertaken.
A total of four residential phases are envisioned, carefully timed with local market
conditions and each offering a variety of lot size options. Each phase is also designed to
follow cost effective and logical extension of infrastructure, including roads, water and
sewer.
Following Phase I Final Plat approval---anticipated in 1998--residential development will
corlmence, beginning at the south end of the project and generally moving north. Golf
course construction will occur simultaneously with Phase I of the residential development.
Phase I will include lots 1-53, 312-320,296 &297 and260-269. Included within this
initial phase will be a variety of lot sizes, including the 20,000; 15,000 and 9,000 square
foot options.
Phase II lies generally to the west of Phase I, encompassing lots 2l l-259; 270-295, and
298-311. Again, Phase II will incorporate a variety of lot sizes, including the introduction
of duplex lots.
Moving north, Phase III will include lots 54-77 and 150-210. Phase IV lies north of the
Public Service easement and will complete the residential portion of the development with
lots 78-149.
It is anticipated that each of the four phases will be accomplished within a two-year
timeframe, resulting in an 8-year project buildout. This development phasing is zubject to
change due to possible changes during the platting process and based on local market
conditions. A conceptual Development Phasing Plan follows.
ROSE RANCH
Sketch Plan
Phasirig Plan
EE iaffi,:;j1'I _'..--* ;
E:E/ . ,/,/- _*/'
l
ll:L-
---;-
*t-;&
-.:"1-:*-* "]
I'hi'c I t
' fhi\( lll
JoHN A. THULSoN
EDWARD MULHALL, JR.
SCoTT BALCoMB
LAWRENCE R. GREEN
TIMoTHY A. THULSoN
LoRr J. M. SATTERFTELD
Dpr,.q.xrcrr & BAr-,coMBr P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT ITA\^/
P. O. DRAWER 79O
8I8 COT,ORADO A\,TNL,E
Gr-EN-wooD SpRrNes, Cor,oRADo 81602
Telephone: 970.945.6546
Facsimile: 970.945.8902
September 22,1997
EDWARD B. OLszEwsKr
DAVTD SaNDovaL
Victoria Goiannola
Garfield County Planning Office
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Rose Ranch
Dear Victoria:
Ron Heggemeier, Managing Partner of Roaring Fork Investments LLC, has asked me to
respond to your inquiry to him. The inquiry dealt with having a meeting with a prospective builder
or developer for affordable housing. It is my utderstanding that you were contacted by this person
who saw a story in the newspaper about the development. You had suggested a meeting as a way
of exploring a potential issue in the affordable housing component of the Rose Ranch application.
Ron suggests that any such meeting would be premature for a number of reasons. Our
reasons are as follows:
1.Even though we propose lots of varying size, some of which are arguably more
affordable than others. we do not intend to include in the Rose Ranch project as is
currently proposed any multi-family or other structures which are generally thought
of when the term "affordable housing" is utilized.
Our understanding of the Garfield County Code would indicate that affordable
housing does not necessarily require proposals for construction on the site.
We have offered an affordable housing "component" to comply with the Garfield
County Comprehensive Plan. We intend to go further and propose to the
Commissioners a means by which our proposed component can be utilized in
satisfaction of any reasonable affordable housing component. All of this should be
explored prior to any fuither discussions involving any third parties with whom we
may or may not wish to become associated in the future.
2.
J.
September 18,1997
Victoria Giannola, Sr. Planner
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 8th Street, 3rd Floor
Glenwood Springs, Co 81601
RE: Rose Ranch, Sketch Plan Drainage Study
HCE Project No. 97042.02
Dear Victoria:
This letter is to respond to your concem about the content and detail of the Drainage Study
prepared for the referenced project. As we discussed in our meeting on August 28,1997 at your
office and again in our phone conversation on September 16, 1997 , it is impossible to develop
the drainage study to a higher level of detail during the sketch plan stage. As you can see, onsite
grading, road profiles and detention pond locations have not been done at this time. I assure you
that the drainage study provided to the county during the Preliminary Plan stage will more than
satisfy any of your or the reviewing engineers concerns.
When the county has decided upon the reviewing engineer for this project, I will be more than
happy to discuss the drainage study and any other engineering issues with them.
If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
Q,p:.--N+.-
./oe D. Hope, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Ron Heggemeier - Roaring Fork Investments
Tim Thulson - Delaney and Balcomb
Mitch Black - The Norris Dullea Company
923 Cooper Avenue . Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone: (970) 945-8676. FAX: (970) 945-2555
.}fp r g Be/
August 29,1997
Victoria Giannsla, 51. Planner
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 8ft Street, 3rd Floor
Glenwood Springs, Co 81601
RE: Rose Ranch, Golf Cart Access
HCE Project No. 97042.02
Dear Victoria:
Enclosed with this letter please find twenty (20) sets of the preliminary design for the golf cart
access path to the uppel golf holes. I must emphasize that this design is only preliminary and
qore detailed design will be provided with thepreliminary plan submittal. Itis in the
O-4reliminary plan submittal that the bulk of the engineering design will be done.
{4,Several issues were considered in the layout and design of the cart path as shown. Care was
taken to insure that the path was not unreasonably deltroying or diiplacing wildlife, natural
vegetation or unique or historical features while still maintaining a safe and viable access route.
I recognize that the plans for the golf cart path are sketchy, however, we are still in the sketch
plan stage, and, as I emphasized earlier, much more detail will be provided with the preliminary
plan submittal.
If you have any questions, or if I can be of firther assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
Q*tcthre
Joe D. Hope, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Ron Heggemeier
923 Cooper Avenue . Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone: (970) 945-8676. FAX: (970) 945-2555
Victoria Giannola, Sr. Planner
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 Sth Street, 3rd Floor
Glenwood Springs, Co 81601
RE:Rose Ranch, Traffic Analysis
HCE Project No. 97042.01
Dear Victoria:
Enclosed with this letter please find twenty (20) copies of the following:
{
1)
2)
CDOT Driveway Permit Application Package.
Traffic Study Supplemental Letter.
Included with the CDOT Driveway Application is a sketch of the proposed improvements to the
Highway E2lCotnty Road 154 intersection. At your request, I have attempted to describe our
p_roposed horizontal and vertical improvements. The intersection will be realigned so that
County Road 154 intersects Highway 82 at approximately 90 degrees. This realignment will
also allow more roadway length in which to achieve the elevation of Highway 8f. This will, in
turn, reduce the grade of County Road 154 at the intersection.
Several turn lanes will be added. They will include a left turn acceleration lane from County
R9@ lfa onto Highway 82, a left turn deceleration lane from Highway 82 onto County Road
154, arighJ tqrn acceleration lane onto Highway 82 from County Road 154, and a righi turn
deceleration lane from Highway 82 onto County Road 154.
My traffic study has indicated that the intersection will function safely if a signal is installed.
However, only CDOT can make the decision to install the signal. Per my meetings with CDOT
on site, my client is prepared to pay for the construction of the signal and interseciion
improvements. Mr. Jim Mall, District Engineer, has said that we will most likely require the
signal as a condition of the permit.
As you are aware, we ar.e only at the sketch plan level and plan detail at this point is minimal.
We will have more detailed plans at the preliminary plan submittal.
If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
HIGH COI.INTRY ENGINEERING, INC.q@{W_
/oe D. HopeiP.E.
Project Manager
cc: Ron Heggemeier
(923 Cooper Avenue . Glenwood Springs,
Telephone: (970) 945-8676. FAX: (970)
co 81601
945-2555
T, t
(970) 94s-57O0
(970) 945-1253 Fax
$.O. Box 19O8
1OO5 Cooper Ave.
Glenwood Springs,' co 81602
August 7, 1997
Mr. Ronald Heggemeier
Roaring Fork lnvestments, L.L.C.
% Heggemeier & Stone, P.C.
19555 East Main Street, Suite 200
Parker, CO 80134-7374
Re: Rose Ranch - Water lnvestigations
Dear Mr. Heggemeier:
At your request, Zancanella and Associates, lnc. has conducted preliminary investigations
to evaluate the water resources available for the proposed Rose Ranch P.U.D. The Rose
Ranch is located along the Roaring Fork River south of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The
results of our investigation have been summarized in this letter report.
Water Demands
We understand that the Rose Ranch is proposed for the development of approximately 354
residential units and an 18 hote golf course. We have separated the water demands for the
development into two categories. The first is the "ln-House" or potable water supply for
domestic consumption. The potable system would be supplied either from wells constructed
on the property or through surface diversions from the Roaring Fork River. The second
category of the water supply is the "raw wated' system which will provide for the golf course's
irrigation and pond demands as well as a majority of the irrigation water demands for the
residential lqts, lt is assumed that the raw water supply would be physically supplied
through surface diversions from the Roaring Fork River through thE Robertson Ditch or
through the construction of a pump station along the river.
Table 1 below provides a break down of the proposed 354 residential units. For the
purposes of this investigation, we have converted the domestic water uses in this project to
EQRs (Equivalent Residential Units). ln this manner we can provide for a specific number
of EQRs for resource planning. The actual mix of residential uses of the EQRs can vary,
so long as the total number of EQRs provided for in the plan are not exceeded.
Errorrggnnc Cof{ guLrAtrts
Page -1-
ZarcaxELLA Attro Assoctarg, lrr(.
Table 1
Rose Ranch P.U.D. Water Requirements
Use # of units #EQRs/unit Lot Size EQRs
Single Family 138 1.5 20,000 ft2 274.5
Single Family 97 1.25 15,000 ft2 121.25
Single Family 52 1.0 9,000 ft2 52
Duplex 67 1.0 4500 ft2 67
Golf course
facilities
5
50 seat
restaurant & bar
10
Total 354 529.75
Use 550
As summarized in Table 1, the EQR's totaled 530 for the proposed 354 residential units and
golf course facilities. We have conservatively estimated the EQR's for the project to 550.
This should allow for minor reconfiguration of lot layout or commercial uses without affecting
the water supply plan.
The attached Table 2 presents the estimated water diversion requirements for the proposed
550 EQR development and golf course. We have assumed that each EQR will have 3.5
people, each using 100 gallons per person per day. ln house use water consumption was
assumed to be 5% of diversions. We have allotted for minimal outside uses (car washing,
landscaping, etc.)for each residential unit from the potable water system. We believe these
uses would be equivalent to 500 ft'z of irrigated area per EQR for a total area of 6.31 acres.
The raw water irrigation system residential demands were based on 6,000 ft2 of irrigated
area per EQR in addition to the 500 ft'? provided for from the potable system. The total
residential irrigated area was estimated to be 82.07 acres (550 EQRs x 6500 ft"/EQR *
43,560 tl2lacre).
As summarized in Table 2, the potable water diversion requirements (Columns 1 & 3) total
234.8 acre-feeUyear. Water consumed from the potable system (Columns 8 & 10)would
be approximately 24.2 acre feet per year. The irrigation consumption requirement for the
residential demands was estimated to be 2.13 acre-feeUacre and is distributed over the
growing season based on plant demands. The residential irrigation consumption from the
raw water system was estimated to be 161 .2 acre-feet (Column 9). Assuming an
application efficiency of 7Oo/o, the diversions would be approximately 23O.2 acre-feet.
Page -2-
For purposes of this evaluation, we have assumed that an 18 hole golf course will have
165 acres of irrigated tees, green, and fairways. We understand that the golf course to be
constructed on the Rose Ranch property will consist of 11 holes. The remaining 7 holes
will be utilized at the Westbank Golf Course. We have therefore estimated the golf course
irrigation demands to be 100 acres ( 165 acres x 1 1=18). Pond surface area for the golf
course was estimated to be 20 acres.
We have assumed that the golf season will be extended as much as possible to provide
as long a playing season as possible. Therefore, we have included water uses in March
and November for the 11 new holes to protect against curtailment during warmer weather
periods. The golf course inigation demand was estimated to be 2.34 acre-feeUacre. The
evaporation demand, assuming golf course ponds are to remain full, was estimated to be
2.ST acre-feet per acre. As summarized in Table 2, the consumptive demands for the golf
course totals 282.3 acre-feet per year (Columns 11 & 12). Golf course diversion
requirements, at a 7Oo/o irrigation application efficiency, totals 381.3 acre-feet per year
(Columns 4 & 5).
Avaitable Water Resources
The legal water supply for the proposed development will require that sufficient water
rights are in place to account for the proposed water uses at the property. We
recommend the development of a water rights augmentation plan by replacing
consumptive uses to the Roaring Fork River with historic consumptive use credits available
from rights at the property. Current augmentation requirements exceed the historic use
credits at the site in both magnitude and available timing. Additional water right
acquisitions will be required at the current demand levels. Available water right
altematives include contracting water though the West Divide Water Conservancy District
ancUor acquisition of consumptive credits from other water rights in the open market. Rose
ranch has acquired water rights in the Glenwood Ditch and may irrigate up to 134 acres
and use up to 276.g acre-feet of historic consumptive use. A number of alternatives exist
for acquiring additionalwater rights. A brief summary of a few of the available water right
alternatives are presented below.
Robertson Ditch lrrigation Water Rights
Historic use of these rights on the Rose Ranch can be credited towards new uses at the
property. The use of these rights will most likely be controlled by the area historically
irrigated, and additional limits typically are placed in court proceedings. The use of the
rights typically requires that additional burdens are not placed on the stream system above
those which existed historically. We have estimated the area irrigated by these rights to
be 98.7 acres.
Page -3-
Water Quality
Water samples were taken during the pump test from Rose Ranch Well #1 on May 8,
1gg7 and sent to Barringer Laboratories for an independent water quality analysis. The
Cotorado Department of Health (CDOH) requires that the water be tested for Semi Volatile
Organic Chemicals (SOC'S), Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOC'S) and lnorganic
Chemicals (lOC's) as welt as radioactive particles, a total of 190 separate tests in all. We
have only summarizedthose parameters which were above the detectable limit. Listed
below are the concentrations found in the samples and the maximum concentrations
permitted by the Colorado Department of Health.
Rose Well #1 Sample CDOH limits
Barium 0.03 mg/L 2.O mg/L
Fluoride 0.3 mg/L 4.0 mg/L
Sulfate 283.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L'
Nitrate/Nitrite 0.3 mg/L 10.0 mg/L
Sodium 8.0 mg/L 2O.O mg/L*
Total Dissolved Solids 654.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L*
specific conductivity 906.0 pmhlcm no official limit
Pentachlorophenol 0.10 pglL .001 mg/L
a micron pis 111000th of a milligram(mg)
" suggested maximum levels
The only test that did not pass the Colorado Department of Health maximum contaminant
levels was the test for Total Dissolved Solids. However, the Total Dissolved Solids
maximum contaminant level is a suggested maximum, not a mandatory maximum.
A sample was also taken and tested for gross alpha and gross beta. The Rose Well #1
has passed the tests for Radioactive materials according to the requirements of the
Colorado Department of Health Drinking Water Section and are summarized as follows:
Rose Well 1
Gross Alpha 3.3 pCi/l (t 4.3)
Gross Beta 0.5 pCi/l (t 3.2)
CDOH Limits
15 pCi/l if>10 test R226&UR
50 pCi/l
A particulate analysis was also performed which indicated that the water was a true ground
water supply and was not influenced by surface water. This may eliminate the potential
need for filtration. Simple chlorination may be adequate for developing a potable water
supply. A complete laboratory analysis will be provided with the preliminary plan submittal.
Page -5-
Summary
Table 3 summarizes the Rose Ranch consumptive use demands and the potential source
of historic consumptive use available to serve these needs.
Table 3
Rose Ranch Consumptive Water Demands
and Augmentation Replacement Sources
From Table 3 it can be seen that a water supply can be developed to serve the needs of
the Rose Ranch proposed development using a combination of Robertson Ditch,
Glenwood Ditch, and West Divide water rights to provide a "legal" water supply. Based
on this information and the physical availability of surface and ground water on the Rose
Ranch. lt is our opinion that an adequate supply can be developed to serve the proposed
Rose Ranch P.U.D.
::.:DOm:.:&
::::::]:::::::::]:']::.::::::::::
:iicOmm,
:l:'::,:.I;aWO:I
:::::i:::]::::::::1:::l::i:::]i::::
.:'i.,:,::,..lrr!:::::l:
::,::::':Acfi::::
.:.:::i..GOtf .,i.::::;:.
::rCour,$g::l
:.:::::.:.,,1$U,.i,.::::t:
:.i.i.:Ae+t:...:.'
, ': l:,,': ']: ] ]: ]
:::::: :
j
: :
:
: l : ] ] , ] :::: :
: : :
: :
j ]::
.,GlEni.l.
.,l4r0Od..
i:,DitCh..
,AC-Ft
Jan 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Feb 0.8 0.2 1.0 1.0 1.0
Mar 0.9 9.0 2.5 12.4 12.4 '12.4
Apr 0.9 0.6 7.1 9.0 5.0 22.6 9.2 13.4 22.6
May 0.9 2.5 30.1 40.0 6.8 80.3 38.9 41.4 80.3
June 0.9 3.1 37.3 49.0 9.4 99.7 48.2 51.5 99.7
July 0.9 3.0 35.7 47.0 9.7 96.3 46.1 50.2 96.3
Aug 0.9 2.0 23.s 31.0 8.7 66.1 30.3 35.8 66.1
Sept 0.9 1.7 19.9 26.0 5.6 54.1 25.8 28.3 54.1
Oct 0.9 0.6 7.4 10.0 3.1 22.0 9.6 12.4 22.0
Nov 0.9 10.0 0.3 11.2 11.2 11.2
Dec 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Total tu./15.161.0 231.0 51.3 467.5 206."1 219.O 39.U 467.5
Page -6-
Table 2
Rose Ranch Water Use Requirements
Water Use Iater Use
Domestic Demands RqwlVater lrrigation ll Other Denrands
354+ Resrdences 550.0 EORs
# persons/residence 3.5 cap/EQRs
# gallons/person/day 100 gpcd
Percent Consumed 5%
Lawn lrrigation 500 sq-fl/EQRs
Applicatlon Efficlency TO0A
Crop lnig reqmnt (ClR) 2.13 n
Lawn lrngatron 6000 sq-ruEQR
Appllcation Efliciency T1olo
Crop lrrig reqmnt (ClR) 2.13 fr
Domestlc lrrigatlon 6.31 Acres
Raw Water lrrlgatlon 75.76 Acres
Subtotal 82.07 Acres
aond Surtace Area 20.00 acres
Annual Net Evaporation 2.57 ft
3olf Course lnigated Area 100.00 acres
\pplication Efficiency 70oh
3rop lrrig reqmnt (ClR) 2.31 n
Water Use Calculations
Month
Diversion Requirements Consumptive Usc
(1)
DorVComm
Potable
ln-house
-EqQ_
tzt
Dom\Comm
Raw Waler
lrrigation
lac-ft1
(3)
Dom\Comm
Potable
"Outslde"
_tar-ftI_
(4)
Golf Course
lrrigation
_(aJ-ftL
(5)
Pond
Evap.
(ac-ftl
(6)
Total
(ac-ft)
t7l
Average
Flow
(gpq)_
(8)
Dom/Comm
Potable
ln-house
(ac-ft)
(s)
Dom\Comm
Raw Water
lrrigation
(ac-ft)
(r u)
Dom\Comm
Potable
"Outside'
(ac-ft)
('l 1)
Golf Course
lrrigation
(ac-ft)
(1 2)
Pond
Evap.
(ac-ft)
(13)
Total
lac-ft)
(14)
Average
Flow
loomlJ9PlLlt_
January '1 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 133.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 6.7February16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 16.8 135.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.2 1.1 8.5March18.3 nn 0.0 12.9 2.5 33.6 245.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 9.0 2.5 12.4 90.3April17.7 10.2 0.8 12.9 5.0 46.6 351.8 0.9 7.1 0.6 9.0 5.0 22.6 170.7May18.3 43.0 3.6 57.1 6.8 128.9 940.8 0.9 30.1 2.5 40.0 6.8 80.4 586.6June17.7 53.3 4.4 70.0 9.4 154.8 1 167.8 0.9 37.3 3.1 49.0 9.4 99.7 751 .8
J uly 18.3 51.0 4.3 67.1 9.7 150.4 1097.8 0.9 35.7 3.0 47.4 9.7 96.3 702.8Au0ust18.3 33.5 2.8 44.3 8.7 107.6 785.4 0.9 23.5 2.O 31.0 8.7 66.0 4tl't.9ScptemDer- ocibbei---Novembei"
-DecembCi-
17.7 28.5 2.4 37.1 5.6 91 .3 688.9 0.9 19.9 1.7 26.0 5.6 54.1 408 1
18.3 10,6 0.9 14.3 3.1 47.3 344.9 0.9 7.4 0.6 10.0 3.1 22.1 161 .4
17.7 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.3 32.3 243.9 09 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.3 11 2 84.6
18 3 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 '18.3 133.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 09 6.7
Annual 21 5.6 230-2 1_s.2 330.0 51 3 846,4 522.1 10.8 161-2 13.4 23't.0 51.3 67 288-3
07-Au0-97
Zancrnella & Assoc., lnc.
Wrlor Rosourr:ss Englnoers
Glenwood Springs. CO
08107197 11:42 AM EOR.TABl WK4