HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Staff Report PC 08.06.07ExhiLrits for the PUD Zone District and Preliminary Plan: Rapids on the Colorado
Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing: 816107
A Mail Receipts
B Proof of Publication
C Garfield County ZnrungResolution of 1978, as amended
D Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
F Town of New Castle Comprehensive Plan
G staff Report
H Application for the PUD
I Aoolication for the Preliminarv Plan
J Letter from Town of New Castle, dated July 10, 2006
K Email from Colorado Department of Health & Environment dated July 10, 2006
L l.etter from Colorado Department of Water Resources dated July 6, 2006
M Irtter from Colorado Department of Natural Resources date June 30, 2006
N Email from GarCo Road and Bridee dated June 16, 2006
o Email from GarCo Vegetation dated July 13, 2006
P Email from GarCo Health dated June 28, 2006
o Letter from Resource Engineering dated July 11,2006
R Staff Report for a domestic wastewater treatment facility dated May 16,20o,4
S Applicant' s Power Point Presentation
T Aoolicant' s Power Point Presentation
U Pictures
v lrtter from John Olson dated 815106
w Comprehensive Plan Drawings
x Pictures
$$$tW;i#*# ffiillffi$S:iiiiilfr i$l$ttl$ilti,ti.,ffi i$|:t
Y Review Letter from Resource Ensineerine dated 1111106
Z Review memo from the County Road and Bridee Department dated 10113106
AA Minutes from the 819106 Plannins Commission Meeting
BB Memo from the Countv Vesetation Manaser dated 10131106
CC Review Letter from CGS dated 10120106
DT)l.etter from Leavenworth & Kam dated 10109106
EE lrtter from the Burning Mountain Fire District dated lll7106
FF Email from CDOT dated 11108106
GG lrtter from the DWR dated 1116106
HH Letter from Brad Mollman dated 11/08/06
II lrtter from L&K dated 12120106 and well permits
JJ Email from Crais Lis (DWR dated ll03l07)
KK l.etter from Leavenworth & Karp dated 12120106
JJ Email from Craig Lis (DWR ll03l07)
KK Applicant color rendition of plan
LL Applicant' s Powemoint Presentation
MM l-etter from I arry and Virginia Schmueser dated 12121106
NN ktter from Lynn and Pat Dwyer
oo ILC indicating well / WWTF separation
PP Photos showine wildlife use of propertyl2l25l06
oo Leavenworth & Kam WWTF vs Well plan
RR Maooins from Mr. Hayes
SS Minutes from the lll0l07 PC Public Hearing
TT I-etter from Resource Engineering dated 7ll3l07
UU lrtter from US AGBank dated 5l2ll07wIrtter from the Town of New Castle Trustees dated 7ll7l07
ww I-etterfrom the DWR dated 210612007
| .' ;, ,.,' .'
ffiii:':'r'" - .
BOCC
o8to6t07
APPLICATION
owNER(S)
REPRESENTATIVE
ENGINEER
ATTORNEY
LOCATION
WATER
SEWER
SIZE
EXISTING ZONING
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Planned Unit Development (PUD) & Preliminary Plan
forthe "Rapids on the Colorado PUD"
Rapids Development Gorporation,
The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners
Association, Gene R. Hilton and Mary Jo Hilton
Gene Hilton
Mountain Cross Engineering
Leavenworth and Karp, PC
One Mile West of New Castle on CR 335
Wells to serve a Central Water System
Package Treatment Plant - Central Sewer
121.48 Acres
A/l and A/F/F/D
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
The Applicant is requesting to rezone the subject parcelfrom Al and ARRD to PUD
to allow greater flexibility and provide a more creative subdivision for greater
density. The property is presently zoned ARRD and Al and has been subdivided
into 33 residential lots with four single-family dwellings constructed in the
development served by an existing central water supply system and ISDS.
The proposal is for 1 04 single-family Iots on 121 .48 total acres, the acreage for the
actua! residential lots is 28.201. The PUD also proposes land dedicated to open
space, recreation trails, fisherman's access and infrastructure adequate to provide
utilities to the development. Open space for the project will consist of 66olo of the
development. Additional public access to the Colorado River will be provided.
II. LAND USE REOUESTS
The Application consists of a combined request for PUD approval as well as
Preliminary Plan approval. More specifically,
1) Rezone the property to Planned Unit Development (PUD)
The Applicant proposes to rezone the property from its current zoning of
A/F/RD and A/lto PUD in orderto modifythe dimensional requirements and
uses of the zone districl for the subject site.
2) Preliminary Plan
The Applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 104 lots for the
construction of single-family dwellings and leave the remainder of the
property to be devoted to open space and infrastructure. The property is
broken down into the following land use areas:
104 Residential Lots (Total area
Gommon Open Space
) Pond / trail system
III. REFERRAL AGENCIES
Staff referred the Application to the following State agencies and/or County
Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are briefly
mentioned below or are more comprehensively incorporated within the appropriate
section of this statf report.
A. Town of New Castle: Exhibits J and W
B. Town of Silt: No Comments
C. Burning Mountain Fire District: No Comments
D. RE-2 School District: No Comments
E. Colorado Department of Transportation: No Comments
F. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments
G. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: Exhibit K
H..Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit L
l. Colorado Department of Natural Resources: Exhibit M
J. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: Exhibits N and Z
K. Garfield County Vegetation: Exhibits O and BB
L. Garfield County Health: Exhibit P
M. Resource Engineering lnc.: Exhibits Q,Y, and TT
N. Colorado Geologic Survey: Exhibit CC
IV. STAFF COMMENTS FOR THE REZONE (FROM ARRD AND AI) TO PUD
The following section presents the required review standards and criteria used to
determine the proposed development's compliance with Garfield County Planned
Unit Development regulations. The applicable standards are in bold and italicized
text followed by a Statf response.
4.(M CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTER|COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
No PllD shall be approued unless it'r_s found bythe Coynty CommissionerstoNO PUD $nail be aDProved Unte9,{t tt,SlOUnd Ovtne UOUnry lrommrastoners
be in general coiformity with the County's frllaster/Coniprehgns-ive.P)an6
wnen appropnate, an a
Master/Combrehensive
>oiform itrt with the Cou ntv's frll aster/Co niprehensive pl a n(s).
iate. an abotication for an'amendment to lhe Gartield-Couiriy
zhensive'Ftan mav be made as oart of a PUD application. AivWhen a
Master/dombrehensive'Plan may be made as part of a PUD application. Aryyaoolication lor MasterlComprehensive Plan amendment must fu approvec, bythl Plannino Commissioin. orior to its recommendation oi -the PUD
application for MasterlComprehensive Plan amenclment must De appr.oveq Dl
thb Ttaqning Commissioin, prior lo its recomm.endation 9?
-l!e PUD
aoolication.-and mav oc6ui at the same meeting. Applications for
Compreheisive Plan {mendryepl qhall include justificaiion foithe.amendme,nt
baida ipoi criteria for establishing land use'designations contained in thebasecl uoon criterta tor egtak
Master/Com prehensi ve P I a n.
Staff Findinq
Section 4.04 ol the Garfield County Zoning Regulations states "no PUD shall be
approved unless it is found to be in general conformity with the County's Master /
Comprehensive Plan." The property is located in Study Area 2 as identified in the
County's Comprehensive Plan of 2000. In this case, the property also happens to
be located within the "Area of Urban lnfluence" for New Castle. Therefore, in
addition to reviewing the County's policies and goals, the County also looks to the
New Castle's master plan for guidance of appropriate future land use in that area'
A. Town of New Castle's Master Ptan
This area is identified in the Town of New Castle's Comprehensive plan as Ctuster
Low Density Residential (CLDR)which is more specifically defined asthefollowing:
1) Cluster Low DensiV Residentiat: I dwelling unit per acre;
U.ses; Clusters of 5 to 10 dwelling units with open space or irrigated
pasture; and
Purpose: To provide for suburban type development while maintaining
open space for preservation of natural views, wildlife habitat, paatures
or the like.
Staff Response
Staff finds the proposed density in the development (1.16 acres / dwelling unit) is
actually lower than the density criteria of one dwelling unit per acre and therefore
meets the Town's criteria for density. Additionally, it appears the proposal attempts
to achieve a cluster design where there is some clustering of lots into pods
surrounded by open space. Staff finds better clustering could be better achieved by
reducing the number of lots and their respective lot sizes to achieve more open
space.
From a site planning perspective, the very intent of "clustering" is to allow for small
lot sizes in order to reduce the overall development footprint on a property to
preserue valuable features of the property while possibly reducing infrastructure
costs. A good example of this type of design is that of Blue Creek Ranch approved
by the County in 2002.
The 1-acre per lot density is a maximum density and not a development right. !t
would appear that a reduction in density may allow for more defined "clustering" to
occur on the property that would achieve its intent. Staff finds the proposed design
is essentially one large group of lots circled around a pond and does not meet the
"cluste/' intent of the master plan. Lastly, the purpose of the Cluster Low Density
Residential designation is to provide for "suburban type development while
maintaining open space for preservation of naturalviews, wildlife habitat, pastures
or the like."
Ultimately, Staff finds the design, while "a bit crowded", could be considered in the
ambit of the Town of New Castle's Comprehensive Plan where poilions of the lots
are in pods of 5 to 10 units and wildlife habitat is protected along the undeveloped
riparian areas along the Coloardo River; however, Staff continues to asseft the
design is not a cluster design. Otherwise, Statf finds the PUD Application is in
2)
3)
general conformity with the Town of New Castle's Master Plan.
B. Garfield Countv gomprehensive Plan of 2000
As mentioned earlier, the property is presently designated as "Subdivision" on the
Proposed Land Use District Map as a result of the BOCC's approval of the 33-!ot
subdivision. Prior to that, the designation was "privately owned lands with site
specific use Iimitations such as floodplain, slope hazard, septic constraints to be
evaluated at plan review." ln this case, the primary considerations include floodplain
and minor/ benign debris flow as identified bythe Colorado Geologic Survey which
have both been mitigated forthrough the site design.
During an initialreview, theTown of NewCastle (hereinafter, theTown)entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Applicant which ultimately stated
the proposal is in "substantial compliance" with the Town's Comprehensive Plan
except for the originally proposed density of 121 lots. The Town stated it would
support the application so long as the developer provided the following:
A public trail with several access points to the river;
Perpetual preservation of the open space tract on the south side of CR
335;
That any required road impacts fees be spent directly on CR 335 if so
agreed by the County; and
Oversize the location to handle a future increase in the wastewater
treatment plant to accommodate Apple Tree Mobile Home Park and the
100 acres next to the development which all requires approval by
CDPHE.
Staff finds that the Memorandum of Understanding between the Applicant and
the Town formally establishes that the Town agrees that the proposed
development is in substantialcompliance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan
so long as the conditions briefly mentioned above were met by the developer.
However, that MOU expired and Staff referredthe revised 104 development plan
to the Town which provided the following comments:
After careful consideration of the comments provided by the applicant, the public, and town
staff, the New Castle Town Council takes no position on the zone district amendment and
prelimlnary plan application for the Rapids PUD. If, however, the Board of County
Commissioners chooses to approve the application, the Town of New Castle strongly
recommends that the following condltlons be included:
1)
2)
3)
4\
1. Road impact fees to be Baid by the Rapids project shall be applied to improvements on
County Road 335 based upon recommendations from the engineers represenflng Raplds
PUD, New Castle and Garfield County,
2. The Garfield County Board of Commissioners, recognizing the impact of traffic that this
pro1ect wllt create on the interstate 70 interchange at New Castle, agrees to join the Town of
New Castle in its efforts to improve the capaclty of thls interchange.
3. The applicant is encouraged to explore the concept of regional rural wastewater featmeflt
plannlng to address the needs of the property in proximl$ to this development.
4. Public access and parklng shall be provided to the Colorado River for noncommercial
recreationat uses, and the Applicant shall construct a public trail along the length of the river
frontage.
5. The land owned by the Applicant south of County Road 335 shall be r€tained as
undeveloped open space.
6. The Rapids project shall include a variety of housing types (not just single'family) to
address affordable housing needs in Garfield County, to comply wlth the County
Comprehenslve Plan housing policies and to promote clustering of the lots/unlts thereby,
supporting open space in the development deslgn.
7, A landscaping plan should be included ln order to mitigate the visual impacts caused by
this development, lncluding how the development is viewed from Interstate 70, GArReld
County should adopt a requirement to include landscaping plans as part of a subdivision
application,
The Town of New Castle appreciates the opportunlty to provide input on this project. Because
it is within our planning area, it will create impacts to cur communlty. The proposed
condltlons outlined above are an atternpt to help mitigate those impacts. The Town values
the cooperative relationship with Garfield County on land use applications wlthin our plannlng
area and sees lt as a beneflt for both municipal and county residents.
The Board is being asked bythe Town of New Castle to conternplate a variety of
issues in their letter regarding this developlreht; Ultimately, the Board will need
to make a finding that the PUD is in general conformance with the goals,
policies and objectives of the County's Comprehensive Plan for development in
the Area of Urban lnfluence. Statf finds the following goals and policies have not
been met by this PUD:
Regarding other Goals, Objectives and Policies of the County's Comprehensive
Plan, the proposal appears to be in conflict with the following Goals, Objectives,
and Policies:
10.2 Development that requires urban Services wilt be encouraged to
locate in areas where these seruices are available.
Staff Findino
This is an objective whose purpose is to further the concept of "concurrency
planning" where growth should only occur in areas where urban (municipal or
Special District) services already exist. ln this case, the Applicant proposes
private centralwater and sewer seruices which are of an urban design but are a
private system and not contemplated by growth pattern projections of a
municipality or boundaries of a district. lf this objective intended to allow private
systems, it would renderthis objective meaningless. The development of private
water / sewer systems is in direct conflict with this objective.
10.5 Retain rural character outside of community limits.
Statf Findino
Arguably, the "rural charactef' of the subject property has already been lost to
the development approvals already provided by the BOCC to develop the
property into 33 homesites. Nonetheless, the property will certainly become less
rural with the increase in density from 33 units to 104 units.
2.0 Encourage a mix of housing types within a development
Staff Findinq
The proposal includes 104 uniform single-family dwelling lots. Therejs no variety
of housing types throughout the development contrary to this goal. The lack of a
variety of housing types is also a requirement for a PUD which has not been
met.
7.5 Garfietd County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private
water and sewer systems.
Staff Finding
Similar to objective 10.2 above, this proposed PUD is inconsistent with this
objective because the PUD proposes a private water and sewer system. In this
case, however, the BOCC already approved a central water.system for the
existing 33 lot subdivision which has been constructed. The BOCC also
recommended approval of the Site,Plan Application forthe wastewatertreatment
plant to the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE).
Staff would add that the present 33 lot subdivision has the ability / approva! to
install 33 ISDS immediately adjacent to the Colorado River. From an
environmental health perspective, a central sewer system appears to be more
sensitive to the natural environment that 33 ISDS on the Colorado River.
Visual Corridor
The property is located with the "Visual Corrido/'which is based on significant
view-sheds or natural features, distance from a major travel corridor, and
topographic conditions that define sight distance from a major roadway. ln this
way (and as recognized by the Plan by placing land use value on visual
corridors), l-70 serues as a linear gateway to the rest of the County and it
provides visitors to Garfield County with their first impression. This impression
also assumes the rest of the County is treated in the same manner regarding
appropriate land use or associated mitigation of land uses. An unmitigated or
inappropriate land use only detracts from the natural assets / resources of the
County.
2.0 Housing Goals
To provide all types of housing that ensures curent and future
residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to
provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with
and that protect the natural environment.
Encourage mix of housing UWs within a development.
2.0 Housing Objectives
2.1 To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable costto
residents throughout Gartield County.
2.3 Residential development should be designed and located to ensurc
compatibility with existing and future adiacent development.
2.5 Residentiat devetopment shou ld respect the natural characteristics
of a particular site, including topography, vegetation, water features,
geotogy and visual relationships with surrounding land uses and view
sheds.
From a much larger perspective, the Gounty Planning Commission and Staff
gendrally encourage higher residential densities as well as commercial
development to locate as near to the County's municipalities as possible rather.
than create small "residentialvillage enclaves" in the rural parts of the County. lt
is in this way that the residents can more easily take advantage of the existing
services offered from those municipalities which reduces impact to the County
road system and places services in more practical reach of those seeking more
affordable living arrangements and an increased opportunityto take advantage
of an expanding mass transit corridor.
As a result, Staff finds the proposal to be in general conformitywith the County's
Master / Comprehensive Plan as specifically located within the Area of Urban
tnfluence as well as be in general conformity with the Town of New Castle's
Master Plan with the exceptions noted above.
4.05.02 lt is recoqnized that the uniqueness of each proposal for a PUD
ieqgtires inaif tne specificatidns, standa-rds_ and iequirements for
vanous facilities, iicluding but'not limited to, sJrgbts, highways,
alleys, utilities, iurbs, gut{ers, sidewalks_, street lights, park2, play-.
orounds. school qrounds, storm drainage, water suPply ancl-distribuiion, and seTrage collection and treafment, mav be subiectto
modification from the-specifications, standards, and lequirementses-E6i6lfrfin the Subdivision Resuldtions of Gafield Coinfifor like
uses in other zone districts. TheCounty Commissioners m?!, a!the
time of zonins as a PatD, waive of modify the specifidati.ons,
iiandards and-requirementi which would be o{herwise-applicable, as
reauested bv the applicant. Anv waiver or modffication of
iiScmcatioils, standa'rils and requirdments will only be approved it it
iin- Oe aemoistrated that the pr'oposed waiver(s) fs.conbistent.with
"best engineeriqg practices," as necommenclecl by an engrne,er
retained by the County.
Staff Findinq
TEe UaffioOifications from the ARRD and Al zoning and subdivision regulations
requested as part of the proposed PUD include the following matrix:
Minimum Lot Area
lnternal Road ROW Width
Note: The average Iot size proposed is a 140'x 75' lot (10,500 sq. ft. or a bit less
than a Vq acre lot) but the Applicant does not show lot sizes or dimensions on the
proposed plat as well as requests a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. ft. which is typica!
of an urban city lot in the County's Residential Limited Urban Density zone district
found only adjacent to municipalities. Statf has included the specifics in the matrix
above for your review.
Ultimately, Staff finds the significant ditferences to be buitding height and
maximum tot coverage. Statf suggests the Planning Gommission approve the
dimensions as indicted in the RLUD zone district which requires a maximum height
of 25 feet and maximum lot coverage of 35%". During the Planning Commission
hearing, the Applicant offered to reduce the building height from 35' to 25' for the
lots nearest the Collins property to mitigate view issues. Staff continues to suggest
that the max height in an already crowded PUD remain at the standard 25 feet and
then require that the lots nearest the Collins property be deed-restricted to single-
story structures or 20 feet as measured by the County.
4.07 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
4.O7.Og The PllD shatt meet the following site plan criteri-a unless theAiitXiit iii aCmonstrate that o-ne (1) or more of them is not
dfpiicaOle oi that a practical solution fiai been othenrise achieved:
fil The PUD shatl have an appropriate relationship to' ' surro.rndinq area, with unreaicinable adverse effects on
su rro u ndi n-g area bei ng mi n i m ized.
the
the
Staff Findinq
TEeirig-inal nature of the property consisted of pasture/ agriculture lands and
containi the Colorado River forming the north property line. The surrounding area in
which the PUD is proposed consists of a mix of vacant, low density / large lot
residential property, vacant pasture lands to the west, and significant commercial
uses acrosi tfre Colorado River in the Rippy Exemption directly north and west of
the property.
This PUD application proposes a high-density residentia! re-developmentwhich will
be highly visible from CR 335 and from l-70 and significantly denser than its
surrounding properties. The traffic generated from this site will place approximately
1078 new daily trips on County Road 335 and the development of any vacant
ground has the impact of displacing unpressured wildlife that presently uses the
property.
The nearest similar residential land use (in terms of density) is located
approximately 1-mile to the east nearer to New Castle on CR 335 which is Apple
Tree and Mountain Shadows Subdivision. (Note, the property is approved for a
subdivision for 33 units.) Because the area of the property to be developed is a
former pasture which is flat and basically devoid of mature vegetation, any
development will be highly visible from CR 335 and l-70. This standard requires_the
Applicant to "minimize unreasonable adverse impacts to the surrounding area". Statf
would suggest that the main impacts from this development include the following:
A. Traffic Impacts to CR 335 & l-70 lnterchange
B. Visual lmpact from 104 Single-family dwelling units
C. Location of the wastewater treatment facility and its impact of the
westerly neighboring property; and
D. lmpact to wildlife (deer / elk) accessing the river through this propefty
(2) The PltD sQall provide an adequate internal street circulation' ' sysiem designed for the typd of .traffic generated, 1a!ety,separation fr-om livinq areas,- bonvenience and access. Private
iniernal streets mav Ee permitted, provided that adequate access
for police and fire frotebtion is mhintained, .Bicyc.le tiaffic shall tu
prcivided for when the site is used for residential purposes.
Staff Findino
Th-;proposed internal street configuration will basically use the existing main road
system already constructed forthe existing subdivision while adding 6 stubbed cul-
10
de-sacs to serve the additional units. The road network does provide for two
possible ingress / egress points which is a benefit to future residents from a safety
perspective. Note, the Applicant (via the flexibility in a PUD) requests a narrower
ioad right-of-way (ROW) from 60'to 50'which can only be granted by the BOCC.
The streets are proposed to be owned and maintained bythe HOA but dedicatedto
the public and are not to be private. The design includes a trailsystem through the
development but does not propose to make any formal improvements to the river
frontage area. The Application does not propose a separated bike path forcyclists.
Hl The PllD shalt provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of' ' location. area ind tvoe of the Conimon Open Space, and in terms
of ine uses permitied in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for
optimum preseruation of the natural features of the terrain.
Staff Findinq
TFe proposafprovides for approximately 66% or almost 80 acres of the property to
be placed into open space. This standard has been met.
(5) The PllD shalt provide for variety in_housing types and densities,' ' other faciliii&'and Common Ofrn Space. -
Staff Findinq
Th-;proposed plan does not provide for a variety of housing types or densities. lt
simply proposes one generic lot size and one overall density. The Application states
"the design of the single-family units will include a variation of sizes and price
ranges." Does this mean the Applicant wil! do this? Does this mean there will be
covenants that require certain lots to have a minimum FAR?
As the Applicant is aware, varying house types include multi-family units that have
the effect of providing a more atfordable unit type. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a
technique that could paftially address this issue. Staff acknowledges that no
regulatory affordable housing is required because the property is located in Study
Area2. However, it does not mean that this standard does not apply. FAR, deed
restrictions, etc., are just a few techniques to allow for reduced house sizes that
create different sizes of houses. At present, this standard has not been met. This is
also supported by the Comprehensive Plan component on housing which has also
not been met. Statf suggests the PUD be redesigned to incorporate duplex and
multi-family units.
During the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant committed to deed
restricting 6 lots at Final Plat to have a maximum of two bedrooms / bath / two car
garage to meet this criterion. Staff finds this to be inadequate and does not address
the issue of varying densities within the PUD as the criterion requires. As a result,
this criterion has not been met.
(6) The PtlD shalt provide adequate privacy between dwelling units.
Staff FindinqThe site plan does provide for some privacy between units by the use of the
residential pods that back up to open space using a cul-de-sac design; however,
due to the small lot size (average 1O,5OO sq. ft.) there will be houses that are very
close together. An example can be seen by the design where the Applicant
proposei to construct a house between each of the four existing houses on the
property today.
(7) The PllD shatl provide pedestrian ways adequate in terms' ' safettt, separation, convenience, anct access to porn75
destfiiatioi and altractiveness.
of
of
Slaff Findins
Th=AFFiication proposes sidewalks and trails throughout the development as well
as a public parking iot with access to the Colorado River and a public fisherman's
easement. Staff suggests, as is consistent with all other development, that these
improvements be completed as part of the obligations of the SIA and not passed on
to whenever a "CO" is issued. The sidewalks are an amenity to be valuated and
enjoyed by the very first resident in the development similar to all other public
imprbvements suclt as the roads, trails, and open space. This standard has been
met.
$l lf centralized water anilor wastewater facitities are pr-oposed' ' within the PllD, thev shall be provided for in a separate trtifily zone-
districtthat sheil contain its 6wn pertormance standarcls. No land
yI::*zy,::o'y,:,geil"n"'z',"'lzll;rg#,':{"'d#'ii"f "yo:i-&ionsiiiti how Common water dnd wastewater facilities will be
controfiea or governed by the future owners within the PUD.
Staff FindinE
Tffiae-veloperproposes centralized waterand wastewaterfacilitieswithinthe PUD.
Regarding ihe central water supply, the development proposes to 99rve the 104 lots
w1i a centralized water supply from two wells and a 150,000 gallon storage tank
which is already in place. The development has been reviewed by the Division of
Water Resources which has issued a letter stating the system is physically
adequate and will not result in Material lnjury to decreed water rights so long as the
Applicant maintains valid well permits. The Applicant obtained a water contract from
West Divide Water Conservancy District for the augmentation water which was
reviewed by the State Engineer.
Regarding waste water, the Applicant proposesto construct a wastewatertreatment
tacility (WWTF) on the property. The BOCC already reviewed the proposed system
and recommended CDPHE approve the Site Application. However, CDPHE willnot
approve the system until localgovernment (Garfield County) approve the zoning for
tne property. Should the pUD be approved, Statf suggests that a condition of
appioval foi the Preliminary Plan be that no Final Plat shall be approved until the
system has been approved by CDPHE. Staff also points out, the MOU between the
L2
Applicant and the Town of New Castle specifically requires that the location of the
WW.1f have adequate space to upgrade the facility so that it may be able to also
serve Apple Tree Mobile Home Park and nearby development. This would require a
revised Site Application to be reviewed by local government. Both water and
wastewater systems will be owned and managed by the HOA.
(g) Any disturbance of slopes in excess of 40o/o, g.ltall bethe-minimum
neces-iii to meet the iievetopment needs, tirith a revege.t4tion and
geiteiirtCit ptai iuOiitted'with the PllD applicatiory 6. 97'1Og)
Stafi Findinq
ffie su[jffiite to be developed is primarily flat and does not contain slopes in
excess ol OYo.As a result, the proposed development will not disturb any slopes in
excess ol 407o. Staff finds this standard is met.
nol ff communitn facilities are proposed to be contained or allowed'--'ii tile p0O. itie aiptication iha[l discuss who or what entity shall-
be iesponiliOtetoitne provision of and paymentlorthe proposed-
iacilities. The faciliticis shall also be ihcfuded within the overall
common infrastructure requirements of the PUD, to includewater,
wastewater and parking requirements. (A. 97-109)
Staff Findinq
ffie-A-pplication proposes to develop a number of amenities in the PUD. Some of
which are intend-eO to be privately owned and used exclusively by the residents of
the PUD and others are to be used by the public. These are as follows:
Amenities for use bv the Public:
el!intentionedbutthereremainsthequestionof
what entity will accept their dedication which would also require on-going
maintenance as well as the question of liability insurance. The Applicant continues
to propose the County take these amenities on behalf of the public. The Board will
need to specifically discuss this issue.
1) Public Trail (along CR 335)
2) Public fishermanis easement (along the entire Colorado River Frontage)
3) Public Parking Area (Next to the WWTF)
Amenities for private use bv the residents within the PUD:
MnillueconstructedbytheApplicantandsecuredasparof
the SIA and owned and maintained by the HOA.
1) Basketball courts
2) Tot !ot,
3) Play lballfield
Otherwise, this standard has been met.
t3
4,07.04 The maximum height of buitdings may be increased a.bove the- -iixiiiil--ieimiiia toi tixe buildings'in other zone.listricts in-i6iiii6i io {ie toitoiing characteristids of the proposed building:
It's geographical location;- ndir-oO[Oli Cffect on 'surrounding slopes and mountainous
terrain;--iiieZsonable adverse visual effect on adiacent sites or other
areas in the immediate viciniV;-poliiiial ir66iCmiioi adiacditsites caused by shadows, loss of
air cireuldtion or loss of iiew;
tittuence on the general viciiitY, with regard to extreme contrast,
vistas and open space: and
Uses withii the fropdsed building.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Staff Findino
The Applicant proposes the maximum height of all buildings throughout the PUD to
be 32ieet tall which is inconsistent with the underlying zone district of A/A/RD and
A!. Additiona!!y, the Applicant does not justitythe increased height as required in the
above requirement. Statf finds the height should be reduced to 25 feet to be more
consisteni with atthe residential heights in the surrounding area the zone districts.
Staff finds that an increase in height to 32 feet will substantially adversely affect the
Gollins propeily immediately to the east and therefore does not meet (3)
llnreasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent sffes or other areas in the
immediate vicinity.
4.07.05 The minimum lot areas and the minimum setback restrictions may b.
diirCaCed betow and the maximum lot coverage may be increased
;-b;n;ihose- ipplicabte to tike buildings in other z6ne districts to
accommoaiteEAciiic buitding tvpes uiith unusual orientation on the
toioi iCiitioiiiii betw;en buildligs. The averaging of lot areas shall
Oi periiied 1o proviag flexibility-in (esign anil to relate lot size to
topoqraiii, ouieaci tot shalt dontain afi acceptable building site..
fhe dtuiteTinq of developmentwith useable common open areas shall
be permittedto encouiage provision fo-r, ary! access -to, eommon
olen ariii incl to sive' street and' utility construction and
iiinteiinCe costs. Such clustering is also intendedto accommodate
contempoiiry building types whidh are_not spaced individ.ually 9ntheir otvn lots but share common sicte walls, comDrned serurce
iiiiinies oi iimiiai aicnitecturai innovations, wh6ther or not providing-
for separate ownership of land and buildings. Architectyral-styl9-9!
build'ngs shall not be a basis lor denying approval of a PUD
applicition.
Staff Findinq
Es notefif-e PUD proposes to significantly increase maximum lot coverage from
15"/"to 50% and significantly reduce minimum lot area from two acres to 7,500 sq.
ft. However, again, there is no justification as required by the standard set forth
above. Regarding the l'clustef' design, tttis standard envisions accommodatlng
'contempoiary UuilOing types which are not spaced individuallv on their own lots but
- - -: ^:-^:t-- --^t-:l--r..-^l
innovations, whether or not providing for separate ownership of land and buildings.
This standard has not been met.
t4
4.O7.OO The overall residential density shatt De lo greater than two.(2)
dwellina units per qross acre within the PUD; provided, however, tnat-
the Cointy Ccimmissioners may allow an increase to a maximum ot
iltte;;liil aweiiiiginits per gioss acre.iT areas w.hgre,pullic water
and sewco,"o,",!,"t*rf,-:i:yizi,::i8i'iiJ.:,i:li;xyiii%lti\i?i!Tillreaditv available 'and the pribr zoning classification allowed
residintial densities greater than two (2)-dryelling ynils per gross
acre, such densities 6eing.detgrmine! by reference to the maximum
tot ibverise, m'fimni sdtback, maximim floor area.ratio, maximum
buitdino hdiant and parking standards of such prior zontng
classificatiot The ovbrall a=verage residential lenqtfi--shall be
Circuiaied-hi sinmin_q
-the numher of residential dwblling unils.
paniea wiitiin the boindary of the.PUD.and dividing by,the totat
oross area- eipieised in a'cres within the boundai of-the PUD.
Tiiihiini ii{ traisierrinq ol densities within the- PUD shall be
llly,x,ir:t;ilsxlfl ,i!;:,t!x,r:yf,;:,'!lzni{iii"frzaHli
;;fi;n;-i;iqh-iafiEai4s oi disign and tivabitity. The density 9f
dwelting u-nib in any particulaT area mav be areater than the
max,^umn6imiiieai1r;lii;nse ii otner zSne diitrict. (A. 83-93, A.
edi7, A. dz-toe)
Siaff Findinq
ffie-peny is approximately 121 acres in size. The current zoning of A/R/RD
allows for a-density of 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. The Applicant proposes 104
residential lots whiih results in a density of approximately 0.86 dwelling units per
acre which does not exceed the PUD requirements and is also consistent with the
Town of New Castle Master Plan of 1 acre per dwelling unit.
4.07.07 The minimum number of acres that may comprise a PllD is two (2)
acres.
Staff Findinq
m-s@-property contains 121 acres which far exceeds the minimum acreage
requirement for PUDs. Staff finds this standard to be met.
4.O7.Og All uses, which are permitted in the underlyilg zone district. or
coniii{elntiitn tne bnd use designations inthci Comprellensive Pla.n,
or aoorovid is ai iiindment tb the Comprehensive Plan, may be
oerinitted in PllDs. A. 95-043, A. 97'109) The uses, which shall be
b;:i;ifiea in aw- piiicutar PllD shall be those permitted by the'resolution zoniig ihe particular area PUD.
Staff Findino
m--development primarily proposes single-family dwellings which are uses
permitted by right in the underlying A/F/RD and Al zone district for the residential
areas. The
-utilities
and parking zone will contain wastewater disposal plant and
water facilities. The Open Space zone will include trail, tot lot, basketball and play
field uses. The uses proposed are those in the underlying zone districts. Staff finds
this standard is met.
4.O7.Og Twentv-five percent QSo/") of the total area within the boundary of ?ny
PatD 6n* be devoied io Common Open Space. Not more than
15
twentv-five percent e5%) of the Common Open Spqce sh-all be an
aiea 6t iitdi itassified ab commercial open ipaqei Of-t!1e 2p/e.o.p9n.
space requirement within PUDs, no moie than 40o/o of the 2570 total
iSoiir6aliiiii oe timitea use 6pen space, with the balance being
retained'as one or more of the-remaining olen spqce categ.ories,
tisted above. Provided, however, that tfe 9quryU Commissioners
may reduce such requiremen! if thgy-.find that such decrease ts
wairantJd--oi-iiie--disisi -of, and 'the amenities and features
iicorioriteilinioine Phfr, and'thatthe needs of the occupants of the'i;UEi1;i C;miin- 6iei Spaci can be met in the proposed PUD. (A.
97-109)
Staff Findinq
Th-Fm'Froposes 66 percent of the subject siteto be dedicated open spacewhich
far exceeds the minimum 25 percent requirement. Further, it appears the proposal
meets the category requirements as well. Staff finds this standard to be met.
4,07.10 lf anv zone district within the PllD is proposed to contain tim*share' ;;i;A;ti;iat oinerinii inits, or othe'r siinilar interest in propefi,the
orovisions for such o,funership shall be those that are approvQcl by the-
'Board of County Commissiciners at the time the propefi is zonecl
PUD.
Staff Findinqil-Ooos not propose any timeshare or fractional fee ownership for any of the
residential dwellings. The residential dwelling units are to be single ownership in fee.
Staff finds this standard to be met.
4.08.05 Where a Preliminary Plan application is included yv.ith a PltD
diiii cai o n, tE 5 i odiv i s i o n R 69 u I ati o n req u i re m e nts wi I I .s u pe rsede
thb followinq PUD requirements where the same intormat,on or more
ditaitia iniilrmitionls required as a part of a subdivision application.ini aioiiiiiiti iiitt inctuiie with thi written request for PUD zgniqg
which iloes not include a subdivision Preliminary Plan applicationthe
followi ng i nformation :
n ) A statement of the ownership interest in the propefi to be included in the
PUD and the written consent of all of the owners;
Staff Findinqfie A-pplicant has represented the sole owner of the subject property Rapids
Development Corporation, The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Association,
Gene R. Hilton and Mary Jo Hilton Staff finds this requirement is met'
(2) A PllD Ptan indicating the broad concept of the proposed development.
9fuch Plan shall clearly iidicate:
(a) The maximum number of dwelling units proposed within the overull
area;
Staff Findinoffi pian proposes a total of 104 residential units .on the 121 acre property. Staff
finds this requirement is met.
t6
glJli minimum acreage which wilt be dedicated to Common Open
Staff Findinq
meTpplic-ant proposes a total of 79 acres (66%) of the property is devoted to
common open space. Staff finds this requirement is met.
(c) The type ofuses proposed and the acreage deuoted to each usel
Staff Findinq
Please refer to the application which details the uses and their associated acreage
as proposed in this development. The matrix below shows the general zone districts
and their associated acreages and percentage of the overall project. Staff finds this
requirement is met.
(d) Maior internal circulation systems;
Staff Findinq
Please referto the application fora plan of the internal road system. ln addition, the
subsequent Sheets include finer details of the street system and their adjacent lots.
Staff finds this requirement is met.
(e) The acreage, which witt be dedicated for school, sites;
Staff Findinq
m-sAFplicant is not proposing to dedicate land for a schoo! site at the property. The
Applicant shall provide the appropriate cash-in-lieu of a land dedication. Staff finds
this requirement to be met.
104 Residential Lots (Total area
Gommon Open Space
ffi The oeneral nature and location of commercial and industrialuses,
if any, t6 be located in the PUD;
Staff Findinq
ilheTpflI6nt is not proposing any commercial or industrial uses as part of this
PUD. Staff finds this requirement is met.
(g) Provision for water, sewer, telephone, electricity, gas and cabte
Yelevision, if applicable; and
Staff Findinq
AgilnJhilpplicant proposes a centralized wastewatertreatmentfacilityto handle
wastewater. The site is presently served by a centralized potable water system,
electricity, natural gas. This standard has been met.
(h) . Ott?er r.es.trlqti9ns. proposed by th.e apn_t!9a?! Pu9!3: Pyilllp56toiCxs. ieiqht limit{, dccess r6quirenic;nts and grade or s
restrictions tdbe appliid to particul.ar.Tregs, writte.n i2 thg lgrp-
arade or slodein the form o? a
Tiid a'isiilc{ieitilETame asior ii iimitarfoim to, the Gartietd County
Zgning Resolution; and
Staff Findinq
ns note.O eartler, the PUD proposes to amend the dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district as follows:
Also as noted earlier, the average lot size proposed is a 140'x 75' lot (10,500 sq.ft.
or a bit less than a T+ acre lot) but the Applicant does not show lot sizes or
dimensions on the proposed plat as well as requests a minimum lot area of 7,500
sq. ft. which is typica! of an urban city lot in the County's Residential Limited Urban
Density zone district found onty adjacent to municipalities. Staff has included the
specifits in the matrix above for your review. Ultimately, Staff finds the significant
differences to be building height and maximum lot coverage. Staff suggests the
Planning Commission approve the dimensions as indicted in the RLUD zone district
which requires a maximum height ol25 feet and maximum lot coverage of 35o/o.
Minimum Lot Area
Intemal Road ROW
width
Rear Yard Setback
fil lf more than one phase is proposed, a phasing plan shall be
ihctuded in th.rffBli:fi|n that definbates ihe froposed ithasing of the
development. (4. 97-109)
Staff Findinq:
TFe Appi-cant plans to complete the construction of subdivision in one phase. Note
that all improvements including roads, curbs, sidewalks, water system, and sewer
system, public trails, tot !ots, etc shall all be required to be constructed by the
developer and secured in the SlA. Staff finds this requirement is met.
Bl A reoional location map showinq the relationship of the site to connecting
itiadwals, public facilitiei, commerbial and cuftural-facilities and surrounding
land uses;
Staff Findinq:
The Applicant has provided a vicinity map showing the relationship of the site to
connecting roadways, public facilities, commercial and cultura! facilities and
surrounding land uses. Statf finds this requirement is met.
(4) A site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and
the extsttng zonrng;
Staff Findinq:
The Applicant has provided a site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing
structures and the existing zoning. Staff finds this requirement is met.
6l A site toooaraohic mao showina at least five-foot contour interuals, maior
V6getation bte-mehts, strdams, rive-rs, ditches and areas subject to 100 Year
flo-oding;
Staff FindinE:
The Applicant has provided a site topographic map showing at least five-foot
contour intervals, major vegetation elements, streams, rivers, ditches and areas
subject to 100 Year flooding. Staff finds this requirement is met.
Ft i,legal description of the area which the applicant wishes to include in the
Staff Findino:
The Applicant has provided a Iegal description of the area which the applicant
wishes to include in the PUD. Staff finds this requirement is met.
(O A written statement containing the following information:
(a) An explanation of the obiectives to be achieved by the PUD;
Staff Findinq:
The Application specifies the objectives of the PUD in binder (Volume 1). This
standard has been met.
bl A develooment schedule indicating the approximate dates when'iiiitruiti6iio:iihi iirioii stages of ttie PUD bhn be expected to begin
and be completed;
Staff Findinq:
T# Appt'cant proposes to complete construction of the development within 30
months'(2.5 years) of (presumably) the approval of the PUD / Preliminary Plan. This
needs to be clarified because the Applicant will only have about 6 months to
construct all improvements as required in the SIA following final plat approval.
bl Cooies of anv special covenants, conditions and restrictions, which'witloSviii thi'us:e or occupancv dl the PUD; provided, however, that-
the-aoolicant mav impose additional covenants, conditions anct
i6str76fi6ni'-dn-iil pifiiiilar irea in connection with the ptatting of
such area;
Staff Findinq:
The Applicant has provided a copy of draft Declaration of Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions for the project. Staff finds this requirement has been met.
H) A list of the owners ol properties tocated within two hundred (2OO)
leet of the boundaries of ihe PUD and their addresses;
Staff Findinq:
gxnlOit g in th-e Application contains a copy of the owners within 200 feet of the
subject property as listed in the Garfield County Assessot's Office. Staff finds this
requirement to be met.
b) A statement bv a licensed engineer, with supporting calculatiortg
;iAao;ni:6iiii6n, iiici iiatt frovidit evidenii of thdtottowing: (A.
97-10e)
f#,!;:lt:g",fi,water source tesattv & phvsicattv adequate to
Staff Findinq
faO t a of ttre epplication contains a detailed water plan analysis for the provision of
Iegaland physical water by Wright Water Engineers, lnc (a licensed engineer in the
State of Coiorado) which ultimately states that the proposed development has
adequate physical and legal water supply for full build-out of 121 units. A new
analysis was not submittedfor 104 units; however, Staff referred the revised plan for
104 units to the State Engineer f rom the Colorado Division of Water Resources who
ultimately provided a lett-er stating that the proposed PUD will not cause material
injury to decreed water rights and is physically adequate to serve the project so long
as valid well permits are maintained.
20
fiil The oroposed method of sewage treatment legally and
bhysicaily adequate to service the PUD. lf.tbe PUD aBpl!.cat!.on
orooosed to uiitize existinq, central facilities, the diplication'sndn contain a letter from thie district or provider thai Adequate
excess capacitv currentlv exists and will be devoted to
accommodatinci the develiopment, or that the capaciU will be
expanded to adequately aciommddate the developmeit; (A. 97-
109)
Staff Findinq
The proposed method to lega! and adequately handle sewage treatment is to
construct a wastewatertreatment facility (WWTF) on the property. The BOCC has
already reviewed the proposed system and recommended CDPHE approvethe Site
Application. However, CDPHE will not approve the system until local govemment
(Garfield County) approved the zoning for the property. Should the PUD be
approved, Staff suggests that a possible condition of approval for the Preliminary
Ptan be that no Final Plat shall be approved until the system has been approved by
CDPHE.
Staff also points out, the MOU between the Applicant and the Town of New Castle
specifically requires that the location of the WWTF have adequate space to upgrade
the facility so that it may be able to also serye Apple Tree Mobile Home Park and
nearby development. Staff believes this will require a revised Site Plan which
should be re-reviewed by the BOCC and approved by CDPHE.
(iii) The proposed method in which storm drainage will be
hahatea. defionstratina that adioininq properU owners would
not be damaged by thidevelopinent;1hd (A97E109)
Staff Findinq
fne npptiCation contains a Drainage Analysis prepared by Mountain Cross
Engineering (engineer licensed in Colorado) which can be located under tab 16 in
Volume 2 of the Application. The Drainage Plan was submitted as Sheet DRN in the
plan set which demonstrates how drainage is managed throughout the property.
Ultimately, the repofts state that there is no impact to downstream propefties and no
detention is required on site. This analysis has been signed and stamped by an
engineer licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. This standard has been met.
(iv) The proposed method in which provision will be made for
ariy potbntial natural hazards in thb area such as avalanche
areab.landstide areas, flood plain areas, and unstable soils, and
the eitent and mitigaiion of 'such hazard(s); (A.97'109)
Staff Findinq
The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) reviewed the project twice and the content of
that review is included here in its entirety:
As we stated in our earlier reviews, the site has relatively benign geologic
hazard conditions. The site lies on an old river terrace and packed river
gravel shaltowty underlie the property, which is overlain by fine-grained soils
that likely thicken towards CR 335 and the upper slope bank. These thin
mantles of fine-grained soils that overlie the gravel may be hydro-compactive
so site-specific foundation investigations are'recommended. There are two
other hazard potential areas. One is the minor risk of shallow failures or
sloughing of the slope above the site, which is not a significant hazard
because such a small slope failure would need to cross CR 335 before
entering the development. The second is the possibility of minor debris flow
flooding from the small drainage basin (drainage basin C in the drainage
report) that exits onto CR 335 across from Paddlewheel Lane. There is a
possibility that concentrated flows could cross the roadway into the
development. The existing 1$-inch culvert is poorly maintained and almost
completely plugged off.
The revised plan shows additional tots in this vicinrty, which ertend farther
west than shown in the earlier plan. This will result in more exposure of
potential debris flows to those lots at the end of the cul-de-sac (of the newly
proposed Canoe Way 100) from the nert larger and steeper ephemeral
drainageway above the highway, which is drainage basin E in the drainage
report.
The drainage plan shows a short berm in the landscaping west of
Paddlewheel lane that parallels the county road. This berm re-directs
possible overllows to the west, towards the adjacent open space. That was
the only grading plan we could find in the submittal.
We believe that it would be prudent b ertend that berm to wrap around the
back corner of the cul-de-sac lots so that it provides additional protection from
potential hyperconcentrated or bulked storm flows that may outlet from the
channelof drainage basin E. Since it doesn't appearthat any debris bulking
was used in the drainage study, the drainage engineer should verify that the
height of the diversion berm is adequate.
ln closing, our recommendations in the earlier CGS reviews remain valid - site
specific foundation investigations should be completed for each lot. Provided
the obseruations and recommendations stated above conceming drainage
flows are noted and satisfactorily addressed, we have no fufther ancern with
the revised development plan.
(H Easements showino vested leaal access for inaress and earess
lr6m a pubtic road to the PllD anil/or documentati6n demonst7ating
access shall be acouired across a public riqht-of-wav or easemeit
within two 2) veari of anv PUD aobroval aid said access shall be
vested prioi io'finat plattiig of any broperty subject to the easement
across the rtght-of-uiay ; 6i SZ-t 001'and
Staff Findino
-
22
$ry
"r)
The property has direct access to CR
driveways into the project. The Gounty
335 and has two formally established
Road and Bridge reviewed the second
proposal and commenied that "all accesses to the site have been installed for
severat years and meet all criteria for driveway accesses with the proper signage
and have been approved previously." This standard is met.
(G) Evidencethatthe PllD has been designed with consideration of the
iltiiit eiiiiiieni of the site and the iurrounding area ?nd does.not
unreasonably destroy or displace wildlife, natural vegetation or un,que
natural or hiStorical leatures.
Staff Findinq
Reg'ffipactstowildlifeandthenaturalenvironment,theApplicantdidnot
suOhit a-widlife / habitat analysis prepared by a qualified professional. The
Application refers the reader to Section ll, pages 7 - 9, (which do not exist) and
Sbbtion IIl. This PUD application proposes residential development which will be
highly visible from CR 335 and from l-70 and the development of anyvacant ground
nas the i,mpact of displacing unpressured wildlife that presently uses the property.
The Applicant relies'solely on the DOW mapping which identifies very general
wildlife use of the area. The Application state that deer and elk presently graze on
the property which also provides a route to get to the Colorado River. This has also
been testified to by the neighbors.
ln order to mitigate the pressure on these animals, the Applicant proposes dog
restrictions, DOW wildlife friendly fencing requirements and weed control' Staff finds
the open space hetps to alleviate the development footprint but suggests that a
break in the lots be allowed on the nofthern most line of lots to allow easier access
through to the river from the center open space area.
V. STAFF COMMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN
fne toilowing section provides an analysis of the proposal with respect to
requirements-in Section 4:00 of the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended.
A. Water Supplv
fne proposat is to modify an existing centralized water syslem wh.ich was put in
place to serve the existing 33 lot residential subdivision. Basically, the system
consists of two wells that provide water to a 150,000 gallon water tank which then
provides waterthrough water mains in the internal road system. While that system
was approved by the-State (DWR) as being legally and physically adequate for 33
lots, the Applicant is proposing that the same system serve the proposed 104 units.
The Applicant has obtained an Augmentation Contract from West Divide
Conservancy District which was reviewed by the State Engineer to determine if
there is a miterial injury or not. Staff received a letter from the State Engineer that
there is no material injury to decreed water rights and is physically adequate.
Resource Engineering reviewed the revised proposal and submitted the following
t
comments:
The existing water system design was approved by the Colorado
Department of Pubtic Health and Environment (CDPHE). The potable water
system witl provide water for in-house and fire protection uses only. All
iirigation wiit be from a non potabte irrigation system using water from the
Moore Ditch. The potable water diversions are included in a plan for
augmentation decreed in Case No. W-3262. Such decree augments out-of-
priority depletions during the irrigation season.The existing water system is
owned byThe Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Association. A letter
indicating that the HOA will provide seruice to the proposed 104 lots is
included in the submittal.
B. Waste Water
fne Applicanryoposesto construct a wastewatertreatmentfacility (WWTF) on the
property to serve the 104 units. The BOCC has already reviewed the proposed
system and recommended CDPHE approve the Site Application. However, CDPHE
will not approve the system until local govemment (Garfield County) approved the
zoning forthe property. Should the PUD be approved, Staff suggeststhat a possible
condition of approval forthe Preliminary Plan be that no Final Plat shall be approved
until the system has been approved by CDPHE. Staff also points out, the MOU
between the Applicant and the Town of New Castle specifically requires that the
location of the WWTF have adequate space to upgrade the facility so that it may be
able to also serve Apple Tree Mobile Home Park and nearby development. This
may require a revision and re-approval of the Site plan from CDPHE.
Resource Engineering reviewed the proposed system and commented that the
wastewater collection and disposal for the project is proposed to be through a
central system. The Appticant has submitted a site application to the CDPHE for
approval of a 45,000 galton per day treatment facility. The site application must be
aoproved prior to anv Final Plat approval.
Several of the neighbors are very concerned as to the proposed location of the
proposed package plant as the proposed location is in the far northwest comer of
the property away from the development adjacent to their property, Please referto
the minutes attached to this repoft.
As the Board is aware, pursuant to Section 4.O7.Og, the PIJD shall meet the
followino site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one (1t or more
of them is not applicable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved:
(1t The PLID shall have an aporopriate relationship to the surroundinq area, with
unreasonable adverse effects on the surroundina area beinq minimized.
24
The Board has the authority to deny a PUD application if they feel the location of the
facility has an inappropriate relationship to the surrounding area and that the
proposal has not effectively minimized the unreasonable etfects of the facility on the
neighbors. ln response to this issue, the Applicant proposes a berm / screening plan
that is shown here:
C. lnternal Road /Access
The development has direct access to a public road with two formally established
entrances presently in place which are to be used with the subject proposalwhich
appear to be satisfactory to the County Road and Bridge Depaftment.
1+.00 er00
55 530
540
510
55e
551
550
549
548
347
490
480
470
Profile Vievu
25
The internal road system is a looped design providing two points of access into / out
of the development onto CR 335. The trips generated from 104 single-family
dwellings is assumed to be 995.28 ADT using the 6th Edition of the ITE manual.
This number of trips, pursuant to Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations
require a "Minor Collecto/' design category which generally requires the ROW width
to be 60 feet with 2 twelve foot driving lanes and a chip-seal surface. The proposed
road design does not satisfy this requirement because all of the internals roads are
50 foot ROW which is deficient by 10 feet in width which reduced the actualdriving
lanes from 12 to 1:l feet.
There is no specific provision that provides relief from this standard as it has always
been interpreted to apply to the entire road system and not reduced on assumed
tratfic patterns. The Board has approved reductions in width in the case of a PUD
where they have authority to vary subdivision regulations.
Basically, the Applicant has revised the site plan to show that half of the Iength of
Paddlewheel and Whitewater Lanes meet the 60 feet because it is assumed that
onty those poftions of the internal road network will handle the full tratfic volume.
Ultimately, this is PUD and a variation of the road widths can be warranted if the
Planning Commission agrees with the proposed site plan.
ln this case, it appearsthe Fire Protection District has agreed with the 50 foot ROW
(narrower driving sudace). Staff finds the more narrow width can have a traffic
calming affect as well as reduce the impervious space thereby reducing drainage
flows. This assumes the surface is at least a chip / seal surface.
Resource Engineering, on behalf of the County, provided the following comments:
The proposed subdivision wittgenerate 1,078 average daitytrips (ADT). This
requires the main loop road to be designed as a minor collector. (We
disagree with Kimtey-Horn's prorata lot count analysis for downsizing the
design.) A minor collector road has a 60 foot right-of-way, 12 foot lanes, and
minimum 4 foot shoulder. The existing loop road has 11 foot lanes, a 2 foot
curb and gutter, a 4 foot sidewalk, and a proposed 50 foot right-of-way except
for 450 feet at the county road entrance which has a 60 foot right-of-way. The
PUD brt shoutd indicate that the request is for the above noted road section
such that a variance to the County Standard can be approved for the
Preliminary Plan design.
The traffic study does not address the fact that County Road 335 is in poor
condition in several areas and in need of improvement for existing traffic.
However this project is in a designated road impact fee area and the
presumption is that the fee was based on the need to improve the road.
. The recommended formula for the road impact fee is based on the theoretical
26
calculation for the project taking into account the existing proiect. This
translates to one-half of the road impact fee for 71 lots at final plat and one
hatf of the road impact fee at building permit for all remaining un-built lots.
D. External Road lmpacts
The Application contains a traflic study prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates
which is intended to examine the traffic impacts from this development. The
analysis states the total trips generated will be 10.25 ADT for each of the 104
dwelling units for a totalof 1066 trips per day with the peak AM resulting in 82 trips
and the peak PM of 111 trips directly on to CR 335.
During the hearing with the Planning Commission, the main issues were 1) the
general increase in traffic on CR 335, 2) whether or not a Highway Access Permit is
required from CDOT for these trips as they impact l-70, and 3) the ability of the
present condition of CR 335 to handle this increased tratfic. (Please refer to the
minutes for this discussion.)
As a result of that discussion, the Applicant commissioned a revised traffic analysis
prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates which is included in Binder Volume 3.
Ultimately, ihe analysis points out that the 104 units will not exceed lhe 2Oo/"
threshold at the l-70 intersection with CR 335 either with or without the background
tratfic generated by the apartments currently being built east and south of the
interchange. CDOT was forwarded the revised traffic study in the Application and
provided the following comments:
Based upon the traffic analysis conducted by Kimtey Horn dated October 6,
2OOO , it doesn't appear to impact l-70 New Castle lnterchange by more then
20%. Therefore, no access permitting will be required.
However, this will continue to add more delay onto the lnterchange in New
Castle. As the analysis indicates that the level of seruice in certain times at the
New Castle lnterchange witt be tunction at low levels of seruice at peak times. I
would suggest County and City start placing this on the 20 year transpoftation
plan and get this issue documented in the transpoftation planning region. This
willbecome an issue in the fyture.
The Kimley-Horn analysis did recommend changes to the l-70 westbound off ramp
as well as the intersection at CR335 and the road that crosses the interstate. Those
improvements are included in their analysis but would need to be done by CDOT.
Regarding tratfic on CR 335, the traffic study (p. 21) states that "acceptable
roadway level of service will result along CR 335 in 2008 with or without the added
traffic from the Rapids Development. Further, in their conclusions, the traffic study
states "the proposed development will not cause impact to the existing roadway
network." [This study recommends that LOS 'D" is acceptable LOS forthese roads,
See p. 17.1
27
The Applicant shall be required to pay a road impact fee for 71 ol the 104 lots
because fees have already been paid for the existing 33 lots. These fees are
required to be spent in that District 3. Those fees would approximately be $226 per
ADT. ln this case, that is roughly $164,471.50. Those monies are then required to
be spent in accordance with the terms of the County's Capital lmprovements Plan to
partially mitigate impacts from this development.
The Applicant stated they have already paid $1 18,206 in traffic impact
improvements (which basically consisted of the two deceleration lanes adiacent to
the project) at the time the 33 lot subdivision was approved.
The Applicant disagrees and prefers to only pay $14,400.
E. Soils/Geoloov
The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) reviewed the project twice and the content of
that review is included here in its entirety:
As we stated in our earlier reviews, the site has relatively benign geologic
hazard conditions. The site lies on an old river terrace and packed river gravel
shaltowty undertie the property, which is overlain by fine-grained soils that
tiketythicken towards CR 335 and the upper slope bank. These thin mantles
of fine-grained soils that overlie the gravel may be hydro-compactive so sife-
specific foundation investigations are recommended. There are two other
hazard potential areas. One is the minor risk of shallow failures or sloughing
of the slope above the site, which is not a significant hazard because such a
small slope failure would need to cross CR 335 before entering the
development. The second is the possibility of minor debris flow flooding from
the small drainage basin (drainage basin C in the drainage repoft) that exits
onto CR 335 across from Paddlewheel Lane. There is a possibility that
concentrated flows could cross the roadway into the development. The
existing l?-inch culvert is poorly maintained and almost completely plugged
off.
The revised plan shows additional lots in this vicinity, which ertend farther
west than shown in the earlier plan. This will result in more exposure of
potential debris flows to those lots at the end of the cul-de-sac (of the newly
proposed Canoe Way 100) from the nert larger and steeper ephemeral
drainageway above the highway, which is drainage basin E in the drainage
report.
The drainage plan shows a short berm in the landscaping
Paddlewheel lane that parallels the coun| road. This berm
possible overtlows to the west, towards the adiacent open space.
the only grading plan we could find in the submittal.
west of
re-directs
That was
We believe that it would be prudent to extend that berm to wrap around the
back corner of the cul-de-sac lots so that it provides additional protection from
potential hyperconcentrated or bulked storm flows that may outlet from the
channelof drainage basin E. Since it doesn't appearthat any debris bulking
was used in the drainage study, the drainage engineer should verify that the
height of the diversion berm is adequate.
ln closing, our recommendations in the eartier CGS reviews remain valid - site
specific foundation investigations should be completed for each lot. Provided
the obseruations and recommendations stated above concerning drainage'
flows are noted and satisfactorily addressed, we have no further concern with
the revised development plan.
Resource Engineering, on behalf of the County, provided the following comments:
Site constraints identified in the 1g8O Lincotn-Devore Study include debris
ftow potential, debris fans, high ground water, and soils which are subiect to
differential movement when loaded or wetted. The old 1980 repoft does not
map the hazard areas. The grading and drainage plan has been modified to
provide for mitigation of debris flow hazards. Based on the hazards present,
we recommend that a plat note be added requirina that individuql site specffic
oeotechnical investioations and foundation desian be submitted with the
buildina permit application.
The Applicant has revised the grading / drainage plan to address extending the
berm proposed by CGS and Resource Engineering in their comments above. That
is shown here:
F. Drainaqe
The Application contains a Drainage Analysis prepared by Mountain Cross
Engineering which can be located under tab 16 in Volume 2 of the Application.
Additionally, the Drainage Plan was submitted as Sheet DRN in the plan set which
demonstrates how drainage is managed throughout the property. Ultimately, the
reports state that there is no impact to downstream properties and no detention is
required on site. This analysis has been signed and stamped by an engineer
licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. This standard has been met.
29
X;i?ffiir:',9ffi1'[t '"";fiH[l^" Drainase pran on beharr or the county and
The drainage study and analysis is consistent with standard practices andmeets GARC) criieria. ry iii1it"ffi proviae, iiiioirZv"nce of stormwater tlroqsh the propefty ,na iiirsr;;;;!-;;;;;;,i,,r*nu waterquality impacts from d'eveiopment rituiu"". .The pran generayy routes offsite drainage around the lots *nnii,tiJi dyinage stiuctures or into thecontrot pond and out to th.: !:v::;;p;; ;;;"" i, , iii.-rn"Z,ischarse of a,drainage systems is to irass tir"[iiiEiirior to discharge to the river.
n.
It appears trat.a p.Eii?i6ffipe,tv tiiiiliiEii'Tne regutated 1Oo-yearfroodprainas is delineatedgllh" rit" fiin, rt "pp""i. ffi'portions of the fubric trair arelocated within tl= 1.0.0-Y""in"[JpA,,, iri" annii."ir, shau submit anlpprication fora Floodplain Permit tobe t"ri"*Lo by the e66cl; conjunction wiitr tne puD andPreliminary Plal stdr tugg".it in"ti" F"ri.iie scheouled untirthis appricationhas been submitted. n".o"u-rcI'Engineerirg ;"ri"*"d the site pran on beharf of theCounty and provid"o *,"ioir;;i;g commehts:
The river frontage lots are within the ftood fringe area of the floodptainboundary' Thislot area ias th, tuiii"i'iii Froodprain speciat tJse permitror the orisinail siiJii"tir. rne iriiiiiiil"a b raise ine bt area abovethe 100 vear base no,oiiiirrtion. Ai;;;r:;it, the proposed tots are shownto be outside of the froodptain .i;;;;-iipropored Lots r through 7, rothrough t B and tne waiafi?!?ur?tr*ti6rt site are w-ithir'iir," loodptainboundary, but erevatid-arbor" tne too liar.btse ftood erevation. tt isrecommended that a new adminyistratuZ'eilraphin permit be obtained forthis project due to the above.::1_1yir, plrit *rditions *niin
"orfliet withthe new project ana oiireii"* ,"ro^iendations o!the proposed project.clean up of the ttgodpliin-permit ssues rs ili*iy"y simple'administrative, procedure and shouid be'compretra iii-rlo'in" Bocc hearing.
H. Fire protection
I ne property is located in the Burning Mountain Fire protection District. Thedevelopment orop_ose.s to be abre 1:,y:6 tne exisiing centrar water system whichincludes a tsci'ooo g"ildJ"t;J"=tank, and a pran."iil-,"t shows tire tryarants. TheDistrict submitted i letter o"t""Jnr-gust 2, 2006 which reflects , ,Jri"* of theoriginat site desigl and does not =ii""t ;;;;;
"i,r.,.9 redesign. rn the originarreview, the Distriit.stated ihrt;il;i wiotns lwrricllethe sami in the-new pran)were adequate so rong "r no *
"t1ggt rygr.ti"s *"Jailoweo and posted as such;water storage was ade-gr"t" p"ni"'Jady'rthe ;o;; be used *itt, a dry hydrantsvstem; hvdrant Tl:iiq ,:."g"q-r# d11'1ffi rrr:y3r buirdins enveropes; andl,[?,#!!|nt densiiies could o" i'Lor."o ir ilr n6* i"Iioences are resuired ro be
\
\F,
\v
b. lmplement a weed management plan based on the weed inventory. The
weed management plan shatlbe in effect priortothe developmentof the
project. County listed weeds present in the area include whitetop,'buidock, Russiin knapweed, Russian olive, tamarisk, and common
burdock. The propefi has at least nine Russian olive trees within the
proposed open space area along the Colorado River, these need to be
mapped, inventoried, cttt, and treated. There are also some young
tamarisktrees around the pond andthey need to be mapped, inventoried,
cut, and treated.
Mr. Leavenwofth also states that "several plat notes have been added to
the preliminary plan indicating weed management and soil storage during
construction". I have been unable to locate these comments in the
submittal.
2) Covenants'
ln the amendment to the covenants, the Applicant addresses mosquitos and
noxious weeds.
Mosquitos are addressed in Section 14.6. lt states that'the owner of each tot
shall use their best efforts to control the mosquito population with(in) the
. Subdivision, which shatt include, without limitation, the prevention of standing
pools of stagnant water on the Lot".
Staff recommends that the applicant provide more detail beyond "best efforts".
Atso the appticant needs to specifically address the issue of mosquito
management on the pond tocated in the subdivision. Please identify the
party responsible for taking care of mosquito lssues on the pond.
Weeds are addre.ssed in Section 14.7 and again detail is lacking in the
covenants regarding responsibility of noxious weed management on common
areas such as roadsides, open spaces, and park areas.
3) Revegetation
ftre appticint has not provided a revegetation plan or a plant materials listfor
review. Please quantify the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and
subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances, This
information will help determine the amount of'security that will held for
revegetation. These will be areas outside of the building envelopes. As
is always required, Staff recommends a revegetation security once this
information is provided.
4) Soit Ptan
It is requested that the appticant provide a Soil Management Plan that
includes: 1) provisions for satvaging on-site topsoil, 2) a timetable for
eliminating topsoit and/or aggregate piles, 3) and a plan that provides for soil
32
cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days
or more.
5) Proliferation of tumbleweeds
Complaints from adjacent landowners to new subdivisons have increased in
the tast two years regarding the issue of nuisance weeds such as l<ochia and
Russian thistle. These ptants are opportunistic to bare soil and later become
tumbleweeds. Typically we have seen them in areas in new subdivisions
where the soit has been left disturbed and revegetation has not occurred.
Kochia and Russian thistle are not County listed noxious weeds so are not
subject to noxious weed enforcement regulations per the Gartied County
Weed Management Plan and the State Noxious Weed Act. Staff requests
that the Ptanning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County
Commisiioners consider making a request of the Applicant to address
management of Kochia and Russian thistle along distuhed areas and
roadsides within the subdivision.
In response to the points mentioned above, the Applicant submitted an "lntegrated
Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Program" prepared byZoran lllievski, a
biologist qualified to prepare the plan. The County reviewed the Plan and provided
the following comments:
K. Assessment / Fees
The property is located in the RE-2 School District which requires $200 per unit be
paid as a cash-in-lieu of School/ Land Dedication Fee. ln this case, it appears that
the existing 33 lots already paid this fee as a condition of approval in Resolution 96-
70; as a result, the Applicant is responsible for paying the fee lor 71 units or
$14,200 at the time of fina! plat. This obligation shall be memorialized in the SlA.
As mentioned earlier, the property is located in Road lmpact Study Area 3 which
requires $226 per ADT generated out of the development to be spent on road
improvements in that District. When the BOCC approved the existing Rapids
Subdivision for 33 lots, they required the following plat note on the Final Plat:
7. lJpon adoption of road impact fees by the BOCC, the tots created by this
exemption (meant "subdivision") shall be subject to paying the fees, paid at
the time of building permit application, unless said fees have been paid bythe
developer. There shall be a credit given to the Building Permit Applicant in the
amount of $3,582.00 per lot against said road impact fees for the monetary
amount spent on providing the required acceleration and deceleration lanes.
According to the Applicant's attorney, the devetoper constructed the accel/ decel
Ianes at a cost of $1 18,206.00. Consistent with the plat note above, the County
would not collect a Traffic lmpact Fee from Building Permit Applicants for the
existing 33 lots because the developer put those improvements in to mitigate the
traffic impact.
33
's(
$
Now, the developer is asking the County to approve 71 additional lots which
requires a traffic impact fee of $t 80,620.00 in order to satisfy the County's Traffic
StuOy Area lmpact Fee. However, the developer wants to only pay $14,400.00
rather than $180,620.00 for the additional 71 lots. As a result, the developer is
asking the BOCC to reduce the development's obligation by 166,220.00 even
though he wants to increase the lots from 33 to 104. [Note, if the total 104 lots were
to bJcabulated today, the fee would be approximately $264,571.00.1Additionally,
the improvements ihe developer made to CR 335 directly benefited that
development and did not address any other condition on CR 335 exacerbated by
the developments additional tratfic impact.
Staff strongly recommends the BOCC consistently apply the same Traffic lmpact
Fee regulations to this development as it has to all other developments in the
County and not make an exception for the.developer when he is asking for a 215o/o
increase in density but a 1,150"/o decrease in obligated impact fees.
Vl. Development in the 100-Year Floodplain Review
npo@rimarilyalongtheCo|oradoRiver)!s-lo-c-atedinthe100.
yearfloodplain. integra[to the original3S lot Subdivision, the BOCC also approved
i Floodplain SpeciaiUse Permit forthe lotsthat were located within the flood-fringe
of the floodplain.
Since this proposed application represents an entirely new site plan, the Applicant is
required to re-address the floodplain issues on the property which is generally
reviewed by the County in an administrative review for development in the flood-
fringe. Resource Engineering (on behalf of the County) reviewed the Administrative
Floodplain Permit submitted bythe Applicant and provided thefollowing comments:
The new apptication seeks approval of the previously approved fill within the Flood
Fringe Distiict of the Cotorado River 100 year Floodplain as defined by effective
mapping prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the
Cotorado Water Conseruation Board dated December 1982. We recommend
approval of the Floodplain Development Permit for Rapids Development
Corporation for the proposed Rapids on the Colorado P.U.D. with the following
conditions.
I . The 100 yearftoodplain boundary line and the floodway line should be shown
on the appropriate subdivision maps consistent with the effective 1982 Flood Plain
Study.
The area within the Flood Fringe District that was filled to an elevation at or
above the 100 year Base Ftood elevation should be identified on the same
subdivision maps that depict the floodplain boundary.
3. A plat note shoutd be included on any finat plat of the Cotorado on the
Rapids PUD that states the specific lot number building areas or envelopes which
\\
N$,
$$tN
34
$y_
have been filled, references the floodplain development permit number, and
indicates that construction on these lots must conform with the GARCO Floodplain
Regulations and the approved permits. I
4. A ptat note should be inctuded that indicates the minimum finished floor
elevation for each lot within the flood fringe area.
VIl. General Discussion Point Summarv
fne ptanningrcommtssion has recommended approval with conditions (shown at
the end of this memo); however, there are sti!! significant issues that need the
BOCC's direct attention so that the BOCC can make a decision based on findings of
fact which include the following:
1) Is the PUD in general conformity Comprehensive Plan of 2000 & the Town of
New Castle Master Plan and does the BOCC wish to incorporate the suggested
points made by the Town of New Castle in their letter dated 7l17lo7?
2) Arethe following dimensional changes to the dimensional standards acceptable
to the BOCC?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Building Height
Max Lot Coverage
Min Lot size
Front / Rear Setback
Side Setback
lnternal Road Width
Average Density
32 feet
507o
7,500 sq.ft.
10 feet
5 feet
50 feet
116 acldu (104 lots on 121 acres)
3) Does the PUD Plan provide for a variety of housing types and densities?
4) Doesthe PUD have an appropriate retationship to the surrounding area with the
unreasonable adverse impacts being minimized?
a. Reduce building heights nearest the Collin's property?
b. Relocation or mitigation of the wastewatertreatment facility or is
the berming / Iandscaping plan adequate?
S) How does the BOCC wish to dealwith the proposed public amenities including
the public trail, parking lot, and fisherman's easement?
6) Does the proposed design meet the intent of clustering to be consistent with the
Town of New Castle's Comprehensive Plan?
7') Does the Board wish to accept the proposed comments of the Town of New
Castle?
a. lncrease in size / capacity for the WWTF
b. Spending lmpact Fee Dollars
35
8) Have the Applicant submit a wildlife study prepared by a qualified professional in
orderto adequately analyzethe wildlife impacts? Additionally, should the plan be
.redesigned to allow for an open space break in the northern line of lots to allow
for wildlife passage?
9) Do the findings in the revised Tratfic Study satisfy the BOCC as to traffic impacts
to CR 335?
10)Does the BOCC wish to vary from its regulations regarding howthe tratfic impact
fee is collected resulting in the following difference:
a. Original Development (33 lots)
b. Proposed Development (104 lots)
316 ADT $188,206
1078 ADT $14,400
11) Statf recommendsthe BOCC requirethefollowing items regardingthe 1OO-year
floodplain:
a. The 100 year floodplain boundary line and the floodway line should be
shown on the appropriate subdivision maps consistent with the etfective
1982 Flood Plain Study.
b. The area within the Flood Fringe District that was filled to an elevation at or
above the 100 year Base Flood elevation should be identified on the same
subdivision maps that depict the floodplain boundary.
c. A plat note should be included on any fina! plat of the Colorado on the
Rapids PUD that states the specific lot number building areas or envelopes
which have been filled, references the floodplain development permit
number, and indicates that construction on these lots must conform with
the GARCO Floodplain Regulations and the approved permits.
d. A plat note should be included that indicates the minimum finished floor
elevation for each lot within the flood fringe area.
12)Staff strongly recommends the BOCC consistently applythe same Traffic lmpact
Fee regulations to this development as it has to all other developments in the
County and not make an exception for the developer when he is asking for a
215% increase in density but a 1,150o/o decrease in obligated impact fees.
VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ThePlanning Oommission recommended the BOCC approve the rezoning of the
property from Al and ARRD to PUD with the following conditions:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the
public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
36
2.
3.
Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by
the Board of County Commissioners,
The Applicant shall be allowed to reduce the Garfield County Street and
Roadway design standards in designing the internal road network to the
Secondary Access design requirements found in Section 9:35 of the Subdivision
Regulations and as shown on the PUD map and Preliminary Plan.
The road right-of-ways shall be no less than 50 feet in width throughout the
subdivision with on-street parking prohibited. The Applicant shall prepare
covenants that contain strong language to enforce such a prohibition which also
includes an aggressive signage program.
ln addition to other required conditions of approval, the Applicant shall include
the following plat notes on the Final Plat:
Colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" State pursuantto C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the
activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural
operations a-s a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a
strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be
prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals,
machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and
disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of
chemicat fertilizers, soil amendments, hebicides, and pesticides, any one
or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non-
negligent agricu ltu ra! operations.
All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under
State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of
fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and
pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other
aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners
are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as
good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source
for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture"
put out by the Colorado State University Extension Otfice in Gaffield
County.
Allexterior lighting will bethe minimum amount necessaryand allexterior
lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision,
except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes
beyond the property boundaries.
lndividual site specific geotechnical investigations and Joundation design
prepared by an engineer licensed to practice in the State of Colorado
a)
b)
c)
d)
37
shall be submitted with the building permit application for all development
on the Rapids on the Colorado Planned Unit Development
One (1) dog shall be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision;
and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property
boundaries-. The requirement shall be included in the protective
covenants for the subdivision, with enforcement provisions allowing for
the removal of a dog from the subdivision as a final remedy in worst
cases.
No open hearth, solid-fuel fireplaces are allowed anywheg_w^ith_i1 a
subdivision. One (1) new solid-fuel burning stove, as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-
401 ,et.seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, shal! be allowed in
any dwelling unit. All dwelling units shall be allowed an unrestricted number
of natural gas buming stoves and appliances.
No further subdivision of a recorded subdivision shall be allowed, except
where it is provided for in an approved Preliminary Plan.
h) All streets are dedicated to the public but all streets will be constructed to
standards consistent with these Regulations and repair and maintenance
shall be the responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the
subdivision.
S. The Applicant shall include a plat note and language in the protective covenants that
restrici ihe six nearest lots to the property owned by Ken Collins to no higher than 25
feet as measured by the County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended.
6. The Applicant shall depict the 100-year flood way and the 100-year flood fringe
following items on the Fina! Plat.
The Applicant shall construct allthe public improvements which include sidewalks, etc.
and which shall be included in the SlA.
No Final Plat shall be approved untilthe Site Application forthe wastewatertreatment
facility has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) and a letter of that approval has been submitted to the County
as part of the Final PIat submittal.
Perimeter fencing shall be discouraged around the boundaries of the entire
development so that large game can access the river for water. Should fencing be
desired, it shall be consiruCted according to standards approved by the Division of
Wildlife. The Applicant shall provide said wildlife friendly fencing designs within the
protective covenants. Due to the limited amount of mature / dead vegetation in the
bolorado riparian corridor along the northern property boundary, it shall be Ieft
untouched so that it can continue to serue as important raptor perch habitat for hunting
e)
s)
7.
8.
9.
38
in the river.
10.The property is located in the RE-2 School District which requires $2OO per unit bepaid
as a'cash-ln-lieu of School / Land Dedication Fee. ln this case, it appears that if the
existing 33 lots already paid this fee, the Applicant is only responsible for paying the fee
for 71 units or $14,206 at the time of final plat. This obligation shall be memorialized in
the SlA.
11 .The Applicant shall be required to pay a road impact fee for 71 of the 104 lots because
fees have already been paid for the existing 33 lots. Those fees would approximately
be $226 per ADT. ln this case, that is roughly $164,471.50. Those monies are then
required to be spent in accordance with the terms of the County's Capita!
lmprovements Plan. This obligation shall be memorialized in the SlA.
12.The Applicant shall restrict sudace use activities related to oil and gas drilling
operations to the portion of the property that is located south of County Road 335.
T'here shall be no sudace disturbance from these activities on the portion of the
property north of CR 335.
13. Prior to or as part of the approva! for Final Plat, the Applicant shall obtain approval from
the Board of County Commissioners to properly vacate the existing plat forthe Rapids
Subdivision.
14.The Applicant shall specify 6 lots, at the time of Final Plat, for houses that shall be
constructed to have a maximum of two-bedrooms, two baths, and two car garages.
15.The Applicant shall present an acceptable method to the Board of County
Commissioners that preserues the use of the internal trails, small parking area
containing 16 spaces, and fisherman's easement for public use.
16.The Applicant shall prepare a budget that provides the expected operationa! expenses
and revenues of the HOA to be submitted to the BOCC.
17.The Applicant shall prepare a berming / landscaping plan effectively screens the waste
water treatment plant f rom the neighbors to the west. This shall be prepared prior to the
hearing with the BOCC.
39
Iluill{ Doptttumt
(970) 984-23L1, ext. 117
Fax: (970) 984-27L6
www. newcastlecolorado. org
Iom of ilor tutlo
PO Box 90
450 West Main Street
New Castle, Colorado BLffi7
July 10, 2006
Richard Wheeler, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning Depaftment
108-8u' Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Dear Mr. Wheeler;
RECEIVED
JUL I 2 2006
rhank you for the opportunity to comment on behalf ,ffiIoT*Bfiff|Y#flf.sfle resardins
the Iand use proposalforTHE MPIDS SUBDMSION.
The Memorandum of Understanding agreement and its conditions was granted to the
dwelopment by the Town Council on 41L5105. All requirements rclabd b the Prcvlotts
@nditions ar€ expected to be met.
Previous ondiUons indude:
1. nine (9) pa*ing spaces were to be prwided within the pCIect for trail access
parking,
2. the trail and its access links shall be of the required width and surftce no less than
Urat detailed in the agreement, which is 5'width with 4" compacted road base
or a hardened surhce to encourage use by the elderly or those confined to a
wheeldrair,
3. the requirement of taffic impact fees in addition to those extended shall be
utilized for improvements to CR 335,
4. the wastevrrater treatment facility would meet or o<ceed al! State/Federal
requirements to handle the need for this development and apprcximately 100
acres of privately owned land adjacent to the proiect and Apple Tree Mobile
Home pa*.
Roads, Amss, and rctated Facilities
1. Crarfield Csunty Road 335
Garfield County Road 335 is nanow and winding, and provides access to dwellings,
ranches and Federally-administered recreational lands to the south. Recent Uaffic counts (2002)
for Garfield County Road 335 reflect that this roadway registered the heaviest traffic volume on
any Garfield County road. Recent growth outside the Town limits has contributed to an increased
volume on both this road and through the New Castle interchange onto I-70.
Federal monies, processed through state departments of highways like the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT), were used for interchange consffuction and improvement
in areas that had o<isting/anUcipated population. In rural areas such as Garfield County, low
e,risting population resulted in few interchanges. With recent growth in population, addiUonal
interchanges need to be installed and existing ones improved to meet the demand. Now,
however, there are few Federal dollars and adjacent municipalities / counties are ogected to pay
for the construction. CounUes/municipalitis must choose between two grim realities: either wait
for Federal dollars to becorne available- or not commandeercd by larger urban entities, or
incrementally collect funds to try to respond to these vital transportaUon needs, or prwide a
match ftat might win the commitment of limited Federal dollarc.
The challenged interchange that is the community's umbilical cord should not be allowed
to have increased numbers of trips added to it without some contribution (impact fee) from the
dwelling unit that applies directly to that impact. Failing to address this problem simply allows the
interchinge to fail, releases the development community from their responsibility to pay for the
effect that their development appties to the community as a whole, and allows the replacement
cost to escalate over time.
In early 2006 analysis was performed by the Colorado Department of TransportaUon
(CDOT) on the Nary Castle I-70 interchange. The findings reported to me by Charles Meyer,
Operations Engineer Region III, were that the interchange was'wananted'for improvements-to
attempt to improve the how of traffic, and that he interchange itself was placed 'on the list of
interchanges that were in need of modification to accommodate the anticipated increase in levels
of vehicles accessing I-70',
Traffic str.rdis for development need to be peformed by legitimate traffic engineers and
should include analysis of the impact- not only on fftat section of the rural County road- h.tt the
affect to the Count/s permit of CR335 at the interchange. If the anaffis at tsre itlhrdlatlge
shows a signifieant effiect by the development, Ure Counffs permit wittt GDOT may be
iopadized. T'he expense of the repairc to brlng the CD()T permit fior CRil3S should
not Ue borne by Garfield County ciffzens il large, but by the developer or drvelllng
units applying the effect that causes the permit b be invalirlated.
There is no anallais sfrown for the effect to CR335 that may cause Garfield CounVs
permit to be rendered invalid.
2. Lot Access
Access ftom the lots should be limited to interior r@ds, not CR335.
3. Mail Deliverv Fadlities
Eager to be more efficient and ocpedient with the delivery of mail, post offices are
requiring mailbox units to be installed in dwelopments. No design is shown for a neighborhood
mailbox unit structure/parking.
The mailbox unit structure should not be located in the driveway access throats; this
causes congestion and unsafe delay of vehicles tuming into the development from CR335. It
should be located in a location $at does not block traffic, access, provides short-term parking
and is'on the approach in'so that people can pick up their mail at the end of the day without
blocking the subdivision's entrance/e><it. This can serve as a neighborhood gathering place, and
would benefit the reidents by combining an information kiosk and the school bus pickup facility.
4. School Bus Pickuo Facilities
If this area is Uuly to be an'affordable housing area', it will include young families with
schoo!-aged children, A safe location shall be included in tfre design to provide a ongregating
area for children and the parcnts/vehicles waiting with them as the school bus anives.
Under no circumstances shallthe school bus be allowed to stop on CR335. Faster rnoving
traffic would be caused to stop suddenly on sometimes icy roads, kids waiting for the bus would
be tempted to play in the roadwan and the access to Sre subdivision would be blocked.
Nor should these facilities be allowed to be located in the -throaf of the access connecton
from CR335, but rather on the adjacent side street- Steamboat Way, Whitewater Lane or
Paddlewheel Lane. Locating them adjacent to open spaae allows children to have a safe place to
play, and keeps them out of the roadway.
Trails and their faciliUes
AddiUonal parking is required to satisff the number of spaces agreed upon in the MOU with
the Town of New Castle.
Affordable Housing
1. This subdivision states that it should be approved because it will be providing'affordable
housing'.
As per the recent Affordable Housing Studu. researched and funded by @rfield County,
affordable housing for the New Castle area can be defined as follows:
Iin the ilew Casde anBa, thercfurc, the purchase price for'affotdable housing'for
an ayerrye Garfield County family shall be no more than $19O000- imludlng
homeowner association dues. It is unlikely that this subdivision will be able to meet its claim
of building'affordable housing'and shall not help Garfield County close the gap between housinE
need and affordable housing available for purchase unless deed restricted.
What was well designed?
The subdMsion developer did succeed in clustering units together, providing adequate road
circulaUon/network, providing trails and open space, preserving public access to the Colorado
River, and proposing a wastewater facility rather than individual septic srTstems for the proposed
121 units. The Town of New Castle appreciates the developer working with the municipality to try
to create a better subdMsion that meets the goals and requirements of Gafield County.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this subdivision proposal. It is important that
Garfield Counff and the Town of New Castle work together to assist the development communfi
to create effective dwelopment proposals that are likely to anno< or apply an effect on the
municipality. It is especially important to consider effects to the I-70 interchange, as it is the sole
interstate connection to the Town of New Casile.
Dustin Dunbar, MPA, ArcP
Community Planner
Family unit
xaverage Garffeld County
family:ilze is 2.66 persons
Incorne per
family unit
House purchase price that this income level wlll afford
(using a factor of no more than houslng oonsfftutirg 30% of househdd
income at an interest rate d 6.5010 )
l oemn s44,200 $L47,200
2 oersons $50.600 $168.500
3 nmns*$56.900 t190,ff10
Richard Wheeler
From:
Sent:
To:
Gc:
Subiect:
Mark Kadnuck [makadnuc@smtpgate.dphe. state. co. us]
Monday, July 10, 2006 2:32 PM
Richard Wheeler
Thomas Schaffer
The Rapids on the Colorado
Comments on the above mentioned subdivision application:
The design approval for the potable water system by the state was done nine years ago.
The system never operated as a public water system and thus was never issued a Public
Water System tdentification (PWSID) Number. Based on this, the state does not recognize
the water system as a public water system. The Rapids on the Colorado will need to go
through a piarrs, speei-fications and new system capacity development review prior to
operation as a Public Water System.
The wastewater system will need to go through the state site application and design review
process prior to construction and operation of a wastewater treatment plant-
Mark A. Kadnuck, P.E.
CDPHE-V[QCD
222 S. 6th Street, Rm 232
Grand .Tunction, CO 8l-501
ph: 970-248-7L44
fax: 970-248-7L98
email : mark. kadnuckGstate. co.us
OFTICE OT THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3s89
www.water.state.co.us
July 6, 2006
Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th St Ste 401
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
STAIE OF COLOTUDO
RECE$VS}}}
JUL t 1 2006
3$f'!'it3?8Jiililill
Re: The Rapids on the Colorado Preliminary Plan
Sections 4,5 & 9, TOS, R91W,6tn PM
W. Division 5, W. District45
Dear Richard:
We have reviewed the above-referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately
121.5 acres into 121single-family residential lots, one wastewater treatment site, one utility district
site, and open space. The domestic water supply is to be provided through an existing central
system, which is supplied by two existing wells and a 150,000 gallon storage tank. Totaldomestic
divercions are estimated to be 47.4 AF annually and the consumptive use is estimated tobe 1.42
AF annually. lrrigation water is to be provided through the applicant's Moore Ditch water rights.
Sewage disposal is to be provided through connection to a new wastewater treatment facility. A
letter of commitment frorn the Rapids Homeowners Association (the owner of the water rights)
was included with the submittal.
Permit No. 49660-F was issued on April 7, 1998 for the Rapids Well No. 2, for use as the
water supply for a 40-lot subdivision as decreed in Case No. W-3262. Permit No. 49661-F was
issued on April 7, 1998 for the Rapids Well No. 1, also for use as the water supply for a 40iot
subdivision as decreed in Case No. W-3262. Both of these well permits were approved on the
condition that the wells are operated in accordance with the Gene R. Hilton Augmentation Plan
approved by the Division 5 Water Court in Case No. W-3262and amended in Case No.
98CW104, and are valid per CRS 37-90-137(3)(a)(l)(A). Houre,rer, these wells are proposed to be
used in a 121-1ot subdivision, therefore the applicant must apply to this office to amend both
permits to reflect the intended use.
A well test completed by Aqua-Tec Systems, Inc. indicates that the Rapids Well No. 1
produced 59.2 gpm over a 24-hour period on April 9, 1996, that the drawdown was 19.33 feet,
and that the 99% recovery occurred within 120 minutes. A well test completed by Aqua-Tec
Systems, lnc. indicates that the Rapids Well No. 2 produced 46 gpm over a 24-hour perlod on
April 15, 1996, that the drawdown was 58.2 feet, and that the 98.5% recovery occuned within 205
minutes.. With sufficient storage capacity, thesg,wells sho,uld provide an adequate supply for.the
The Gene R. Hilton Augmentation Plan approved inW-3262allowed a change in water
rights for the Moore Ditch and other water rights to prwiOe a water supply for a maximum of 9700
residential units on lands owned by the applicant in T63 R91W, T7S R90W, T7S R91W, all in the
Sixth PM. The decree approved the use of wells as alternate points of diversion for the applicant's
Moore Ditch water rights, and allowed the applicant to construct reservoirs in Section 4 or Section
Bill Oarens
Covernor
Rusell George
Executira Director
Hal D. Simpon, PE.
State Engineer
Fred Jarman
Aspen Equestrian Estates
Page 2
July 6, 2006
23, T65 R91W, Sixth PM to replace non-irrigation season depletions. The submittal includes a
proposed pond (Rapids Pond) and refers to the decree's approvalof potential reservoirs for
replacement of non-irrigation season depletions. The plan specifies that sewage treatment
through a central system will result in a depletion rate of 3o/o to the stream system. Depletions
under the plan will be replaced through the dry-up of historically irrigated land. The plan also
established the historic consumptive use rate of the irrigation rights at 1.38 AF/acre. The
domestic use estimates in the plan are based on an average use rate of 350 gpd/unit.
Historically, the Moore Ditch rights irrigated 70 acres of land, and the current proposal calls for the
continued inigation of 42.02 acres in the subdivision under the ditch. The April 7,2006 report
prepared by Wright Water Engineers, lnc. estimates the well diversions to total47.4 AF per year,
with depletions (at 3%) totaling 1.42 AF per year. The report estimates that irrigation season
depletions can be replaced through the dry-up of 1.0 acre of land irrigated by the ditch, and notes
that construction of the suMivision will result in the dry-up of more than 10 acres. Non-inigation
season depletions (0.827 AF) will be replaced through a West Divide Water Conservancy District
contract (No. 971201RDC(a)) for 1 .0 AF of Ruedi Reservoir water. Since the decree in W-3262
(page16, paragraph 30) specified that the applicant, when the augmentation plan is implemented,
shall file for approval of the then-proposed plan, the applicant must file an application with the
Division 5 Water Court to amend the plan for augmentation to reflect the plans contained within
this submittal. The applicant should also file for a water storage right for the proposed Rapids
Pond,
Wlthin Exhibit 14 of the submittal, it appears from the other information provided, including
Case No. W-3262, that the Moore Ditch right listed as Priority No. 2 should actually be Priority No.
3, and the amount should be 0.25 cfs instead of 0.20 cfs. The amount of the right under Priority
No. 14 should be 1.287 cfs instead of 1.387 cfs. The total amount for the "Moore Ditch Water
Rights to be Deeded to the HOA for Continued Ditch lrrigation" should then be 0.893 cfs. The
total amount forthe "W-3262Augmentation Plan Moore Ditch Water Rights to be Deeded to the
HOA'to replace non-potable inigation depletions during the non-inigation season should then be
0.013 cfs. Thus, the totalamount of Moore Ditch Water Rights to be deeded to the HOA should
be 0.916 cfs. The total amount previously deeded is 0.3122 cfs, thus the total amount of
additionalwater rights to be deeded to the HOA should be 0.604 cfs instead of 0.664 cfs.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1XhXl), that the
proposed water supply is physically adequate, however material injury will occur to decreedwater
rights unless the applicant amends the cunent plan for augmentation pursuant to W.3262 and
obtains and maintains valid well permits for the proposed wells pursuant to a court-approved
amended plan for augmentation . lf you or the applicant has any questions con@ming this
matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance.
CMUCJURapids on the Colorado.doc
Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
James Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 45
Water Resource Engineer
STATE OF COLORADO
GOLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Strcet, Room 715
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)86&2611
Fax (303) 86&2461
RECEIVED
JUL 1 I 2006
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING& PLANNING
CGS LUR No. GA-06-0011
Legal: SW%, Sec.4, Sec. 12, T65, R91W
COLORADOEEIt4t
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
June 30,2006
Mr. Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Building and Planning Departnent
109 8t Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Geologic Hazards Review of the Rapids on the Colorado PUD.
Dear Mr. Wheeler,
Bill O,tens
Govemor
Rwsell George
Executive Director
Vincent Matthews
Division Dlrector and
State Geologist
Thank you for the land use application referral. At your request and in accordance to Senate
Bill35 (1972) this office has reviewed the materials submitted by your office. The CGS had
previously reviewed this land parcel in 1996 and delivered to your office a generally favorable land-
use review letter dated June 28, 1996 that was addressed to Mr. Eric McCafferty (CGS LUR No.
GA-96-0015). The proposed PUD has a significant change in housing density so CGS conducted
another site investigation on June 29,2006. Please consider the following observations and
recommendations are you review the proposed PUD.
It appears the property is in a state of suspended development. The entire road network is in
place and four newer homes have been constructed on Rapids View Lane near the intersection with
Paddlewheel Lane. Some of the homes are vacant and all appear in a state of semi-abandonment
without landscaping. It is uncertain by us whether the proposed lot boundaries shown in the March
30, 2005 preliminary plan we received fits the current home footprints. We understand that a central
wastewater treatment plant is included with the development plan.
As stated in our earlier 1996 review, the site has relatively benign geologic hazard
conditions. The site lies on an old river terrace and packed river gravel shallowly underlie the
property, which are overlain by fine-grained soils that likely thicken towards CR 335 and the upper
slope bank. These thin mantles of fine-grained soils overlying the gravel maybe hydrocompactive
so site-specific foundation investigations are recoillmended. There are two other hazard potential
areas. One is the minor risk of shallow failures or sloughing of the slope above the site, which is not
a significant hazxdbecause such a small slope failure would need to cross CR 335 before entering
Rapids on the Colorado. Page I
the development. The second is the possibility of minor debris flow flooding from the small
drainage basin that exits onto CR 335 across from the Paddlewheel Lane turn-off. There is a
possibility that concentrated flows could cross the roadway into the development. The existing 18-
inch culvert is poorly maintained and almost completely plugged off. The first lot on the west side
of Paddlewheel should incorporate some type of shallow swale/berm configuration in its landscaping
to re-direct any possible flows to the west, towards the adjacent open space.
In closing, provided the observations and recommendations state above are noted and
complied with, we have no further concert with the development has it is presently intended. If
any interested party has any questions about this review letter, please contact this office at (303)
866-3 5 5 1 or e-mail : i onathan.white@ state.co.us
Sincerely,
Senior Engineering Geologist
Rapids on the Colorado, Page 2
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: June 16,2006
Comments Due: JuIY 10r 2006
Name of application: The Rapids On the Colorado
'-:"lil:
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notiff the
Planning DeparUnent in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used-for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faned to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staff contact: Richard Wheeler
109 8e Street, suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
Narne of review agency: Garfield Countv Road and Bridge Dept
By:Iake R Mall Date Jrroe2S-2006-
General Comments; Garfield County Road & Bridge Deparfinent would recommend that
cpmments on this application.
Revised 3l30l00
MEMORANDUM
To: Richard lYheeler
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on Rapids on the Colorado Preliminary Plan
Thanls forthe opportrmity to review the preliminary plan
My comments are as follows:
Noxious Weeds
The applicant needs to map and inventory the property for Garfield County listed noxious weeds.
Implement a weed management plan based on the weed inventory. The weed management plan shall be in
eftict prior to the develolment of the project. County listed weeds present in the area include whitetop,
burdoch Russian knapweed and Russian olive.
The applicant states that a plan requiring control of noxious weeds will be included in the protective
"oreoants.
I did not find this information in the covenants. The covenants should inform lot owners that it
is their legal obligation to manage county listed noxious weeds.
Common area weed management is not addressed. Who will be responsible for weed management on
roadsides, cornmon open space and undeveloped lots?
Revcset tion
The applicant has not provided a revegetation plan or a plant matedals list for review. Pleose quoi{y lhe
arca, ltt terms of aua, to be dlstufied ond suhsequently rcseeded on ruad cut and atW dlsturbanc$.
Ihts infomatnn witt help determine the amoant of securlty tha, wlll heldlor revegdatiou
Staffrecommends arevegetation security once this information is provided.
Soil Plan
It is reques0ed that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes:
Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a
p€riod of90 days or more.
Page I of2
Richard Wheeler
From:
Sent:
To:
Sublect:
Jim Rada
Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:24 PM
Richard \Mteeler
The Rapids on the Colorado -Zone DistrictAmend, PUD and Preliminary Plan
Attachments: Jim Rada'vcf
Richard,
Here are nry comlnellts on the above referenced referral.
Drinking Water system -r There is no basic water quality inbrmation on the drinking water supply. Depending on the q.uality of
water, that may create otirer issues regading treatment of the water, additional wastewater discharges,
potential discharges to the sewer that colld increase flors.
r The original subdivision resolution condition 14 requires additional pump testing if Well #2 static water level
drops bllow 24 teet ls there a need to readdrcss ihis issue? ls there any cunent pump data? lt looks as
if the demand will never be at the pumping rate of well #2'soriginal pump test but the condition was there-
r The two well permits indicate that each well is timited to one, 4Glot suMivision. The water system plan
indicates a supply for a 121-lot suMivision. The welt permits need to be revienved and modifted as
necessary to be consistent with the proposed plan.
r The HOA covenants, page 14 references the domesticwater (centralwater) supply system. The second
section of that Grt indidtes that the water systems will provide water br in-house, domestic use and.
inigation up toib,bOO teeiper tot. This is confusing anci rnay be contradictory to the well permits and
separation of inigation and potable water systems'
r There are no welt permits in the packet br the inigation wells. I believe that inigation wells also require
pennib.
r t get concemed about community water systems that do not address water system maintenan@, ongoing
financial as$lnan@, etc. Strong conditions are needed to assure that the financial needs of the subdivision
to improve the water system are available at any time they may be needed-
r ls there any con@m about the condition of the existing water system? lf it has not been used and has
been in the ground for 10 years is there a need to havL some assunane that the system is not full of holes
and immediately becomes a major burden to the property owners?
Sewage Treatrnent SYstem
r The proposed ireatment system design flow falls very close to the estimated sewage fior with verylittle
wiggie rbom. Drinking waler treatment systems such as. RO, if needed in all ofthe homes, could add a
substantial flow, puttiig the treatment pdnt even closer to its design c?pacity.. Wbter leaks lnflow and
infiltration, etc. irio iOi to sewage Roir. Water quality testing might give an idea about typicaltreatnent
neeas, if iny. The water engineErs should be abie to anqreitha[que9trgn !n any.ca'T, CDPH.E will need
to proviOe a'n opinion Ouring-system design review to assure that the design capacity of the trcatment plant
is adequate to handle allexpected flows.
r The HOA Covenants stilt reflect the use of ISDS. Revision is needed to reflect the use of a commonly
owned public sewage treatment system.
r l'm not sure what avenue is appropriate but, I encourage the inclusion of strong language perhaps.in the
resolution, covenants or in anothei/alllegatty binding documents dealing with bes, payment, penalties eb.
to assure that the system is never allowed to fail due to lack of adequate funding.
r !f the sevyage treatment system has not been approved or permitted yet then we wlll likely have an
opportunity-to revieur that application before too long. tn any case, final plat should not be approved, nor
any construction permitted until both the water an waste\ rater systems receive CDPHE approval.
Other
612912006
Page2 of2
r ponds and irrigation breed mosquitoes. As more subdivisions develop, more ponds eventually increase
the cost of mosquito abatement programs. This one will fall on the County to deal with. Should there be
provisions in the plan to make the HOA responsible for their own mosquito abatement?
That's it for now
Jim Rada, REHS
Environmental Health Manager
Garfield County Public Health
195 W 14m Street
Rifle, CO 81650
Phone 970625-5200 x81 1 3
Cell 970-319-1579Fax 970€25-8304
Email iada@garteld.squlU-s,omWeb www.garfield-countY.com
6D912006
rrrr{IIIIIrTIIIITIIIITIII
FIESJUFICE
tdcEryED
JUL I Z 2006
,",f,ffi::"rfrgil,
ENGiINEERING
Mr. Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
July 11, 2006
RE: The Rapids on the Colorado PUD and Preliminary Plan
Dear Richard:
At the request of Garfield county, Resource Engineering, In9. FE9OIICE) has
reviewed the Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plan submittal for The Rapids
on the Cotorado Subdivision near'ltlew Castle. The submittal includes two spiral bound
books dated April 12, 2006 and a set of 14 drawings dated March 30, 2005. Our review
of technical 'criteria includes water supplyfurater rights, wastewater, drainage,
soils/geology, traffidroads, and other agency permitting. _Our comments are presented
belorriandiie based on the PreliminaryPlan Subdivision Regulation requirements since
the Preliminary Plan is included with the PUD submittal.
WATER RIGHTS AND WATER SUPPLY
The 121 lot subdivision is proposed to be served by a central water system utilizing two
wells, an existing treatment, system, an existing 150,000 gallon-storage tank, and a
distribution systeir (some of which is existing) designed to provide fire flow. The existing
water system desigh was approved by the-Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPhq. However, the Applicant apparently did not follow through with
the process irnd the bystem was not issued a Public Water Supply lD nu.mber. The
eppiicant must obtain approval from GDPHE for the existing system and proposed
expansion of the system prior to any Final Plat approval.
The potable water system will provide water for in-house and fire protection uses only.
All iriigation will be irom a non potable irrigation system using water.fr.gm the Moore
Ditch.-The potable water diversions are included in a plan for augmentation decreed in
Case No. tni-SZAZ. Such decree augments out-of-priority depletions during the inigation
season.
The Applicant has obtained one acre foot of contract water from the West Divide Water
Conservancy District to augment any non-irrigation season water right calls.
The existing water system is owned by The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners
Association. n etterlndicating that the HOR witt provide service to the proposed 121
lots is included in the submittal.
The Burning Mountain Fire Protection District serves the project. A letter. from the
District musl be submitted to confirm that the proposed proiect conforms to the District
requirements.
Consulting Engineers and Hydnologiste
9O9 Colonado Avenue I Glenwood spninge, co Et160l I [97CI] 9458777 I Fax 19TO)9.45.1137
Mr. Richard Wheeler
Page2
July 1 1, 2006
WASTEWATER
The wastewater collection and disposal for the project is proposed to be_through a
central system. The Applicant hds submitted a site application to the CDPHE for
approvat"of a 45,000 gatlbn per day treatment facility. The site application must be
approved prior to any Final Plat approval.
The cerrtrC sewer collection system is shown as to location but there is no design for the
system. The size and slope of pipe must be identified. A sewer Pfofile must.also be
"ho*n. A preliminary design of ine sewer cotlection system should be completed prior
to any preliminary plan aPProval.
DRAINAGE
The drainage study and analysis is consistent with standard practices and meets
GARCO critlria. The drainage illan provides for conveyance of storm water through the
property and management oi wbter io address water quality impacts from development
i4lriti"i. The plair generally routes off site drainage around the lots with surface
drainage or throdgh the centrai tot area in a pipe. The discharge of all drainage systems
is to grass lined swales prior to discharge to the river.
The river frontage lots are within the flood fringe arelof the floodplain boundary. . This
lot area was thJsubject of a Floodplain Speciil Use Permit for the original subdivision.
The area was filted tb raise the lot area above the 100 year base flood elevation' As a
result, the proposed lots are shown to be outside of the floodplain. Portions.of.proposed
tots .iO ttriouifr ZZ aia 25 through 33 are within the floodplain boundary, but elevated
above the 106 year base flood e]evation. lt is recommended that a new or amended
nooOptain Speciat Use Permit be obtained for this project due to the above and due to
permit conditions which conflict with the new proiect and our review recommendations of
the proposed proieEt,
SOILS'GEOLOGY
Site gonstraints identified in the 1980 Lincotn-Devore Study include debris flow potential,
debris fans, high ground water, and soils which are subject to differential movement
when loaded o1 witteU. The old 1980 report does not map the hazard areas. An
,pO"t"a report should be completed to mai the identified hazards as required for the
PieliminaryPlan and develop a mitigation or avoidance plan.
Based on the hazards present, we recommend that a plat note be added requiring that
individual site specific ieotechnical investigations and foundation design be submitted
with the building permit application.
TRAFFIC'ROADS
The proposed subdivision will generate 1,158 average daily trips eDl. This.requires
tfrJmairi loop road io be desigied as a minor collector. A minor collector road has a 60
iffiiRESOUFICE
l!!El=TGTNEEFTNG rNc
Mr. Richard Wheeler
Page 3
July 1 1, 2006
foot right-of-way, 12 foot lanes, and minimum 4 foot shoulder. The existing loop road
has 11 foot lanes, a 2 foot curb and gutter, a 4 foot sidewalk, and a proposed 50 foot
right-of-way. The PUD text should indicate that the request is for the above noted road
section such that a variance to the Gounty Standard can be approved for the Preliminary
Plan design.
The traffic study does not address the percent increase in traffic at the l-70 interchange
intersec{ion with County Road 335. The County needs to know whether the subdivision
will trigger the need for a new CDOT ac@ss permit.
The recommended formula for the road impact fee is based on the theoretical calculation
for the project taking into account the existing project. This translates to one-half of the
road impact fee for 88 lots at final plat and one half of the road impac't fee at building
permit for g!! remaining un-built lots.
OTHER AGENCY PERMITS
There does not appear to be any Section 4O4 wetland issues within the proposed
development portion of the property. As mentioned above, approval of the potable water
system and tire wastewater treatment plant is required from GDPHE prior to any_ Fina!
Plat approval. A Storm Water Discharge Permit and a Construc{ion Dewatering Permit
from 'CDPHE will be required for construction of the additiona! subdivision
improvements.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincenly,
EERING,INC.
$
MichaelJ.rEfion. P.E.
Water Rg6ourcas Eng ineer
MJUmmm
885-50.0
K1C&nbS85 G,ARCO50.0Th6 Rapfltcntto Colo\tu po{m pn .doc
l!!!!FrESouFlcE-----ENGTNEEFtNG lNc
PROJECT INTORMATION AI\[D STAX'F COMMEI{TS
BOCC 5116104
MB
Application for Site Approval for Construction of a
o"* Oo*"stic Wastewater Treatment Facility atthe
Rapids onthe Colorado.
The Rapids Development Corporation
Martin/IVlartin, [nc.
REQI]EST:
APPLICAI\IT:
ENGII{EERS:
LOCATION:Rapids on the Colorado is located in portions of
Sections 4 and 5, T 6 S, R 91 W of the P.M. It is
more practically located approximately 2 miles
south and west of New Castle and south of I-70'
I. SUMMARY ORREQTIEST
Rapids Development Corporation is proposing the
constuction of a wastewater treatnent facility
('WTF') at the Rapids on the Colorado
suMivision.
The image to the right shows the location of the
Rapids subdivision in relation to the Town ofNew
Casfle. The subdivision is located in the lower
left quadrant of the illustration. Apple Tree
mobile home park is in the center and the Town of
New Castle is in the upper right quadrant of the
picture.
IL DESCRIPTION OF TIIE PROPOSAL
The Rapids on the Colorado is a92.269 acre tact that was subdivided into 33 silsle family tots i1
1997. All ofthe lots are served by a cental water system supplied by two (2) on-site water wells and
wastewater is to be treated Uy engineered septic tanks and leach fields. No building permits have
been issued for the development since the original platting'
Requesf The Rapids Development Corpomtion is requesting Site Application approval to constnrct a
Wastewater Treatnent Facility l"sequincing Batch Reactor (SBR) System") to treat all wastewater
generated from a proposed ptannea unit Development (0.045 MGD / per day).. The'effluent will
itren be discharged irto th" Colorado River. The *servic,e ared' will consist of the existing
suMivision and a 64 acretact southeast of the existing suMivision.
B.
Projected Selvice
Spelifically, the teatnent facility would serve a proposed PUD with 121 dwelling units to
be located on the existing 97ase Rapids on the Colorado subdivision property and
expandable to the previously noted 64 acretact to the southeast of the subdivision. There
would not be any coilrmercial users in the area
lYasterwater tr'low
The proposed system will consist of a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) teatuent facility.
1.he lgR system will have a plant capacity of 0.045 MGD to serve a proposed PUD and has
a flow ratelf approximately +S,000 gAto* per day (gpd). As noted earlieq the effluent will
be dischargea into the Cotorado RivJrjustbelow and slightly downsfream fromthe facility.
Water and Sanitation Districts
At presen! the proposed properly is not located in the service area of an existing provider or
20i plan. fhe froperry is not located in the New Castle or Silt 201 planning aneasi.
Ifazards
According to the report completed by Z,anc,anella & Associates, the proposed treatnent
facihty is not located in the identified 100-year floodplain. The Applicant submitted a
geotectrnicA study conducted by HP Geotech which ultimately indicated that the property is
i,rituUt" for the p*por.d development based on geologrc conditions and there are no
geologrc hazards that would prevent the development as proposed.
Description of Selected Altemative
The selected alte6ative is a Sequencing Bath Reactor (SBR) treatuent facihty- The SBR
system has the ability to act as an equalizationbasin, aeration basrn, and clarifier within a
single reactor. An S-RB can teat flows fiom a few thousand gallons to millions of gallons
per-day, with a high quahty final effluent. The system design will be based on a peaking
iactor-of 2,but can accommodate a peaking factor of 4 if flows exceed the maximum daily
flow The SBR process was selected as the recommended teatnent pnocess based on the
following;
Small land arearequircd
Iow cost- an SBR facilityhas the lowest capital cost and also canbe operatedwith
the lowest operation and maintenance cost.
Reliability - the system has the ability to continuously operate for extended periods,
under "uryirg conditions and with minimal downtime due to major maintenance.
The SBR has the ability to produce consistent quality effiuent under varying load
conditions. It includes equipment redundancy to facilitate routine maintenance and
capability to operate during power failure and major maintenance.
Flixibility- the SBR process can be adjusted to meet a wide variety of influent
composidons and effluent requirements. The System offers redrmdanry, &d
capability to handle peaking flows.
RegulatoryCompliance-The SBRwillmeetCDPIIE'sdesignrequire,rnentsandwill
C.
D.
O
O
achieve a high qualtty effluent.
o Environmental Concems-The SBRalternativehas asmallerfootprintandthe SBR
can be covered more economically. Covering the system mitigates the potential for
odor.
o Expandability - the SBR has the ability to accommodate additional capacity
expansions.
F. TreatmentAltematives
The Applicant considered several other on-site and oflsite alterratives. The applicant
reviewedaltemative connections to the Apple Tree Mobile Home Parkandthe TownofSilt
and determined ttlat they were not viable alternatives. Another analysis of the possible
connection to Town of 3ib through the new high school east of town was explored and
deterrrined to economically prohibitive-
After a lengthy discussion with the Town of New Castle, the applicant entened into a
Memorandlrn of Understanding with the Town. The MOU supports the approval of the
proposed sewage treatnent faoility, with a number of stipulations.
The teaftrent alternatives, Activated Sludge and Aerated Lagoon System, were not
chosen dtre to treatnent limitations, larger land area requirements, and proximity to
residential developmen! limited maximum BOD removal and being visually
unacceptable.
G. Efiluentlimitations
As noted, the proposed facility will discharge the effluent into the Colorado River below the
facilrty. The Colorado River in that area is classified for the following uses:
1) Cold WaGr Aquatic Life Class I
2) Class la Existing Primary Contact Recreation
3) Agriculture
4) Water SupPly
To ensure these uses are protected, the Colorado Deparfinent ofHealthandEnvironmenthas
established preliminary effluent limits (PELs) forthe proposed facilrty. ThePELs establish
the waterqualitylimits ofthe discharge intothe Colorado River, whichare monitoredbythe
Colorado Deparfinent of Pubtic Health and Environment (CDPIIE) for compliance.
H. Operation & Maintentnce
fhe facility will be operated and maintained by a State certified Operator. Initialln the
Rapids Development-Corporation will be financiatly responsible forttre construction and
initiA start-up of the facility. Once the facility is built, it is proposed to turn it over to the
homeowner's association and to form a special distict to continue the operation of the
facihty.
L Facility Cost / Implementation Plan and Schedule
The proposed facitity is estimated to cost $616,140.00. It was estimated in a previous
application, that the annual operating cost will be$72,740, based on a flow of 0.060 MGD.
This would require a charge of $31.25lmonth/tap.
STATT'COMMENTS
State Statutes: C.R.S. 25-S-702Q) (a-c), and the ooRegulations for Site Applications for
Domestic Wastewater Treatnent Works", defines the parameters by wtrich the Water Quality
Contol Division ('Division") shall review and approve or deny a site application for a
wastewater teatuent works. The Division is required to deterrrine that each site location is
l) consistent with the long range, comprehensive planning for the area in which it is to be
located; 2) fhatthe plant on the proposed site will be managed to minimize the potential
adverse impacts on water quallty; and 3) must encourage the consolidation of wastewater
teatnent works whenever feasible.
The Appticant is required to obtain a recommendation of approval, deNrial or comment only
fromthe Garfield CountyBoardofHealthand CountyBoard of CountyCommissioners and
various other local and regional agencies.
Therefore, Garfield County's involvement inthe process is to'teview and
comment upon the relationship of the treatuent works to the local long-range
comprehensive plan forthe area as it affects water quality, proposed site location
alternatives including the location with respect to the flood plain, and capacity to
serve the planned development."
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan
The main mechanism with which the Board evaluates whether or not a proposed
wastewater teatrrent facility is appropriate is the Comprehensive Plan and whether or
not the proposal is consistent with the long-range plan of the area Garfield Cotrnty does
not have a 208 Water Managernent Plan for the Colorado River Area The Garfield
Colnty Comprehensive Plan of 2000 identifies the Rapids on the Colorado property
Outlying Residential Density, 2 aseld.u. and being within the Town ofNew Castle Two
Mile Sphere of Influence and their 3-Mile Area Boundary. The existing subdivision is
consistent with the recommended density of 2 w.ld.u
Section 10.0 Urban Area of lnfluence, defines the relationship between the Cormty and
Municipal land use policies and a specific policy addresses this issue:
Policy 10.1 Comprehensive Plan Zomng Resolution revisions, 7-one Distuict
Amendments and individual projects within defined Urban Areas of Influence, will be
consistent with local municipal land use policies.
The above policy gives recognition to the Town ofNew Castle Comprehensive Plan and
policies. The Town of New Castle adopted the 1996 Community Plan Report, New
Castle for Future Land Use and Growth. This document contained a map ttrat was titled
3-Mile Area Plan, Town ofNew Castle, and Garfield County, Colorado, that identified
proposed land uses for the area within three miles of the Town. The Rapids on the
boiorado is tabeled as Cluster Low Density Residential (l du/ac) for the area between the
South River Road (CR 346) and the river and Agriculturat Resource (l fi/40 ac.) for the
rest of the property on the south side of the county road. The proposed 121 dwellings
for the 121 acres of land exceeds both the County and the Town's recommended
densities for the area. In the previously noted Memorandum of Understanding the
Town has made a determination ttrat the proposed developmen! if it meets all of the
stipulations in the MOU, is o'consistent with its Comprehensive Plan, although not in
stict compliance with such Plan as to density.
Another guiding land use policy in the ptan (Section 7.0 Water and Sewer Services) is:
Objective 7.5 provides the most direct guidance to this issue. It states thaf Gwfield
C*"ty *itt siongly discourage the proliferation of private water and sewer systems.
Since Rapids on the Colorado is proposing a private sewer system to serve only their
specific existing needs on their properly and does not contemplate providing service to
surrounding areas.. An addendum to the application refers to a "Regional Sanitation
District or other appropriate disticf'as a future owner. There is limited discussion of
howto accommodateAppleTree mobile homepark andotherareas andnodiscussionof
other areas that could be included in a future distict boundary.
Oneofthe stipulations inthe MOUwittlthe TownofNewCastleisanacknowledge,ment
that the proposed sewage treatuent system can be expanded to accommodate Apple Tree
mobile home park and another nearby 100 acres of land. All expansion costs will have
to be paid by the entity wanting to connect to the treatnent facility.
Demonstrated Need
The existing 33 lot suMivision was approved with engineered ISDS as the method of
treating sewage from the residences on the prope(y. The applicant has not demonstrated
that a distinct "ne,ed" exists to switch to a new system, other than a desire to develop the
property at a significantly higher densrty than either the Town or the County proposed
land use densities would support.
B. f,'uture Connectivity
The applicant has included in the docurnentation submitted and an addendum to the
application and evaluation ofthe possible consolidation ofthe sewage disposal needs of
this development with wastewater ffeatuent facilities in the area The Town of New
Castle is located approximately 1.5 miles upsteam and to the northeast ofthe proposed
development. The proposed project is outside ofthe Town's projected service alea, but
the Town was willing to consider taking the sewage from the applicant's site As a
result of frrther consideration, the Town declined to provide service, but entered into the
MOU with the applicant regarding the constnrction of the proposed facility.
Located approximately 0.5 miles upsfeam of the Rapids on the Colorado is the Apple
Tree Mobile Home Park sewage treatnent system. The owner has declined to consider
the additional sewage from the Rapids development. It should be noted that the recent
addition of the chlorine contact charnber was done without the approval ofthe CDPIIE,
which may create some problems for them in ttre future'
Contary to the statement in the application, the Town of Silt is located within five (5)
miles of tfr. proposed site. This will require the Town to provide their own
recommendation io CDPTIE regarding the proposed sewage teatnent plant. (See
attached) The applicant has provided to separate analysis ofthe possibility of connecting
to the Town's seier system. An analysis projected a cost of $2 ,ll9,796tohook into the
system at the location of the new high school site east of town.
As noted previously, the applicant in an addendum notes a possibte future "Regional
Sanitation District or other appropriate districf' as a possible owner of the facility.
There is no discussion of who might be included in this district and how the proposed
teatnent facility woutd be incorporated in a distict. Shoutd the facility be available to
other users, a special distict or annexation to the Town of New Castle would be an
appropriate method of dealing with the need.
Colorado Department of Health
Dwain Watson, CDPHE, provided the applicants with some initial comments on the
applicatioq which are summarized in a memo provided to the applicant. (See responses
& memo attached) The applicant has responded to those conosrns, but not all of the
respoffpswillbe acceptableto CDPIIE. ThefollowingareissuesthatMr. Watsonstill
has concerns:
l. The applicant is required by State regulations to provide evidence of financial
security for the proposed construction of the facility. No evidence has been
provided only a sta-tement that security will be provided after sufficient design
information is available.
The CDPHE uses 100 gaUdaylperson and 3.5 people per dwelling, for design flow
rate of 350 gallons per day per household. The applicant's engineer has assumed
l00ga/day/person,but2.5personsperdwelling,foratotal of21$gaUdayldwelling.
This teaves a substantial difference in the overall design capaclty. The CDPIIE
criteria would result in a system of 67 ,gOO gpd , which would require an expansion of
the proposed system. According to other sections of the application, the proposed
teahent technology can be expanded.
The Town of Silt is witfrin 5 miles of the proposed teatnent facilrty and will be
required to provide a recommendation to the CDPIIE.
The Town of Silt does have tap fees of $3700 x 3 for out of Town taps.
2.
3.
4.
Iv.
Additionally, there is a cost recovery system in effect for lines that hook into the
proposed school site.
5. Apple Tree Mobile Home park could work with the Rapids developer to-develop a
zuifity capable of handling waste for both areas. No real good evaluation of this
alternative was considered.
6. The revised cost estimates do include the provision of a building, but CDPHE had
some questions about the consistency of the costs associated with the proposed
teatnent facility and the costs for extending service from the Town of Silt. This
may be a moot issue, given the Town's position regarding the cost oftaps outside tbe
town limits.
The revised application attempted to address a number ofthese issues. CDPTIE has not
seen the recent amended application.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffwould like to note that this application has been one of the most frustating applications to
understand. The application submitted as an amended application included statements from the first
application ttrat are;o longer correct and there have been a number of supplements added to the
document since it was submitted.
Based on the current comprehensive plan designations in the County Comprehensive Plan which
acknowledges the Town of Nr* Castle's 3'Mile Area Plan as the guiding land use document and
the Town,s determination ofthe consistency with a number ofthe Plan's elements; the consideration
ofconsolidation with a other local service providers and adjoining properties, Staffrecommends that
the Garfield County Board of Health and Board of County Commissioners RECOMMENI)
AppROVAL ofthesite applicationfortheRapids onthe Colorado WastewaterTreamentFacility.
It should be noted by the applicant that the recommendation of approval in no way obligates
the County to approve the proposed PUD or any other additionel development, nor is the
County bound by any of tne stipulations the Memorandum of Understandingwith the Town of
New Castle.
The Rapids on the Colorado
#Review of the Existing Rapids Subdivision
#Application
Subdivision
Zone District Amendment and
Application
ZON E DISTRICT AM EN DM ENT
#The Zone District Amendment Application
requests the 97.269 acre Rapids on the
Colorado Subdivision and an adjacent 24.218
acre tract be rezoned from AII and ARRD to
Planned Unit Development (PUD).
#The proposed PUD will have a density of one
single-family residential unit per acre, lots will
be clustered, public parking with access to
2,800 feet of Colorado River frontage is
provided and 670lo of the PUD will be open
space.
2
The Rapids on the Colorado
Vicinity Map
^{.---l-trI l\rv K
L__i: NEWCASTLE
t&ew
Ropr'ds Eoundory
llighwoy/Rood
PotEcls
+ Rood
4 i SecabnsEI
o
Mo&MfuMotu e,frHA@UNNffirc6tu*@4, frot
N€w @stle
fovn Umlts
'.-iLJ:'r
I ilr.i;':i''
','i/,;k
SUBDIVISION
Sxhlblt : - Ytolaltgr ltaPWs7r./4 sccnou a IND 8A1,/4 ArctrON 6' tw Bett oF 198 lt 8 P.E
3
(
(
A&PIN,T'
Existi ng Rapids on the Colorado
Subdivision Improvements
0 Public Water System To Each Lot
0 Paved Roads With Access to C.R. 335
+ Natural Gas Installed To Each Lot
#Telephone Service To Each Lot
# Electricity and Transformers Installed
# Fire Protection 150,000 Gallon Storage
Tank, Hydrants
#Open Space and Pond
+ Individua! Sewage Disposal Systems
4
Holy Cross Energy
STransformers
+ Underground Lines
S Service to Each Lot
5
Public Water System
0 Public Water System #Rapids Well No. 2
150,000 Gallons
6
Qwest Communications
+ Underground Lines
and Pedestals
Provide Seruice to
Each Lot.
7
i
rTIx
-la(+
rl
IJ(o
Fo)ETIo-(n
o
-J
t+
-
Jo
(')o
-o
-Io,o-o
aCuo-
II
IIa
-Io
IJ
Foo,o-a
+
-{
-J
-Ioo
lr{
-JC+o
-I
-J
(U
Fo(U
o-a
I+\
H
N)
-T!
oot+
+
Po
=
I
#
aE
IJ
(U
-t+
I
l-{
-Jo
EJoa
#
r)ooaa
-{o
o
F
(^)
(,
ut
lv8
.T1
oor+
,.: ,.1: -
@
Fire Protection
# Fire Protection is
Provided by the
Burning Mountain
Fire District, Fire
Hydrants and a
150,000 Gallon
Storage Tank
Provides Water For
Fire Protection.
9
rnx
II(nt+IT
IJ(o
No
IJ
rl
IJ(o
PUD Design Benefits
Flexibility of PUD Design Process Is Used To Cluster
Site Locations Near Existing Roads
PUD Design Increases Amount of Quality Open Space
To 680/o of Gross Acres
+ Provides For Moderate Income Housing Types Within
An Existing Subdivision
+ Permits Range of Housing Types & Prices
+ Provides River Trail, Fishing and Public Parking
+ Expands Open Space Protection to Wildlife Area
+ Sensitive To and Protects the I-70 Visual Corridor
+ WWTF Insures Future Colorado River Quality
+
+
-l-;;;'-;;;
i NW-Xd AHWhHEffiHHT=Hd I ;dJ"#Hllir"il";fir"ruIy,ffjr.rl:fiI lr.rsHx$CIlaAaffi ilnnn parJrrsld | '"*Ult 'St-,UlIAfrN.EIlt{g
L-sgyqffi-roryE lltggldsu_1y+ i ylgrylty'"Egry
,o s?t'o lztxt ge}t?ts arrrr 'ad |ttt ( O
," 8vJ1 i ru3 t,&s itw n
,a &ab i mL @r L\rffia Mta e:i
!om', I Mwmw C
y-gp_r" trl\ tc':,L.'.1f-
:/t:i=----\ wFN *o@\ ---
| ''i!
.vt(t"J
$ifl+)r\..\>
1,\f,ii "\
l!t,
$r\
"5
qq:rE .l,rft
l*$orlI f(t-t Lbt"(I \,\,
tP€&,,..':,,..
;:*z. . )i].'t4.
.:
H
.l:j!vi+:L!iai-;:..,,:, i I:-:.-:,.::j..:.:i.::r:i::i rr:i:
.iL-
*..tIF+.tIr*>
.\\'.tL:g#Sd&!.
#*-"
rht_:
*,r--:L:
August 5h,2006
Dear Garfield County Planning
Commissioners.
Staff, P &Z Members and County
Good day. My name is John Olson. I am the owner of the property
that borders the down river side of Gene Hiltons property, oo
which he is proposing the Rapids subdivision. I am adamantly
opposed to the Rapids proposal for many reasons. I have listed
these reasons in this letter. I hope you take the time to read and
research the points I've made.
As a neighborhood, we are 100% opposed to the application. I do
not know of one person in our area (and I have spoken with about
everyone) that wants to see anything even remotely close to this.
proposal allowed to happen on this particular property. I believe,
this is the classic case of a developer that has submitted an
application that reeks of an "out of towner" (the address listed on
the application is "Littleton, Co") trying to build a development
that has total disregard for anything any of the neighbors or
surrounding community thinks may be appropriate.
Much of the neighborhood is comprised of older, long time locals.
The back bone of Garfield County. They are soft spoken and feel
with regards to Gene Hilton and his constant applications, not
heard, frustrated and badgered. We want to know how many times
we will have to continue to defend the rural nature of our
community with regards to this parcel. We would like to know if
there is a method that the county can implement, to make it clear
that the existing approval of 33 homes is final, to be forever deed
restricted against any further development. It was just 2 years ago
Gene last tried to push a similar application into our lives. I
suggest the current staff, P & Z members and commissioners
research the minutes of all the previous times Gene has tried to
shove something like this down our throats. At one time, as early
as the late 70's or early 80's, he wanted to build 300 homes on this
parcel. Another time, Gene tried to build 7 ,500 homes on this
parcel. We have to assume that what he keeps hoping for is that he
will catch us all sleeping at some point. He has no regard for the
level of anguish and frustration he puts us through with each
application. Maybe he hopes to simply outlive all of us or wear us
down.
In his multitude of previous applications, Gene was denied for
the same reasons that still apply today. [n fact, most of the
issues have become more clear, with regards to road count
issues, DOW issues, State Health Dept. / Sewer plant issues,
density issues, flood plane issues, New Castle Comprehensive
Plan issues, Tax Burden issues and domestic water use issues.
The proposal in essence is the request to build 121 houses on 28
acres. Most of the rest of his property is unusable. Much of the
remainder is comprised of slopes in excess of 30%, flood plain,
roads, easements and river bottom. It seems very inappropriate to
consider his application as a 121 acre application when, the only
usable and more important, visible portion, is proposed as "wall to
wall" homes. The neighborhoods opinion is that the density is
totally out of character with our rural nature. The neighborhood is
primarily nice large lots, many much larger that my 5 Yz aqes.
We believe that the purpose the applicant has requested l2l houses
on 121 acres, is his perception that this addresses the intent of the
recently adopted New Castle Comprehensive plan with regards to
the one house per one acre, for the establishment of "one acre
estate lots". I believe it is obvious to everyone that this proposal
is not requesting anything remotely close to one acre lots. Now,
the previous approval of 33 homes comes much closer to the intent
of the comp. plan, though still exceeds the intended density, as
even with only 33 lots, there are very few one acre estate lots.
Another fault with the comp. plan is that the 3 mile distance is
measured "as the crow flies", possibly helping this proposal fall
within the comp. plan when it should not. This is a problem in that
development in general is usually dictated by the ease of the
commute, meaning, miles by road to all the necessary comforts of
life. The reason that there have never been any developments like
this in our neighborhood is that we are separated by a river and 5
miles of road from the town of New Castle, making the
applicability of the comp. plan as it relates to this application,
fairly remote.
One glaring difference between this parcel and many other parcels
that are considered within the 3 mile comp plan is this parcel will
never be annexed into the town of New Castle. It is our belief that
this is because to annex in the applicants parcel, "Apple Tree"
would have to simultaneously be annexed, which most informed
people agree will never happen. This fact points out another reason
why this proposal does not meet the true intent of the New Castle
Comp. plan.
The major problem most of the neighbors have with the
application, are the many obvious miss-representations with
regards to the flood plain, well tests results and the feasibility
of the proposed sewer treatment plant. If the county does
decide to seriously consider approving this application, or any
application concerning Mr. Hilton, we, the neighborhood
suggest as a condition of approval, the county allow us, at our
own expense if needed, to hire independent engineers or
consultants, to perform and verify any information the
applicant has submitted with regards to well tests, sewer
treatment or flood plain surveys. I request this for the
following reasons.
We understand that the flood plane depicted in the application
refers to the previous or historic 100 yr flood plain and not the
cuffent or proper one that has since been raised I foot. The reason
for depicting the incorrect flood plain is obvious. The new flood
plain encompasses many of the proposed river front homes.
Although I am not a surveyor, I came to this conclusion when I
noticed that the currently depicted flood plain appears to be
identical to the last application prior to the raising by one foot. A
fairly simple deduction.
Another reason we would want to be able to hire our own
independent consultants, are Genes representations with regards to
the well testing performed on his property. The well serving my
house, which is only 20 feet from Gene's property, is marginal at
best, for servicing only one small home. The situation is very
similar with almost every neighbor, all with a similar proximity to
the river, drilling in similar geological formations. Yet, in the
application, Gene claims to have hit a virtual "gusher". A typical
domestic well can only service a maximum of 3 homes, (according
to the State Water Board). I would suggest the county and the
neighbor's independent engineer review the current status and
legal uses of Genes "gusher".
In addition, it was also explained to us by Mark Bean, that
technically, the current design for his water system to the proposed
homes does not meet the states standards.
The next claim the applicant makes which we definitely question,
are his claims with regards to local ditch flow rates. For example,
he claims the Moore Ditch runs from May to November. Even
with an exceptional snow year and the recent rains, that ditch has
been dry for several weeks. I encourage the county to perform a
quick visual inspection.
With regards to the division of wildlife and their position on this
proposal. As it is very difficult to have anyone from the division
put their position in writing, the best we can do is relay to the
county, the conversations we have had with the local officers. In a
nutshell, they have indicated that this application will be approved
"over their dead bodies". They are adamantly against this
application.
With regards to the winter habitat importance of this parcel, it
is mapped as oocritical". We believe that is another area where
the applicant hoped to slip through the cracks due to the recent
shift in the DOW district lines. Just recently, this parcel became
the responsibility of the Grand Junction office. When we
contacted them a couple of weeks ago, the Junction office had
no knowledge of this application. A Pretty scary thought.
Looking at this parcel as a laymen, it seems very critical to the
wildlife, simply because of the amount of deer and elk I have seen
there, virtually hundreds at one time.
With regards to general burdens this project will place on the
coilrmunity. It is my understanding it will place a substantial tax
burden on the county. Personally, my goal is to try avoid raising
taxes in most situations, and this project will not help that goal.
It is also my understanding that the Burning Mt. Fire protection
District is currently not equipped to handle 121 new homes.
The Sewer Treatment portion of this application is a
complicated portion and by far my biggest concern, simply
because he wants to construct the treatment plant
approximately 20 feet from my property. In addition, my well
is only 20 feet from that property line. These facts point out
another reason, a condition of approval should be that his facts
should be verified by an independent set of consultants.
For the complexity of the sewer treatment portion of the
application to be understood, we need to break it down into several
areas. First, the county needs to be made fully aware of how the
approval of a sewer treatment plant, 20 feet from my property
and another 20 feet from my well, will impact both the county
and myself. The second thing to understand is the State Health
Department's position on this application. Third we have to see
why Gene was even considered for his own treatment plant. And
last, we need to look at the type of sewer plant Gene has proposed.
First and foremost, with regards to implications to the county,
if the county should ever approve a plan that would allow for a
sewer treatment plant to built so close to my well and property.
If the county was to approve such a plan, they along with Gene
Hilton, would obviously be held accountable for any financial
loss I would suffer. If the proposed plant was constructed, my
property would obviously become worthless. I don't believe
there is a jury anywhere that would not agree with me. When I
told this to Gene Hilton, he tried to explain that, oothat's silly
because the water coming out into the river, (directly up river
from me I might add) is cleaner than the water in the river, so
it won't devalue your property". At this comment I asked
Gene, "so why not put the plant in the middle of your
property, surrounded with your homes"? His answer was to
become upset at the suggestion, not wanting to even consider
this, for obvious reasons. He knows nobody would by lots
anywhere near a treatment plant. Maybe a condition of
approval should be that Gene has to access the river daily, to
go swimming in the river from my property after the treatment
,
plant is fully functioning.
Another reason he does not want to consider a treatment plant
in the center of his development, is because Gene probably
shares the same concerns I do, in there would be a very likely
chance of contaminating his well. This is a well the entire
neighborhood believes is already marginal at best.
Next we need to understand the State Health Departments position
on this application. Three weeks ago I became aware that Gene
was at rt again with another application, when of all people, I
received a call from Mark Kadnuk, with the State Health Dept.
That is a bad sign, when an applicant has solicited so often for
a development application, that the first person to inform a
neighbor about the project is someone from the State Health
Board.
It was explained to me that the proposed Aeromod sewer plant,
which is a very controversial type of plant at best, not even
allowed in many areas of this country, and not even aloud in
Garfield previously, must operate at 90Yo capacity or it will not
function properly. How a subdivision gets from lYo to 90%
capacity, is a confusing problem. How pure is the water entering
the river in the interim? A little different scenario than the "cleaner
than the river water", Gene tried to claim.
Also during my conversation with Mark Kadnuk, I did receive
some reassurance from the state, when Mark explained to me
that they will not approve a treatment plant if there is any
chance it will contaminate a neighboring well. They had the
same position during the last application. They are very aware
of the liability.
The next question is: Why was Gene even considered for his own
sewer treatment plant? The answer is that to qualify, he simply had
to receive "letters of denial" from the surrounding townships, with
regards to taping into their existing treatment plants. This is at best
a fairly arbitrary process, depending on the questions asked by the
applicant. For example, if the town was asked, "Can I tie my new
121 home subdivision onto your system" the answer would most
likely be a resounding "no". In comparison, if the question had
been asked, *if I pay for all the infrastructure costs, pipes, lift
stations, and pay to improve or enlarge your existing main
plant to handle the increased capacity, for not just my
subdivision, but for possible future subdivisions in the area)
would you allo\ry me to tie into your existing treatment plant",
the obvious answer would be "yes". The right questions were not
asked. When Aspen Glen was approved, they had to perform along
the lines of the later question.
This leads me to my final point. If there is any chance that this
project is approved, Gene should be required to pay for the same
infrastrucfure costs that other developments of this nafure have
historically been required to perform. At Aspen Glen (yes, this is
also a very big project) they were required to put in many miles of
bike paths (well beyond the property boundaries). As Gene would
be increasing traffic at a count of 1 ,200 trips per day, (the counties
estimate of 9.5 cars per home), he should pave 335 road, all the
woy, from exit to exit (Aspen Glen was required to pave all of 109
road, from Carbondale, back to 82 at the north end, 8 miles) He
should also be required to build alarge enough sewer plant (in the
middle of his property) that would service not just his 121 homes,
but all future development possibilities up both Garfield and Alkali
creeks. Gene should upgrade the fire fighting capabilities in the
area. Aspen Glen and other developments had to perform these and
many more infrastrucfure requirements.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
John Olson
The RAPIDS ON thE COLORADO
P I an ned U ri-lt-IleYe! o Pment
PRELIMINARY-DLAN
MOUNTAIN CROSS
ENGINEERING. INC.
Clvll.nd Envlrermsbl Comsung.nd klgn
ffi lE G6nd avmu. qsrcd Srdn!., @ 6l@1
srru,G.sfi a7o.qa6!srsn.dllnidE4,6l
' lOAr
EItn ^l
+, dO laa Lai.sr*yptca.l S,ab,
Oplio'r^.! 5Ae ho*rt. silcs
..rill faa.^oi* 1 ea.serryra*{,
I FanlqrAUb S,{nb\vt$luV Exa,^1.pL6.t'. lSoAcr*s
7+A. Lols
C o.,1e grro{ fr.
..{*"*. larrl
I *tr Ac-
Lolt. C I'sl., Sd L.
p*c9 r*rai I "o.s
*"1
Fart"'t rl4SA<'
ConS.tr..*f , n
{^* *n 1,.'n\
l+5Aa
D: ry,i-.A.. Lo{", Cl,^"**r S*iU.
tui+t4 *ra.rl €sr^.'1. *o q.roolc,A. ktlt.
C ons *rro.{rort Fc'r*.., l+S 4c.,
Jc: lc,7+ A*
r..li+luFon s
(o n s er uct{ i.rr.
,r'.() Lqt9.'. r"rB..4L
Flood Plain, Vicini$
Town of New Castle,
Garfield County, CO
o 1,2il zffi 5NoE-F.d
FLOOO P/.,.IN PROFILE SOURCE:
1) FodoEl Emoig€nsy Msagsmot Aosry, Fl@d lniltsm Rato llsps (FIRM)'
(Bvb6d Jauary 3, ts6).
a Army CrqD d Enghs ColoEdo Rlv{ Fl@d Plaln study' prepa.ed in @peration'
wUr tre Coloraao WaEr ComPatim Boa.d, (cvised July i987).
N Lqwtd
I 100 Y.r Flood Pllln
ilSCLAINER:
tu lm E! ffi W ffi ts fu V @lnDlic lffih &lvl6 uuEng lb Adnlo tugraphic
iit"dlo" sim tmt'n. s d b @;n;tu e @isd as 6 slre d rtrerce lor ans*cnnq
iir.*. *titm. rit Uttr. n. qS b d a sW€ b fr d @l ,!w& manbi'd bv lh'
E*fr;h;d. hm k d M tu tu Ms otu dtuanvlqd dedp
b hildmlid h tu ffi d iu. tn roU. m qa*&!il ol ffiEpfrrc belbns bv lh' Gls ma,
mib ffi tu a@ l4d amF &ry ffi lo tu ffi dH br h mGt @renl rqar e@_
trMlduUHhh@&dhbme
tu lrl,mh ffi hdtr t W b b 5@ab ad elb& id tr lhiH u*s stiodh a'
ij#B i:;tr mh no M s b h ffid d #ulv d try 'nr(,lElu onbired hPran I
deoll@; tulgff ffi d dd d G@ffirytusnv d E[&mEr Fduding
ptl &q* rc ry Fwbtum h uds.Fbh dlhb inhttio
I i.tch equds 0.17 ,n,J€s
c&ww
t\
\:
Ial
U
?'
,d
i.,t
1"
d{
I
I ?rl"; tI
/ :-b
I
n*$,q *r
:& t,
*;8 --.fr .
fi P.; "
ES Ef
lc a;it 3&;* El
**,s
*"8 **
iA
It
riiiirF#ll
t E .*r
s
r)
"& nt*
fi ii;b t!
a.s
rrb_i
"'i-,
$$--',..$l
*:*B
f.:
.rs
l;
*\
o
,{}r:t$* ri}i* }Ftt:i
ill l l
***x i lliteiil;; r F"
*xYT;er
YfiC
iir
aFfr
IiIir
,r'a{&
ari,n ,
$*Ef
6,
T
I
r$
*
et
x
T
T3
,1 .
,.
*
,l
It
PAINE
-
I
I
Hoty EdlthLqqt
/t
SCAITH
I
--:
U}T UNE SEf,BACBS
l.He]ffiI.tr.
'mltlD
U'rd D
t0'
D-rd
ot
PTBENGSI GHIEIPllrr 0tall
OINEB/APPUGTM:
nrPD6 DtVEOPTEtt OomoBlllor,nlPIE Or tEt qurnrDo Efllfirc8l
flEocruml{, G@. B. Elto, t Ls, tEltm8IG '. TBTPTM DIttIuullrlu(, o0 E0t80-800t
EI{GINB8:MTIrT CBO6S ETCTI{IISIM, [tC
Chlt ErL, lB
!8C f Gruil lruo.
Omrood EDdDa!, O0 tlt0l
Ph! e?O.ea5.!6aa lha e?0.e(L066C
SIIXf,EYOB:
E D.!.f Eob.& PIAa7ll Coutt Xo.n 3L$tt, oo Elc68
IINERAL IE9SEES on
OPEN SPACE TBACI:
uI& Brxnlm oorDo8rrul
t0ee ltth Eh..tDotrr. O0 tc08-1e06
IINEBAL OtrMRS:
Go. E" Elltm t fft, J. Etrto
8109 t lnlPlEot DxsIEttrrlion, o0 ro130-800t
lqiqrl lrnti EUL
ffoDft+ EI
dM
th@ ll 00'50100" r
fi,taelf a tt 86!1s a .sd, irBi. t1 L.t of th 50
1a, r 10r.0, ltt, eiss rl
,?3 t* to tFr i{*.! rf'th.lotil2!'{!'lt''8 rrr;10!'0t'19' L attil!'t .t,r. t tlr,l0 rr{r ur*a r ,
.tt Lrt, th{da, 0t'r3rrc'th s 3d.|?rlt. r. aco.qli.*,t16 !o. !r ftOrlo+ f$ryoEdo Hti! I 00U0tlar t
cilo!fti4 rh,i;l* 12't: * ,r,&lrly el .stit iii$ll t,: . ,
rlo!, tle htt.$ly lte o!
ln tb (Xt1s oI th.
? t* !r th &tDttly .
C *ttbt a, f.y X ,g'01r'19'
e .e I@t[ q( t0r-5?
T.
SV 1I/4 SEC. 4, SE 1/4 SEC. 5 & NE 1/4 SEC. 9
T63, R91V OF THE 6TH P.M.
GARFIEUI COUNTY, COLORADO
SZEEiy cgE
UegFE/-2Za
ZE*EI
Crl1E?$f-l{IEEP
EEEsi
oo
EoJoo
oty
sfL.IoEglto?Eg{cE.EorsF
E
z
I
=
=IJIE
o-
r e .e l31{tl q( t0r-5?l'!a,at". I oied b..tlng of
!' 8 5a'26:ia. g fit,r, ,#r,lo! 5r. ta llc,. r id{Dr ,,*rtry ot t '6dfl , 31. , a. r '
t{rii or.ruyr., !.r.!ail:*1, ti;
/
I
Dadcno ond CW M!
furos"
Cololado ltntl :gtaanr rlfo{ tt[ @nlr. a{ ,sld
lrtrd Lrt }ls .dd d&r&tltrg tha fatr!$ ol &t{d
320,@- f*t to rh. apraliqlt coffir ol tl[t
r.16& lgacslrlosrrl,aEs raat hm!c,
r1. r rt rrta?: oi l$d'{&!uitad i{'tll.' i6l l ad*tr' a $fi
:',r tlr l$l.Lutrlr{. t *rottti', iu'i& ila.ilrtlf r{
:t,r t.rL rFl!{ daloilbrd o tolt#! ' ,
w@zazI
,/l
/;
EIIle llmll}m ella. lM t mllvIr. ll@ ItrD t mDOr ulcE ttmml @raG UIE@ lEltlll0 l0rll tlllll lEOm @!l lDiLl.olocom EI cn6 Etcltlc uc ttl@of @!l lPrr. pu[$ anEEDttlc tIC [IOm mt orar, reo@ trl Eoa il. pt8 l!7(!lom!t|tt txr. E(t@m), lnlrr. Et[iraa, lt@ Emamrumllr tff l,qlD rc rD,.EEtt to llt tol ttttl ttlD td rDlrcst rpP/rUltfE IIIC' IrE lE lltCl t[lt t llA lltll qIlC Il.tlllDlt t r. IGf, tIrI lll IO td irDncEtl lD O0Ulllr UD tSEw-f,r',
tl!r! tMit{ e'r1'l!!&!.1 .,510.00 t!rt, tlr{s* F(iira. x'{rrt6rllr t a5t;6i'r;st, !bt@ Il 65.01ltart,\2.6 503;t0',ll.r, !h.Bs n.llll3l?0r p 2D 2a.-d ld.tr Smc. g tt'o2r{?r r 256.82 ts.tf, ztf:,$'ld.tr.;"t$rr'dt E rr'12.,411 t 25s.92 r..!{t s tb. t@1, t&o o, tic E!.M! 5uldrylrt@
?13 e n a!9t16 io. 291881, th@ llot tb.
?E'2a,10r I 321:61 aa.l, S.n6 I 08'a0'15r I
!r!ht rl,th {n;.&r'l!rttA o, i!6.{8 icrt, ! tadliit
8,L4 0l 21'a2rrar. ..ilord b..rirt or I 00t1.19
idtt, r,tuDc{ t 11'491!11 r' 1a1'tr6 tr.t, ihqae s$rsn x 11:3610I. E l1r0,o0 t.al, lh.B lt 49q3
'trli,o$: lstr thooao $ 2l!oo'0o' tr Ia 61,11 Le., i*!r& 3 89'20r08i I 1306,98 t6at
o &El-lllltritG Uilltl EEICIr& ml tPLla EIUE@lilr
s. !Ol[
to?lr. f,Et tlm.Y t tlilolll. Illtl t ltBr,t (srr-!@e)
D.o./.c ElItrm/trU. m(ttr
vlr.ro r rr (
PttIutD Utlll
'trqlul&t -.i il. {rtpthrt cosG d! lrld asta@
{36i10 !st.rloolr-t8q,il.rl,llnq o! sl4 6€ctt6 Itlar B;a51 of llDd ir.ladlfitl ln hk 570 rt l}G:, .tlat Fi{5f qf li}l lalarlyltt ln hk 5?O rt l}9.stt!..ftr 6{trly cl.rt .Fd b@!tta!, tbe6 d ,3'a
1r'08.t1. r lt5.l9 t..t, th6s a 53'{?,08'r I
Atdri oa *ri o,i Cogsti:xo.d tro, ,361 thwr .legt ltr0 n&4, lhino. .l@g r @ to ii. atgrt r
t!rt, . ,rdl,w gl 3t, . 99 L*, . 6tla1 {9tr3 cf,. t!rt, . ,rdl,w gl 3tr.99 L*, .6tla1 {9tr3 cf,'i'lrtltnz:-. 8, s r,|tqri tGneth ot t {r0$:rcr'rl,r.tlth.e .lM . ew to tb. 1cf,t 116 .i rro hq
191.!2 ,st; r'6tt.l rtr01. d m'13,13'. ! chs.isd togth ot 6rlt? t ot, &oa d&althq srd
!00.(8 t..t, th.no f, 12132,35'I ?36.29 l€t, !
i&nr{tDlrs 131,r$8 lieqr,
EXHIBlT
P'''.'r:':+w
;*ia;. " ',"s:." "
t"* :q
*t^tL(+x
Mr. Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
RE: The Rapids on the Colorado PUD and Preliminary Plan
Supplemental Submittal Review
November 1, 2006
Dear Fred:
At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, lnc. (RESOURCE) haq
reviewed the Planned Unit Develoiment and Preliminary Plan supplemental submittal
for The Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision near New Castle. The submittal includes
three spiral bound books dated October 5, 2006. A tratfic report from (iml_ey-Horn and
Associates received via email October 31, 2006, an October 9, 2006 letter with
attachment from Leavenworth and Karp, P.C. and a set of 16 drawings dated September
27, 2006. Our review of technical criteria includes water supply/water rights,
wastewater, drainage, soils/geology, traffic/roads, and other agency permitting. Our
comments are presented below anO are based on the Preliminary Plan Subdivision
Regulation requirements since the Preliminary Plan is included with the PUD submittal.
WATER RIGHTS AND WATER SUPPLY
The 104 lot subdivision is proposed to be served by a central water system utilizing two
wells, an existing treatment, system, an existing 150,000 gallon storage tank, and a
distribution system (some of which is existing) designed to provide fire flow. The existing
water system design was approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE).
The potable water system will provide water for in-house and fire protection uses only.
All iri.igation will be irom a non potable irrigation system using water from the Moore
Ditch. The potable water diversions are included in a plan for augmentation decreed in
Case No. W-3262. Such decree augments out-of-priority depletions during the irrigation
season.
The Applicant has obtained one acre foot of contract water from the West Divide Water
Conservancy District, but such amount does not appear to be adequate. The Applicant
should obtain an amended water allotment contract for additional water prior to the
BOCC hearing.
The existing water system is owned by The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners
Association. A tetter indicating that the HOA will provide service to the proposed 104
lots is included in the submittal.
WASTEWATER
The wastewater collection and disposal for the project is proposed to be through a
centrat system. The Applicant has submitted a site application to the CDPHE for
Mr. Fred Jarman
Page 2
approval of a 45,000 gallon per day treatment facility'
approved prior to any Final Plat approval.
DRAINAGE
November 1, 2006
The site application must be
The drainage study and analysis is consistent with standard practices and meets
GARCO critleria. The drainage plan provides for conveyance of storm water through the
property and management oi water to address water quality impacts from development
ictiriti"!. The plan generally routes otf site drainage around the lots with surface
drainage structuies oiinto the control pond and out to the river open space in a pipe.
The dilcharge of all drainage systems is to grass lined swales prior to discharge to the
river.
The river frontage lots are within the flood fringe area of the floodplain boundary. This
lot area was the subiect of a Floodplain Special Use Permit for the original subdivision.
The area was filled to raise the lot area above the 100 year base flood elevation. As a
result, the proposed lots are shown to be outside of the floodplain. Portions of proposed
Lots i through 7, 10 through 18 and the wastewater treatment plant site are.within the
floodplain b6undary, but elevated above the 100 year base flood elevation. lt is
recommended that a new administrative Floodplain Permit be obtained for this project
due to the above and due to permit conditions which conflict with the new project and
our review recommendations of the proposed project. Clean up of the floodplain permit
issues is a relatively simple administrative procedure and should be completed prior to
the BOCC hearing.
SOILs/GEOLOGY
Site constraints identified in the 1980 Lincoln-Devore Study include debris flow potential,
debris fans, high gr.ound water, and soils which are subject to differential movement
when loaded or wetteO. The old 1980 report does not map the hazard areas. The
grading and drainage plan has been modified to provide for mitigation of debris flow
hazards.
Based on the hazards present, we recommend that a plat note be added requiring that
individual site specific geotechnical investigations and foundation design be submitted
with the building permit application
TRAFFIC/ROADS
The proposed subdivision will generate 1,078 average daily trips (ADT). Th.is requires
tne irain loop road to be designed as a minor collector. (We disagree with Kimley-
Horn's prorata lot count analysis for downsizing the design.) A minor collector road has
a 60 foot right-of-way, 12 tool lanes, and minimum 4 foot shoulder. The existing loop
road has ti foot lanes, a 2 foot curb and gutter, a 4 foot sidewalk, and a proposed 50
foot right-of-way except for 450 feet at the county road entrance which has a 60 foot
right-oI-way. The PUD text should indicate that the request is for the above noted road
section suih that a variance to the County Standard can be approved for the Preliminary
Plan design.
Mr. Fred Jarman
Page 3
November 1, 2006
The tratfic study does not address the fact that County Road 335 is in poor condition in
several areas and in need of improvement for existing tratfic. However this project is in
a designated road impact fee area and the presumption is that the fee was based on the
need to improve the road.
The recommended formula for the road impact fee is based on the theoretica! calculation
for the project taking into account the existing project. This translates to one-half of the
road impact fee for 71 lots at final plat and one half of the road impact fee at building
permit for gl! remaining un-built lots.
OTHER AGENCY PERMITS
There does not appear to be any Sectio n 404 wetland issues within the proposed
development portion of the property. As mentioned above, approval of the wastewater
treatment plant is required from CDPHE prior to any Final Plat approval. A Storm Water
Discharge Permit and a Construction Dewatering Permit from CDPHE will be required
for construction of the additional subdivision improvements.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
MichaelJ. Erion, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
MJE/mmm
885-50.0
Kl0lienb\885 GARCO\50.0 The RapkJs on he ColoWv prelim pud.doc
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: October 13,2006
Comments Due: November lr2.006
Name of application: The Rapids on the Colorado
Sent to: Garfield Countv Road & Bridge Dept.
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staff contact: Fred Jarman
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridee Department has no objections to
this application with the followine comments.
The traffic analvsis we asked for was updated usine 2002 results with a percentage
inr.rense fecfor thef ure hawe accenfed in nast reviews.
All accesses to the site have been installed for several years and meet all criteria for
driveway accesses with the proper sisnage and have been approved previously.
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept
By: Jake B. Mall Date October 18. 2006
Revised 3l3OlOO
ExHB.rr
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 9,2006
6:30 PM
The next item on the agenda is a public meeting request to review a Tnne District
Amendment - pUD anA a puUtic Hearing to review a Preliminary Plan application for the
Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision. The property is located one mile west of New
Castle on CR 335. The applicants are Gene and Mary Hilton'
Richard Wheeler is the County Planner and Carolyn Dahlgren is the County Attorney.
Present for the applicant is Gene Hilton, carl Hanlon, applicant's Attorney, as well as
some of their representatives on the project.
Carolyn Dahlgren stated that the PUD Zoning request doesn't require noticing of the
hearing to tt" Planning Commission (it will be required for the BOCC) but that the
Preliminary Plan application does require public notice.
phil Vaughan reviewed the process we would follow for this item tonight. First we will
start off *itt tt" public noticing requirements; if we are entitled to proceed from there
the staff will make their pi"."rrtution, followed with questions from Planning
Commission, next to the Appiicant for their presentation, followed by questions from
Commission, out to the p"Ufi. for comments and then back to the Commission for
summation.
Carolyn Dahlgren will question applicant about noticing done on the Preliminary Plan.
Carl Hanlon will ,".p"ni to the qr".tionr. Ms. Dahlgren asked Mr. Hanlon how big of a
piece of property *" *" talking about? Mr. Hanlon said in total it is 121 acres. One
parcel isbZ-anOthe other is24 and they are two parce,ls that are owned by Gene and
'luf-V Hilton and the Rapids Development Corp. Ms. Datrlgren asked what about the
RapiOs on the Colorado ftOAf Gene Hilton stated that the Rapids on the Colorado HOA
own them as well. Ms. Dahlgren asked if all three owners were identified in the notice.
Carl Hanlon read into the record the notice that was sent out based on information
received by the Planning Department. Ms. Dahlgren asked Carl how you referred to the
owners in the notice thai you mailed out. Mr. Hanlon believes that it is just referred to as
the Rapids Develop*"ri Co.poration. Ms. Dahlgren stated we may end up in a
significant notice problem but let's finish up the questions she has. Carolyn asked if they
had received all of the green receipts back. Carl said yes they had with the exception of
one that was returned as undeliverable and that was delivered to the address based on
Assessor records. The one they got back was from a property owner within 200''
Notice was published in the Glenwood Post Independent on July 9,20fl6. Affidavit for
mailing states that was done on July 7, 2006. Publication identified the owners as Rapids
DevelJpment Corp. Property was posted by Mr. Hale and affidavit states sign was posted
on July 7,2006. Gene Hilton said sign was still in place today. Ms. Dahlgren stated that
only Rapids Development Corp. is listed in the notice so we have an imperfection there
and it is up to the Commission as to what you want to do tonight.
Phil Vaughan clarified the situation. This goes back to our previous discussion. County
needs to be able to defend itself. There are a lot of people from the public in the audience
still at this late hour. Ms. Dahlgren said the real issue here is the PUD re-zoning and the
cases are stricter for noticing
-when you are talking about zoning then they are for
subdivision. She doesn't know what to tell you and she doesn't know if a court would
kick it out or not.
Carl Hanlon stated that their response is based on the notice that was provided by
Garfield County. Recognize their responsibility. Mr. Hanlon and Applicant would like
to move forward tonight.
Jock Jacober said it seems were are divided into two activities and one is contingent on
the other. Don't need public notice for PUD for Planning Commission hearing. We
could do the PUD portion tonight and review the preliminary plan at a later date. Phil
Vaughan commented that he would rather accept both items or not at all tonight.
Carl Hanlon stated that the HOA and Rapids Development and Gene Hilton are all three
in the same.
Jock Jacober asked if we can ask for public input.
Phil Vaughan recorlmends that we move forward tonight. Bob Fullerton mentioned that
time is not his issue and that there are people from the public here to speak. Jock restated
that there is one entity dealing with three different names.
No objection was made from the Planning Commission, Staff or the public to continue
with hearing tonight.
Phil Vaughan swore in all speakers for this item. He also reviewed the process we would
follow.
Richard Wheeler read the exhibit list into the record. Exhibits A - R were included in
your packets.
Exhibit A: Mail Receipts
Exhibit
Exhibit C:
B: Proof of Publication
Garfield County 7-onrng Resolution of L978, as amended
Exhibit D: Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
E:Garfield County Comprehensive
F: Town of New Castle ComPrehensive
staff Reporr
Application for PUD
Application for the Preliminary Plan
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I:
Plan
Plan
\\ $rt.J
N'\
,
\
\
I<\
Exhibit J: ktter from the Town of New Castle dated July 10, 2006
Exhibit K: Email from Colorado Department of Health & Environment dated July 10,
2006
Exhibit L: futter from Colorado Department of Water Resources dated July 6,2006
Exhibit M: trtter from Colorado Department of Natural Resources dated June 30, 2006
Exhibit N: Email from Garco Road & Bridge dated June L6, 20016
Exhibit O: Email from Garco Vegetation dated July 13,2006
Exhibit P: Email from Garco Health dated June 28, 2006
Exhibit Q: Letter from Resource Engineering dated July 11, 2W6
Exhibit R: Staffreport for a domestic waste water treatment facility dated May 16,2004
Exhibits A - R are accepted into the record.
Phil Vaughan wanted to hear from the Applicant about the new information handed out
tonight. Carl Hanlon spoke to Mark Bean about this additional information and it was
suggested to bring this material to the meeting tonight. Carl mentioned that the traffic
study is one of the items that they want to hand out tonight.
Two additional exhibits
Exhibit S: Power point presentation by applicant
Exhibit T: Staff s power point presentation
Accepted exhibits S & T into the record.
P,rhil,Vaughan stated that the other new items brought in will not be accepted'inftr'the
rpcord but will be reviewed later by staff and appropriate agencies. Ms. Datrlgren asked
for a decision to be made concerning the traffic study and are you going to accept oral
evidence on traffic study tonight or would you like to have that later when you have had
time to look at the traffic study. Phil stated without our staff and consultants having had
a chance to look at the traffic study he is inclined to say nada on that. Phil askod'*to'
other members if there was any objection to what he suggested and no objection was
hcerd.
Richard Wheeler will review the 7-one District request which applicant is asking to
rezone property from A/I & A/R/RD to a PUD to allow greater flexibility and provide a
more creative subdivision for gteater density. The proposal is for 121 single-family units
on 121.48 acres. The residential portion actual a$eage is 28.201. Open space for the
proposal will consist of 677o of the development and a utility lot for wastewater treatment
facility will be approximately 12.236 acres in size. Currently, the subject property is a
platted subdivision known as The Rapids on the Colorado consisting of 33 lots.
The Rapids on the Colorado PUD is within Study Area 2 of the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan which has a designation of "subdivision". The property is located
within the area of influence for the Town of New Castle so the County has determined
that the Town's Comprehensive Plan will be the recognized. The Town of New Castle
identifies this area as Cluster Low Density Residential, one dwelling unit per acre. The
uses the Town asks for are clusters of 5 to 10 dwelling units within open space or
irrigated pasture and their purpose is to provide for suburban type development while
maintaining open space. Staff is using the Town's Comprehensive Plan guidelines as one
reason for recommending denial of application. The proposed development meets the
criteria of one dwelling per acre. The proposal is basically one large cluster of 121 units
with access to the Colorado River and open space in the center and outer perimeter. This
type of clustering is clearly not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of
New Castle.
Richard Wheeler showed a power point presentation with existing and proposed site
plans. Subject property is located on both sides of CR 335. Assessor map of area was
also shown and shows adjoining parcels to be much larger. Compatibility to neighboring
properties is not there with these lots being much smaller. Attached single-family
dwellings proposed are more like multi-family units. Affordable housing is required as
part of a PUD application within Study Area 1 of the Comprehensive Plan, however this
property is located within Study Area2 and none has been proposed and none is required.
Concerning proposed uses, staff recommends that no conditional uses be allowed in the
open sp.rce. All items within Section 4:00 of the Garfield County Tnning Regulations
will need to be addressed under the PUD requirements. The number of proposed
dwelling units will change the category of the internal streets to Minor Collectors so the
required right of way shall be 60'. What is shown in the application as existing and
proposed streets are 50' with curb gutter and sidewalks?
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the applicants
request for a 7-one District Amendment for a PUD with the reasons listed in the staff
report on pages 10 and 1 1.
Phil Vaughan reminded everyone that we want to keep the two issues separate as far as
the PUD request and the preliminary plan application. Phil asked fellow Commission
members if they have any questions for staff at this time. Phil has a question for Richard
Wheeler and letter from Town of New Castle concerning their Comprehensive Plan. Phil
wants to know what type of agreement we have with the Town of New Castle in regards
to recognizing their Comprehensive Plan. Carolyn Dahlgren stated that is what our
Comprehensive Plan says that we will recognize the Town of New Castle's Plan within
certain boundaries. I\fui"Dd{greu stated the Town of New Castle is saying evea tlurg*
the proposal isn't exactly on point with their Comp. Plan it meets a lot of their goals en4;
objectives so therefore they are willing to say it meets their Comp. Plan. (Exhibit J is the
Ieuer from the Town of New Castle)
Moved out to the applicant for their presentation next. Carl Hanlon, the Attorney
representing the Applicant stated he had combined his presentation for both the PUD and
the Preliminary Plan Applications. Phil Vaughan told applicant that he would like to
keep these issues separate.
Carl Hanlon stated that he has three goals:
E
1.) To present and inform the Planning Commission regarding the project and the steps
they have taken to address concerns that were raised in the staff report and staff
comments received on July 16ff and staff report received last Thursday.
2.) To address public comments so we can try to figure out and if we can address those
concerns and move forward with the application.
3.) To move forward in a positive manner in the application.
With that Mr. Hanlon presented some slides.
Review existing conditions of the Rapids Subdivision:
(Totat of l2l acres)
o 67Vo of property will be open space
o They will provide roughly 2800 feet of river frontage
o Public parking with access to that
o Fisherman's easement
o Public water system
o Paved Roads
o Storage Tanks and hydrants in place
o Currently there is ISDS in place
r Traffic Engineer can address 60' right of way
o Fire protection willbe provided by the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District
o Existing zoning shown in area of this property
Carl Hanlon reviewed the PUD design benefits. This was never represented as an
affordable housing project. Can remove the zero lot line.
One of the most important things is that it would have a package plant for a sewer
,treatment facility rather than individual sewage disposal systems.
ffrtis'Rowe, a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Colorado will speak about
the roads. County threshold over 400 trips a day puts you in the 50' right of way
designation. There are only two locations that would exceed 400 trips and only two
seg{nents that would be affected by a 60' right of way.
phil Vaughan asked if there are any questions for applicant or staff at this time- Colin
Laird said he doesn't understand staff recommendation of road needs to meet county
standards for 60'and that there were only two sections that did and what are we going to
do about that. Phil said he was about to ask that same question. Carl Hanlon said it is
somewhat your discretion. His belief is with that 50' right of way in the application we
are explicitly asking for that width in the PUD. He is not sure what the County
Attorniy's position is on that asks if they could be added on to as a condition.
Sngg4hm,asked Michael Erion of Resource Engineering, Consultant forttre Cou{i'
to comments on road width. Can't predict where traffic will go. Historically main
circulation road has to meet the requirements. Road standard applies to lane widtli as
\nall
N
$
NI
\
\\s
Phil asked about any variance capability. Richard Wheeler stated that the PUD allows
you to vary from the standards. If and when that is requested, staff will review. It has
not been explicitly requested. Application states roads will be developed under County
standards.
Mr. Rowe commented that traffic was not evenly divided. They looked at where the lots
are.
Moved out to the public for comments next.
The first speaker is DOW representative Will Spence, the District Wildlife Manager.
Most of his comments will have to do with subdivision. Any time you allow more
houses and less space affects the wildlife.
Russell Talbott, Vice President of Talbott Enterprises and Talbott Enterprises is also the
owner of Apple Tree Park. What will this do to CR 335 and the #105 entrance by
increasing the number of houses in this area? He received a traffic study and he thinks
there are issues. Applicant used County traffic counts showing a 3Vo increase proposed.
95Vo of the traffic is heading east and 5Vo is heading west out of Apple Tree. Traffic
assumption minimizes what will be happening on CR 335. Increase in daily traffic more
like 35Vo. Road capacity is substantially different from the capacity of the intersection.
Karen Nadon lives at 2675 CR 335 and she would like to address road conditions. There
are steep drop offs and gulley's. Road is used by pedestrians as well and not just cars.
There are no merge or exit lanes. There will be a lot of wear and tear on the bridge and
intersection. This road was not built for this kind of traffic.
Phil Fetchik lives at 2656 CR 335 and he will be only 500 - 600 yards from this
development. If he wanted to live next to a subdivision he would live in the city. He is
against this development.
Roy Rakich lives at 38400 River Frontage Road. In the winter time there is about 200
deer feeding in this area. Roy asked if the sewer plant for this development has been
approved. He didn't ever see any septic tanks put in. Roy asked where sign was posted
for this hearing because he did not see one. Roy also stated the existing road cannot
handle the increased traffic.
Kent Jolley lives at 832 Canyon Creek Drive and he is 5OVo owner of property to the
immediate west. John Olsen is his partner. Kent has a letter from John Olsen that he
would like to hand out. tttls pffiosal"wafits to put in sewer plant with AO' orf'fieii
prcpodyr Pictures were also shown. (Pictures are accepted into the record as Exhibit U
and letter from Mr. Olsen is accepted into the record as Exhibit V) Kent Jolley continued
with his comments. CR 335 is not built for this density. lf.heir well is good ertougfrftfi'
moiqgtu{ffidfrtffiest;'Ifis'hard to belicve there isenough water for this propomff:'Nl}'
a(,t$fl0p.Lhas"bsenmede,to get.surrounding neighbors on board with this proposal. Part of
,$,u'
7f
4{n
,$
.rl
4,'/
*vW
this property is in a flood plain. Town of New Castle suppbsedly gave their blessing on
this proposal. Mr. Jolley stated he should have been noticed for the sewer plant hearing.
(Additional speaking time was donated to Mr. Jolley) Mr. Jolley thinks the State is
opposed to sewer plants. The number of units keeps changing. Wonders why there
aren't any comments from the Town of Silt, Burning Mountain Fire Department, the
Division of Wildlife or the RE-2 School District. He knows there are people from all of
these organizations that are concerned about this. Kent believes this is just spot zoning.
Kent also owns some property across the street from this property and if Mr. Hilton can
get this type of density he could do the same. Mr. Jolley thanked the Commission for
listening to his comments.
Marilyn Bullock lives at 1531 CR 335 and she stated that the density of l2l homes does
not maintain the rural character of the area. Each lot is less than r/a acre in size. Where
are kids going to play? Where is the quality of life in that dense of an area? Town of
New Castle acknowledges the proposal is not incompliance in regards to density. Don't
think this project meets Comprehensive Plan and asks the Commission to deny this
application.
Brit Jolley lives on CR 245 outside of New Castle and he also thinks this is spot zoning.
Mr. Jolley manages the ranch across the street from this property. Density will affect the
wildlife in the area. Weeds will also be a problem. Application request should be turned
down.
Ken Collins lives at 3839 CR 335 and he bought this property over 25 years ago from Mr.
Hilton and he was never told about this proposal until about five years later. Mr. Hilton
will not discuss this proposal with him. There is a lot of wildlife in this area. This is a
rural area and this development will ruin lifestyle of people in area. Density is too much.
Water wells will be affected. Ken Collins has not spoken to one person on this road that
is in favor of this project except for Mr. Hilton himself.
Craig Schultz lives at 2859 CR 335 and he would like to hand out a copy of the current
plan showing 121 lots. Next is an example of cluster development in the New Castle
Master Plan. Mr. Schultz read a quote frorn the New Castle Comprehensive Plan. This is
a spot development. Town of New Castle has no plans to annex Apple Tree Park. It is
his understanding that this area is designated as a severe to critical wildlife area. There is
also a flood zone issue. About ll3 of the Rapids Subdivision are located in the flood
plain. Mr. Schultz stated that Tom Zancanella doesn't know about report that he is being
referenced to. Craig Schultz handed out some pictures of the property which shows what
the property looks like know and imposed with homes what it would look like. The
Moore Ditch water is to be used for irrigation and ditch normally dries up by June. He
has a question about 2" asphalt. He also has a question as it relates to water. How are
wells going to handle this? Has the storage tank on property ever been filled?
Recommend that the Planning Commission deny this application. (Pictures are accepted
into the record as Exhibits W & X)
No other comments from the public so that portion of hearing is closed.
7
Phil Vaughan would like to ask applicant the questions that were posed by the public.
Question about sewer plant. Carl Hanlon responded that the sewer plant application has
been submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There
was a public meeting held with the BOCC in 2005 for site application for the sewer plant.
Phil stated there was a question related to existing ISDS and that will be reviewed under
the preliminary plan application review.
Are there any questions from the Planning Commission in regards to the PUD? None
were asked at this time.
A summation was made by the applicant. Carl Hanlon wanted to ask Mr. Rowe to
cornment on traffic related to question from Kent Jolley. Traffic is a key issue. In the
Study that was referenced, Mr. Rowe is not here now to defend that study. Mr. Rowe did
his own study. Counts were done on August ltt. ADl,,inepasod about S49b frontcufitts
f$4!yep done inZCfJl2. Question about directional. That was identified by International
ffin. brgineer. Site would generate l24O ADT. Traffic is a minimal impact and it i3
anticipated they will operate at a Level C. There was a question about the depth of
pavement. That was done by Engineers so Carl cannot address.
Carl Hanlon stated that there were concerns raised about the quality of CR 335. There
are fraffic impact fees that will be assessed.
As to the wildlife issue, the applicant relied on mapping provided for critical winter range
for elk and critical winter range for deer.
The other issue he thinks is being in the sphere of influence for the Town of New Castle
Comprehensive Plan. In the opinion made by the Town Planner, this is a clustered
development. Carl recognizes the public comments rose concerning density.
Phil Vaughan reopened the public comments section of hearing.
Mr. Talbott would like to speak again. He is the owner of Talbott Enterprises and Apple
Tree Park. The Town of New Castle mentioned in their Land Use Map that CR 335 is
already identified as a road that needs to be widened and that's even prior to this proposal
going in. The daily trips were increased. Basically this development would generate
1,240 daily trips. Currently it was said that the daily trips were mapped on that section of
county road. It appears it may have coincided with the counters that were set up during
the time we had that real heavy rain and mud flow so that may impact their numbers.
4,000 was what the applicant got on their count and they say that is less than a ZOVo
increase so Mr. Talbott is having a hard time with that. Seems to be in excess of 20Vo.
Mr. Kent Jolley would like to speak again as weIl. Mr. Hanlon made the statement that I
should have known about the site application hearing but that was not a noticed meeting
and he didn't know anything about it. Seems like on a decision like that we should have
been talked to. Kent calculated the increase in traffic to be a 26Vo increase to the
interchange. Phil Vaughan will have applicant review over those items in a moment.
Bob Gordon lives at23} North 7ft Street in New Castle and he was at that Town Meeting
but wasn't allowed to vote. Every town meeting is a noticed public hearing. Nobody at
the town meeting liked the idea of thirty-three individual septic systems on that property.
Proposal will have 4 access points to the river and the Town liked that. Problems on
county road but remedies are possible. Tryrng to work on the road problems.
Application was approved for 300 homes. There is a high demand for homes in this area.
Would rather see more clustering so there is more access and open space. Mr. Gordon
agrces with this development.
Karen Nadon stated that right to east of bridge connects CR 335 with I-70 interchange
and there is anew apartment complex being built there. Will experience a huge bottle
neck. Road is nilrow. Pictures she sent around show the open space that is not really
useable because it's just hillside. This project only serves one person.
Craig Schultz lives at 2859 CR 335. He has a question about the 2 inches of asphalt on
roads and a question concerning the water tank and has it ever been filled on verified. He
wonders how storage tank is adequate for l2l lots. Mr. Schultz read some of the Town
of New Castle's Comprehensive Plans regulations into the record. The cost to run a
sewer line to the Town would be more cost effective than a sewer plant. Necessity of a
separate plant may not be there.
Gail Schultz owns some property in Apple Tree and south of Rifle. She has just returned
from a stay in Alabama where she stayed in a subdivision with home owner fees and she
has been privy to some of the meetings that her son and daughter have been having in
opposition to this subdivision and it has been very interesting to see that the home owners
have been represented by Mr. Hilton. She hopes that Mr. Hilton never represents her
because every time there is a concern as to who is going to maintain the trail system he
speaks for the home owners and says oh, the home owners will pay for that. Every time
there is a question about maintenance of the pool or pond or any of the trails, fences, etc.
there is a quick response that says well the home owners can take care of that.
No fuither public comments were made so that portion of hearing is closed once again.
Phil Vaughan asked questions to the applicant which were brought up by the public. The
frst is concerning the 2" pavement on the roadway. Mr. Hilton said he could have done
chip and seal but decided to do 2" of asphalt instead.
Mr. Vaughan asked has the 150,000 water tank been filled. Mr. Hilton responded that it
had been filled many times. He has drained in the spring many times and has had a
company refill it for him. T|13n.1gffi1pdrretion between thc two urells is.abotffi3
g&iee.misule. Phil Vaughan asked is the 150,000 gallon water tank adequate for this
development. Sftftfi$'It{*or,,.Engineering provided a letter for household lue-ad
tr*Aartott Frupsd,osoontidly.puts in a.second,system of noR-potable weler. Water
,%,i
f'!t
1
rights are available through out the season. As far as in-house use they have much more
water than what is required.
Cheryl Chandler has a question for Richard Wheeler. Hypothetically, if we approve the
rezoning to PUD, we are not approving this site plan. Richard said that is correct, you are
approving the proposed zone districts for the PUD and you are approving the density for
the PUD. The site plan would be specific to the preliminary plan. Carolyn Dahlgren
asked what about the change in the road width. Richard stated that the change in the road
width would be part of the PUD and that would need to be added as a condition of
approval if PUD was approved because that change in road width has not been requested
by the applicant. Cheryl said so the density of l2l lots would be part of the PUD.
Richard said that is correct.
Colin Laird had a question about traffic impact fees and Carolyn Dahlgren stated'that
trhc impact fees Lave already been paid bn 33 lots and the other new lots will be
required to pay the current fees but that would be approved with the preliminary plan.
,y' . f*t Jacober made a motion to deny the requeste d ZaneDistrict Amendment for a PUD
, ,d .*) for the Rapids on the Colorado with reasons stated on page l0 and 11 of the staff report.
W ,,t Jock is looking at the density being proposed and does not think it is appropriate for this
,r$\ area. This is an urban development and he thinks this would be spot zoning. Beneficiary
\.' is only one person for this proposal. Impact on county road will not be off set in any/\ manner from what he sees. Colin Laird seconded the motion.
Cheryl Chandler stated she likes the mod idea and can't agree that
is a PUD and we see them all over the county. Thinks therg.j
proposed here and would like to see some suggests,
possibly parking be avai
Bob Fullerton said open space is a positive but he also
Agrees with Cheryl's suggestion about parking and he is
Sean Martin stated he is not opposed to seeing a PUD but feels it 6 a little too
Colin Laird prefers clustering house but thinks too many lots are being requested. He is
also concerned with traffic impact.
Shirley Brewer likes ths idea of this property having more than-
proposed is a (ttle tcio deB for her. StrirtW is concernl{itlt-w$
but what is
area as well.
Steve Reynolds would like to see {more clustering of homes by the
Town of New Castle Comprehensi
for him to deny projects that are close to towns with
because we watlt density close to town.
hardPhil
incr
Vaughan stated it is
Application needs some more time at
the drawing board. Impacts in this area need to be addressed. Recommend you go out
and speak to your neighbors.
Phil Vaughan also thanked Will Spence, DOW Wildlife Officer for his
comments tonight.
Carl Hanlon gave the option for continuance to another Planning Commission
Phil reminded everyone there is already a motion on the table.
time and
meeting.
A vote was taken on the motion made by Jock Jacober and seconded by Colin Laird.
Motion failed 4 (N) - 3 (Y).
Cheryl Chandler made a motion to continue the 7-one District request to the October 11,
2006 Planning Commission meeting. Shirley Brewer seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and motion passed 4(Y) - 3 (N) to continue this to the October ll,2OO6 Planning
Commission meeting.
Cheryl Chandler made another motion to continue the Preliminary Plan Application for
the Rapids on the Colorado to the October !1, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and
Shirley Brewer seconded the motion. A vote was taken to continue the Preliminary Plan
to the October 11,2006 Planning Commission meeting and motion passed unanimously.
Carl Hanlon stated the applicant will waive the 120 day time limit to get to application to
the BOCC. The application was originally deemed complete by staff on June l,2006.
Richard Wheeler commented that if density changes from this proposal
Carl Hanlon stated if density is lower than impacts are lower.
Phil Vaughan argues that would be"-.a materiatr change and would have to be re-noticed.
Under other business, Mark Bean mentioned the Smart Growth Conference that was
coming up and if any of the Commissioners would like to attend to call Cathi Edinger and
she would get you registered.
No other business to discuss so meeting is adjourned at 1:30 a.m.
To:
MEMORANDT'M
Fred Jarman
Steve Anthony
Comrnents on Rapids on the Colorado Preliminary Plan (October 2fi)6)
Frnom:
Re:
Date: 0ctober 31, ?M
Thanks for the opportunity to review the preliminary plan.
My comments are as follows:
Noxious Weeds
The applicant needs to map and inventory the property for Garfield County listed noxious weeds.
In Mr. Leavenworth's letter to you dated October 9,20Cf,, he states in Item #12, regarding the County's
prior request for a weed map and inventory, t}rtt "it is impractical in that the weeds move from place to
place and specific mapping while possible would be rendered obsolete as Eoon as it was produced".
Weed mapping and inventory has been proven over time to be one of the most useful components of a
weed management prog@m. A landowner must know what is out there if thgy want to manage their land
successfully. Many of the County's listed noxious weeds are perennials and do show up in the same place
year after year.
Implement a weed management plan based on the weed inventory. The weed management plan shall be in
effict prior to the development of the project. County listed weeds present in the area include whitetop,
burdock, Russian knapweed, Russian olive, tamarisk, and common burdock.
The applicant has at least nine Russian olive trees within the proposed open space area along the Colorado
River, these need to be mapped, inventoried, cut, and fteated.
There are also some young tamarisk fiees around the pond and they need to be mapped, inventoried, cut,
and treated.
Mr. lravenworth also states that "several plat notes have been added to the preliminary plan indicating
weed management and soil storage duing construction". I have been unable to locate these comments in
the submittal.
Covenants
In the amendment to the covenants, the applicant addresses mosquitos and noxious weeds.
Mosquitos are addressed in Section 14.6.It states that "the owner of each lot shall use their best effons to
control the moiquito popuhti.onwith(in) the Subdivision, which shall include, without limitation, the
prevention of standing pools of stagnant water on the Lot".
Staff recommends that the applicant provide more detail beyond "best efforts". Also the applicant needs to
specifically address the issue of mosquito management on the pond located in the subdivision' Please
identify the party responsible for taking care of mosquito issues on the pond.
Weeds are addressed in Section 14.7 andagain detail is lacking in the covenants regarding responsibility of
noxious weed management on corrlmon areas such as roadsides, open spaces' and park areas.
Reveeetation
The applicant has not provided a revegetation plan or a plant materials list for review. Please quanti[y the
*eo, i tenns of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and fiility disturbances,
This inlonnatiin witl hetp determine the amount of securiE tlut will held tor revegetolioru These will
be aruas outside of the butlding envelopes.
Staffrecommends a revegetation security once this information is provided.
Soil Plan
It is requested that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes:
hovisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a
period of 90 days or more.
Proliferation of tumbleweeds
ComplainS from adjacent landowners to new subdivisons have increased in the last two years regarding the
issuJof nuisance weeds such as kochia and Russian thistle. These plants are opportunistic to bare soil and
later become tumbleweeds. Typically we have seen them in areas in new subdivisions where the soil has
been left disturbed and revegetation has not occurred. Kochia and Russian thistle are not County listed
noxious weeds so are not sobiect to noxious weed enforcement regulations per the Garfield County Weed
Management Plan and the State Noxious Weed Act. Staff requests that the Planning andZnnrng
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners consider making a request of the applicant to address
management of Kochia and Russian thistle along disturbed areas and roadsides within the subdivision.
Summarv of reouests
o Provide a noxious weed inventory and map
o Implement a weed management plan based on the inventory
o Inventory and treat the Russian olive and tamarisk as soon as possible
hovide more details in the covenants regarding responsibility of weeds and mosquitos
Complete a revegetation plan as stated above, with a plant materials list and with an estimate of
disturbed areas, a security for revegetation will be established once this information is supplied.
Provide a soil management plan as stated above.
Address a plan of action should Kochia and Russian thistle become a problem.
STATE OF COLO
Department of Natural Resanrces
'1313 Sherman Stred, Room 715
Denver, CO 892G3
Phone: (3G!) 86&26'11
Fax (3@)866,2461
October 2A,2006
Mr. Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
109 8t Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
CGS LUR No. GA-07-0005
Legal: SW%, Sec.4, S€c. 12, T65, R91W
t.,
t--lHt
DEPARTIVIENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Bii Our€ns
Govemor
Russell George
Execuillve Direc{or
Mncent Matheuus
Division Direc*or and
Slate Geologist
RE: Geologic Hazards Review of the Rapids on the Colorado PUD resubmittal.
Dear Mr. JarmarL
Thank you for the land-use application referral. At your request and in accordance to Senate
Bill 35 (1972) this of;Ece has reviewed the revised materials that were zubmitted by your office. The
CGS had previously reviewed this land parcel in 1996 and delivered to your office a generally
favorable land-use review letter dated June 28, 1996 that was addressed to Mr. Eric McCafferty
(CGS LURNo. GA-96-0015). The proposed PUD has a significant change in housing density so
CGS conducted another site investigation on June 29,2006, and another review letter was sent, dated
June 30, 2006 (CGS LUR No. GA-06-001l). We have reviewed the revisd development plan and
offer the following observations and recommendations for your land-use review of the proposed
PUD.
As we stated in our earlier reviews, the site has relatively benign geologic hazard conditions.
The site lies on an old river terrace and packed river gravel shallowly underlie the property, which is
overlain by fine-grained soils that likely thicken towards CR 335 and the upper slope bank. These
thin mantles of fine-grained soils that overlie the gravel may be hydrocompactive so site-specific
foundation investigations are recommended. There are two other hazard potential areas. One is the
minor risk of shallow failures or sloughing of the slope above the site, which is not a significant
hazard because such a small slope failure would need to cross CR 335 before entering the
development. The second is the possibility of minor debris flow flooding from the small drainage
basin (drainage basin C in the drain4ge report) that exits onto CR 335 across from Paddlewheel
Lane. There is a possibility that concentrated flows could cross the roadway into the development.
The existing l8-inch culvert is poorly maintained and almost completely plugged off.
,ff;;T i* !" ri::j":tdj,i":s__ *^*___j
The revised plan shows additional lots in this vicinity, which extend farther west than shown
in the earlier plan. 'ihis will result in more exposure of potential debris flows to those lots at the end
of the cul-de-sac (ofthe newly proposed Canoe Way 100) from the next larger and steeper
ephemeral drainageway above the highway, which is drainage basin E in the drainage report.
The drainage plan shows a strort berm in the landscaping west of Paddlewheel lane that
parallels the county road. This berm re-directs possible overflows to the wes! towards the adjacent
open space. That was the only grading plan we could find in the zubmittal.
We believe that it would be prudent to extend that berm to wrap around the back corner of
the cul-de-sac lots so that it provides additional protection from potential hyperconcentrated or
bulked storm flows that may outlet from the channel of drainage basin E. Since it doesn't appear
that any debris bulking was used in the drainage study, tle drainage engineer should veriS that the
height ofthe diversion berm is adequate.
In closing, our recommendations in the earlier CGS reviews remain valid - site specific
foundation investigations should be completed for each lot. Provided the observations and
recommendations itated above concerning drainage flows are noted and satisfactorily addressed,
we have no further conoern with the revised development plan. If any interested party has any
quesions abortr this review leus, please contact this office at (303) 866-3551 or omail:
ionathan.white@state. co.us
Sincerely,
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTI]
SANDERN. KARP
JAMES S. NEU
KARLJ. HANLON
MICHAELJ. SAWYER
LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2OI IATrd STREET, SUITE 2OO
P. O. DRAWER 2O3O
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLOMDO 81602
Telephone: (97 0) 945 -2261
Facsimile: (97 0) 9 45'7 33 6
kjh@lklawfirm.com
DENVER
7OO WASHINGTON ST. STE 702
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
Telephone: (303) 825-3995
*(Please direct all correspondence
to our Glenwood SPrtngs Ofice)
SUSANW. LAATSCH
ANNA S. ITENBERG
CASSIAR. FI.JRMAN
BETTI E. KINNE
CASSANDRA L. COLEMAN
LAURAM. WASSMUT}I
October 9,2006
Fred Jarman, Planner
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
108 Eighth Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Rapids Development Application
Dear Fred:
The purpose of this letter is to answer questions and to provide supplemental information
requested UV tfte planning Commission at its August g,2}O6meeting regarding the above referenced
development.
l. youwill note onthe revisedpreliminaryplan and siteplanthat densityhasbeenreduced from
121 units down to 104, and the use of a cluster concept has been more clearly defined. In
order to accomplish this, the applicant has revised the drawings to utilize cul-de-sacs,
clustering homes around those cui-de-sacs rather than along through streets. You will also not
that the pre-existing infrastructure limits the Applicants flexibility in creating clusters.
Notwithstanding that fact the Town of New Castle found that the plan was substantially
compliant with New Castle Comprehensive Plan. We hope that Staff and the Commission will
respict that evaluation of the Site Plan when considering this project.
z. Right of ways have been increased at the entrance on the development to 60 feet in those
locations tfrat tfre traffic engineer indicated would be necessary to meet the requirements of
Garfield County regulations. Please see the letter from the haffic engineer speciffing these
locations (see volume III Auachment No.-D.
3. you will note on the site plan two mailbox locations with pull-off stacking areas to allow
dropping off and Picking uP of mail.
4. An exciting addition to the site plan is a basketball court, tot lot, and sports field to provide
areas for children to play and for active recreation'
5. you will also note the addition of three school bus pick up and drop offareas, one at each
mailbox location and one central to the development and adjacent to the open space area'
l:um6\Cliatr\R4i!ts l4o^lrE \ba-2.wpd
7.
LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C.
Page 2
October 9,2006
making it easily accessible to all of the residences.
In response to concerns raised by Staffregarding the size of lots relative to other developments
in the area, it should be noted that while such developments as Four Mile Ranch, Cerise Ranch
have larger lot sizes, they are also burdened significantly by open space easements effectively
reducing lot sizes to that which are reflected in Rapids Development. In a cluster
development, the lot sizes are smaller, but the corrmon open space available to all users is
increased. This is in conhast to developments such as Cerise Ranch and Four Mile Ranch
where those open spaces are unavailable for public use. The development at Apple Tree by
comparison has smaller lot sizes but does not benefit from the cluster design proposed by the
Applicant
You will also note in response to concerns regarding the public parking for use of the River
Trail Easement, there are now16 parking spaces; seven more than required in the
Memorandum of Understanding with the Town of New Castle.
In response to Staffconcems regarding attached dwelling units, with the total number ofunits
reduced to 104, all attached dwelling units have been eliminated.
The traffic report indicated that no triggers have been met for new access permits onto the I-70
corridor. Additionally, with the reduction in overall density, an update to that haffic report
is provided along with this letter indicating that the burden on existing infrastucture has been
reduced. It is also our hope that the County honors the intent of the MOU with the Town of
New Castle and uses traffic impact fees for improvements to cR335.
Staffhad significant discussion regarding the lack of an affordable housing component at this
location. It should be noted that this is in StudyArea2 andno affordable housing is required.
Staffalso raised concerns, via their consultant Resource Engineering, regarding the mapping
of geologic hazards. We refer to the letter of Jonathan White of the State Geological Sernices
indicating there is no real risk on the site of geologic hazards. Mr. White does request certain
changes to the drainage plan to accommodate any potential risks. Those changes have been
made to the drainage plan and Chris Hale, P.E. has discussed these matters with Resource
Engineering. Please see the attached copy of the letter from Chris Hale to Michael Erion of
Resource Engineering on this issue. See sheet DRN of the site plan which shows the drainage
feature recommended in the South West corner
Weed management has been addressed in the revised set of covenants. (see volume III
Attachment No. t ). In addition, several plat notes have been added to the preliminaryplan
indicating weed management and soil storage during construction. While a map was
requested, it is impractical in that the weeds move from place to place and specific mapping
while possible would be rendered obsolete as soon as it was produced.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
I :U006\Oi@B\R{id&l,onLdqdbco-2.rDd
LEAVENWORTH & KAR
Page 3
October 9,2006
13. Staff also raised the question as to whether apublic water supplynumberhadbeen issued for
this project. While one is unnecessary until the trigger of 20 inhabited units is met (which has
not been met) the Applicant has obtained a cunent putlic water supply number: CO-0123668
(seevolume III Attachment No. :L).
14. Staff also raised concems regarding the sewer site plan. As you will reOall, this was the
subject of a public meeting at which time the Board of County Commissioners approved the
site plan application for fiiing with the State. While that information is in your file it is also
. incorporated into this application (seevolume III Attachment No. ruil.
15. you will also note on the site plan that lot access to all lots continues to be from the interior
roads of the development and not from County Road 335.
16. Staff also requested water quality information. Included in the supplementat materials is the
information irovided to the State for issuance ofthe public water system number. If the State
requires additional information, we will provide that information to County as well.
17. Resource Engineering also raised issues regarding the flood plain Special Use Permit. If
necessary, prior to final plat we will file for an administrative clean up of Special Use Permit
lg. We have applied for a West Divide Contract Amendment to increase available water for the
subdivision. We expect it to be approved by the time of the meeting. The Contract
Amendment that will allow us to obtain well permits under the West Divide Substitute Supply
Plan. Outside irrigation uses will continue to be provided by the Moore ditch priorities Nos.
3 and 14 Decreed inW 3262.
As you can see, the applicant has committed significant time and energyto responding to the
planning Clmmission and StafPs comments regarding the Rapids Development. We hope that these
revisions and responses provide the necessary information to the Planning Commission and Staffto
make a recommendation of approval.
VeryfrulyYours,
LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C.
LEL:bsl
Enclosure
cc: Gene Hilton, Wenc.
t:\2005\ClioldR{,idtsra0iler\D{o-2.rDd
Nov 07 OE 11:22a P i.n
BURNING
6Il Main St.
P.O. Box2
Silt, CO. 81652
9?r 76-?774
MOUNTAINS FIRE PROTECTION DI
Brit C. Mclin
Chief
EXHIBIT
€€
Phone: (970)876-5738
Fax: (970) 876-2774
E-Mail : burningmountainschi ef@msn, com
7 November 2006
Garfi eld County Building and Planning
I have reviewed the PLJD proposal known as the Rapids and have rnet with ChrisHale. The street widths are adequate so long as there is no parking allowed and they are
so posted. The radii of the cul de sacs are acceptable. The proposid water storage will
be acceptable, particularly if fire department access via a dry standpipe in the poid is
granted. The proposed,fire hydrant spacing will likely be aiceptabie barring any unusual
building envelopes on the pnrposed lots. Should the developei elect to requlre ihat alt
ney ruidences be provide with automatic fire sprinklers, the hydrant density may be
reduced. An easement that travels with title to the water rightind mentioni the iecree
by case number shorlld identi$ the Burning Mountains Fh; Protecrion Districr as having
aocess to and use ofthe water for fire suppression purposes should be recorded.
Provisions for maintenance ofwater levels in both thestorage tank and pond
should be specified (who is responsible for kee,ping them full?)
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Yours truly,
Brit C.
The Rapids PUD
Fred Jarman
From: Roussin, Daniel IDaniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:15 AM
To: Fred Jarman
Cc: Znamenacek,Zane
Subject: The Rapids PUD
Based upon the traffic analysis conducted by Kimley Horn dated October 6, 2006 , it doesn't appear to impact t-70
New Castle lnterchange by more lhen2Oo/o. Therefore, no access permitting will be required.
However, this willcontinue to add more delay onto the lnterchange in New Castle. As the analysis indicates that
the level of service in certain times at the New Castle lnterchange will be function at low levels of service at peak
times. I would suggest County and City start placing this on the 20 year transportation plan and get this issue
documented in the transpoftation planning region. This will become an issue in the future.
Dan Roussin
Colorado Department of Transportation
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
222 South 6th, Suite 100
Grand Junction, Co 81501
970-248-7230
970-248-7294 FAX
EXHIB]T
. .;.t. i
1U8t2006
OTFrcE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resource
1313 Sherman SbeeL Room 818
Denraer, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
F ,\ (303) 856-3589
www.water.state.co. us
STATE OF CO
I.i,i . .,1 ,. , ., .,::;r.,.li
November 6, 2006 /\JO Y I 3 21106
Bill Grerc
Go,emor
Rusell Cf,oAe
Executive Dircctor
Hal D. SimFon. PE.
State Englneer
Fred Jarman ""
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th St Ste 401
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: The Rapids on the Colorado Preliminary Plan
Sections 4, 5 & 9, TOS, R91W, 6h PM
W. Division 5, W. District 45
Dear Fred:
We have reviewed the additional information regarding the above-referenced proposalto
subdivide a parcel of approximately 121.5 acres. While the previous submittal contemplated 121
single-family residential lots, one wastewater treatment site, one utility district site, and open
space, the current proposal contemplates 104 single-family residential lots. This appears to be
the only revision affecting the water supply in the current submittal. The comments included in
our previous opinion letter of July 6, 2006 still apply and are repeated below for your convenience.
Permit No. 49660-F was issued on April 7, 1998 for the Rapids Well No. 2, for use as the
water supply for a 40-lot subdivision as decreed in Case No. W-3262. Permit No. 49661-F was
issued on April 7, 1998 for the Rapids Well No. 1, also for use as the water supply for a 40-lot
subdivision as decreed in Case No. W-3262. Both of these well permits were approved on the
condition that the wells are operated in accordance with the Gene R. Hilton Augmentation Plan
approved by the Division 5 Water Court in Case No. W-3262. The applicant has submitted
applications to this office to expand the use of Rapids Well Nos. 1 and 2, but additional
information must be provided to complete our evaluation of those applications.
A welltest completed by Aqua-Tec Systems, tnc. indicates that the Rapids Well No. 1
produced 59.2 gpm over a 24-hour period on April 9, 1996, that the drawdown was 19.33 feet,
and that the 99% recovery occurred within 120 minutes. A well test completed by Aqua-Tec
Systems, Inc. indicates that the Rapids Well No. 2 produced 46 gpm over a 24-hour period on
April 15, 1996, that the drawdown was 58.2 feet, and that the 98.5% recovery occuned within 205
minutes. With sufficient storage capacity, these wells should provide an adequate supply for the
proposed use.
The Gene R. Hilton Augmentation Plan approved in W-3262 allowed a change in water
rights for the Moore Ditch and other water rights to provide a water supply for a maximum of 9700
residential units on lands owned by the applicant in T65 R91W, T7S R90W, T7S R91W, all in the
Sixth PM. The decree approved the use of wells as alternate points of diversion for the applicant's
Moore Ditch water rights, and allowed the applicant to construct reservoirs in Section 4 or Section
23, TOS R91W, Sixth PM to replace non-irrigation season depletions. The submittal includes a
proposed pond (Rapids Pond) and refers to the decree's approval of potential reservoirs for
replacement of non-irrigation season depletions. The plan specifies that sewage treatment
through a central system will result in a depletion rate of 3o/o to the stream system. Depletions
,',''
Fred Jarman
Rapids on the Colorado
Page2
November 7,2OOo
under the plan will be replaced through the dry-up of historically irrigated land. The plan also
established the historic consumptive use rate of the irrigation rights at 1.38 AF/acre. The
domestic use estimates in the plan are based on an average use rate of 350 gpd/unit.
Historically, the Moore Ditch rights irrigated 70 acres of land, and the current proposal calls for the
continued inigation of 42.02 acres in the subdivision under the ditch. The April 7 ,2006 report
prepared by Wright Water Engineers, lnc. estimates the well diversions to lotal47.4 AF per year,
with depletions (at 3%) totaling 1.42 AF per year. The report estimates that irrigation season
depletions can be replaced through the dry-up of 1.0 acre of land irrigated by the ditch, and notes
that construction of the subdivision will result in the dry-up of more than 10 acres. Non'irrigation
season depletions (0.827 AF) will be replaced through a West Divide Water Conservancy District
contract (No. 971201RDC(a)) for 1 .0 AF of Ruedi Reservoir water. Since the decree in W-3262
(page't6, paragraph 30) specified that the applicant, when the augmentation plan is implemented,
snalt tite for approval of the then-proposed plan, the applicant must file an application with the
Division 5 Water Court to amend the plan for augmentation to reflect the plans contained within
this submittal. The applicant should also file for a water storage right for the proposed Rapids
Pond.
Within Exhibit 14 of the submittal, it appears from the other information provided, including
Case No. W-3262,that the Moore Ditch right listed as Priority No. 2 should actually be Priority No.
3, and the amount should be 0.25 cfs instead of 0.20 cfs. The amount of the right under Priority
No. 14 should be 1.287 cfs instead of 1.387 cfs. The total amount for the "Moore Ditch Water
Rights to be Deeded to the HOA for Continued Ditch lrrigation" should then be 0.893 cfs. The
total amount for the "W-3262Augmentation Plan Moore Ditch Water Rights to be Deeded to the
HOA'to replace non-potable irrigation depletions during the non-irrigation season should then be
0.013 cfs. Thus, the total amount of Moore Ditch Water Rights to be deeded to the HOA should
be 0.9'16 cfs. The total amount previously deeded is 0.3122 cfs, thus the total amount of
additionalwater rights to be deeded to the HOA should be 0.604 cfs instead of 0.664 cfs.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(hXI), that the
proposed water supply is physically adequate, however material injury will occur to decreed water
itgtits unless the applicant amends the current plan for augmentation pursuant to W-3262 and
obtains and maintains valid well permits for the proposed wells pursuant to a court-approved
amended plan for augmentation . lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this
matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance.
CMUCJURapids on the Colorado ii.doc
Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
James Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 45
ELECTRIC
Garfield CountY P&Z
c/o Craig Schuhz
From: Brad Mollman
Farc 970.945.9181 Dare: 11108/06
Phone: 970.945.854E Pages 1
Re: Rapld's
Phone: 97OO843508 GellcgIG2SG'1o67 Fax: 97O€64'O713
To whorn it tnaY Gonce[nt
lwouldliketogoonlecondacbelngoppoaedtotheproporedincnasclnderuiUo[fhe
rRapids, subdivirbn, I .m a residcnt homcownet along tftc south slde of thg rlver' and
woutd likc to voice nry opinion, but am unable to attrnd today's hcadng.
Thanklou.
Bred Mollman
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
SANDERN. KAR}
JAMES S. NEU
KARLJ. HANLON
MICHAELJ. SAWYER
SUSANW. LAATSCH
ANNA S.ITENBERG
CASSIA R. FI.JRMAN
BETH E. KINNE
CASSANDRA L. COLEMAN
LAURA M. WASSMUTH
CHAD J. LEE
LEAYENWORTH & KARP, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2OI I4TH STREET, SUITE 2OO
P. O. DRAWER 2O3O
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
Telephone: (97 0) 9 45'226 I
Facsimile: (97 0) 9 45'7 33 6
kjh@lklawfirm.com
December 20,2006
EXHIBIT
DENVER OFFICE:*
7OO WASHINGTON ST. STE 702
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
Telephone: (303) 825-3995
*(Please direa all correspondence
to our Glenwood SPrings Oflice)
Fred Jarman, Planner
Garfield County Building & Planning Departnent
108 Eighth Steet, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Well Permits - Rapids Development
Dear Fred:
KJlVcak
enclosure
Enclosed please find well permits (65110 and 65109) for the Rapids Development.
Very trulY Yours,
LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C.
RECEIVED
DEC 2 0 2006
GARFIELDCOUNTY
BUILDING & PIANNING
l:\irFo Filc.Udqic.d-l.xDd
Dec 18 06 04'.42p
Form No.
GWS-25
APPLICANT
OFFICE OF TT. JTATE ENGINEER
S,qligmP*o,PlYlP.LP,lf
"?,r*W"*IF,ERESoURcES(303) 666-35E1
RAPIDS ON THE COLORADO HOA
C/O GENE R HTLTON
210?W ARAPAHOE DR
LtfiLETON, CO 80120-3008
(303) 798-1640
APPROVEDWELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTYSW 114 SW 1t4 Section 4
Toumship 6 S Range 91 W Sixth p,M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
731 Ft. from South
1015 Ft. from West
Section Line
Section Line
DIV. 5 WD45 DES, BASIN MD
Subdiv: RAPIDS ON THE COLORADO
Eaeting: Nor0ring:
f)
2)
3)
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDTTIONS OF APPROVAL
This wer shall be used in such a vviay as lo caus€ no material iniury to existing water rights. The issuance of lhis permitdoes not ensure lhat no injury will occur to another vested watei rlinr or preclude anolher onmer of a vested $rater dght ftomseeking relief in a civil court action.
The construc'lion of this well shall be in compliance wilh the water wel construction Rules 2 ccR 4oz-z,unless approvalof a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Conslruction and purnp lnstallalionConlraclors in accordancewith Rule 1g.
Approved pursuant lo cRS 37'9G137(2) on lhe condition that this rrell is operated in accordance wilh the Gene R. HittonAugmentation Plan approved by lhe DMsion 5 waler courl in the decree for case no. w-3262. prior to use of this wel!pursuant to case no' W-3262, lhe orrrner must comply with the provisions of the decree, induding, but nol timiled to.paragraphs 14' 15' 28 and 31 of said decree. lf this well is not operated in accordance with the lerms of said decree. it willbe subject to administsation including orders lo cease diverting water. This well is known as Rapids Welt No. i.The jssuanoe of this permit hereby cancels permit no. 4g661-F.
The use of ground water from this wetl is limited io a water supply for jn-house uses for 121 single family dwellings in a?21-lot subdivision utilizing a non-lagoon cenlral wastewaler trealment facility.
The pumping rste of this wefl shafl not exceed 120 GpM.
The annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shal not exceed 40,62 acr+.feet The combined diversions ftomRapids Well Nos. I and 2 shallnot exceed 41.4 arre-feel.
A tolalizing llow meler musl be inetalled on lhis wrrll and maintained in good working order. permanent records ol alldiversions rnusl be maintalned by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer uponrequesl.
This well shall be located nol more than 200 feet from the location specified on rhis permil.
This well shall be locafed al teast 6@ feet lrom any existing well, compleled in the sarne aquifer, that is not ournad by theapplicanl.
The owner shall mark the well in a conspianous place with wetl permil number(s), narne of lhe aquafer. and courl casenumber(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precaulions lo preserve these markings.
4)
s)
6)
7l
8)
s)
10)
11)
Dec 18 06 04'.42p
. Form No OFFTCE OF Tl. STATE ENGTNEERcws_2s gQLoRADo DtvlqpxpF WATER RESOURGES81B cenrenniar eEg. 13i3 shennin st- oEnver.b'oroiaLro Eozo3(303) 666_3561
APPLICANT
aPPROVEDWELL LOCATTON
GARFIELD COUNTYSW 114 SW 114 Section 4
Toamship 6 S Range 91 W Sixth p.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
RAPIDS ON THE GOLORADO HOA
C/O GENE R HILTON
2102 W ARAPAHOE DR
LTTTLETON, CO 801 20-3008
(303) 798-1640
731 Ft. from South
1015 Fl. from West
Section Line
Sectinn Line
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 65IIO
Subdiv: RAPIDS ON THE COLORADO
Easting:
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material iniury to existing water rights. The isssance of this permit
does not ensure lhat no injury will occur to another vested water righl or preclude anotrrer wner of a vested water right fomseeking relief in a cMl court aotion.
2) The constuo{ion of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Welt Construction Ruhs 2 CCR 4}2-z,unless approvatof a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Consbuction and pump lnstallafion
Conlractors in accordancewith Rule 1E.
3) Approred pursuant to CRS 37-9c'137(2) on lhe condilion that this well is operaled in accordance with the Gene R. HiltonAugmentation Plan approved by the Division 5 Water Court in the decree for case no. W.8262. prior to use of this wellpursuant lo case no- W-3262, lhe owner rnust comply with the provisions of the decree, including. bul not lirnhed lo,paragraphs 14' 1 5, 28 and 3'1 of said decree. lf thls well is not operaled in accordance with the terms of said decree, it willbe subject lo administration induding orders to cease diverting water. This weil is knorn as Rapids Wel! No. i.4) The issuance of this permil hereby cancels permit no. 4g661_F.5) The use of ground water from this well is limited lo a water supply for in-house uses for 121 single family drrveltings in a121-lot subdivision utilizing a non-lagoon central waslewater treatment facilfi.6) The pumping rate of this welt shall not exceed 120 GpM.
n The annual amount of ground water to be approprialed shall not exceed 40,62 acre-feet. The combined diversions fromRapids Well Nos, 1 and2 shall not exceed 47.4 acre-feet.8) A totalizing llorv meter rnust be installed on this rrell and maintained in good vrorking order. permanent records of al!diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annualty) and submified to lhe Divlsion Engineer uponrequest.
9) This well shall be located not more than 2fi) feet ftom the tocation specilled on this permll.
10) This well shall be located at least 600 feet from any existing well, compleled in the same aquifer, thal js not owned by iheapplicant.
11) The ovrner shall mark the nrell in a conspicuous place with well permil number(s). name of the aquifer, and court casenumber(s) as appropriate. The owner shall lake necessary means and precautions lo presen e theee markings-
Dec 18 06 04:42p p,4
ORDER OF THE STATE ENGINEER
IN THE MATTER OF WELL PERMIT NO. 49661-F fi]rfl olt,,
LocATloN: sw%, sw y1, sEcfloN 4, TowNsHrp 6 sourH, RANGE 91 WEST,6TH P.M.
APPLICANT: GENE R HILTON AND THE RAPIDS oN THE coLoRADoHOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
THE STATE ENGINEER FINDS:
199g.
The well perunit was issued on April 7, 19gB and had an expiration date of April 7,
On Odober 3, 2006, the-applicant filgd an appiication for a permit that wouldinclude the uses allowed under Peimit No. 49961-F-JnJi*p"nded uses. pe*nit No.65110-F was issued on December 15, 2006, foi ir'. [qrl"t"d uses. As such, permitNo. 49961-F is redundant and no longer necessary.
The well permit is hereby canceled and is of no further force or effect.
Dated this 1S day of December, 2006.
Cc: Division 5
Appticant
Water Resource Engineer
p.5
Dec 18 06 04:42p
, Form F,lo. oFFIcE oF T}.- STATE ENGINEERGWS-25 q.qL9RAPO D-IuSION-OF WATER RESOURCESBIE Centenniat Bldg., 1313 Strermin St . Oenirer,-Coto?ioo dO2O;S--
(303) E66-3581
APPLICANT
RAPIDS ON THE COLORADO HOA
G/O GENE R HILTON
2102 W ARAPAHOE DR
LITTLETON, CO 80120-3008
(303) 798-1640
APPROVEDWELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTYSW 114 SW 114 Section 4
Township 6 S Range 91 W Sixth P.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
560 Ft, from South Section Line
654 Ft. trom West Section Line
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 65t09
Subdiv: MPIDS ON THE COLORADO
Easting:Northing:
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERM]T DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no malerial injury to existing water dghls. The issuarrce of this permjt
does not ensure thal no injury will occur to another vested water right or prectude another ortmer of a yested waiel right from
seeking relief in a cMl courl adion.
2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construclion Rules 2 CCR {02-z,unless approval
of a variance has been granled by the State Board of Bcaminers of Water Well Constuclion and pump lnstallation
Conlrac{ors in accordance with Rule 19.
3) Approved pursuant to cRS 37-9G137(2) on the oondition lhat this well is operated in accordance with the Gene R. Hilton
Augrnentation Plan approved by tfie Division 5 Waier Coufl in the decree for case no, W-3262. prior lo use of lhis wellpursuant lo case no. W-3262, the owner musl comply with the provisions of the declee. inctuding, bul nol timiied to.paragraphs 14' 15' 2E and 31 of said decree, lf this well is nol operated in accordance w1h the terms ol sairl decree, it will
be subiecl lo administation including orders to ceasE diverling waler. This rrnell is known as Rapids Well No. 2.4) The issuance of this permit hercby cancels permil no. 49660-F.
5) The use of ground $rater trom this well is limited trc a tvater supply br in-house uses for 12i single family dweltings in a
1 2 1 -lol s u bdivision utilizi n g a no n-la goon central wastewaler treatrn eni facil ity.6) The pumping rate dthis rrelt shalt not exceed 70 GpM.
7) The annual arnount of ground waler to be appropriated shall nol exceed 24.9 acre-feet, The combined diversions frorn
Rapids Well ffos. 1 and 2 shall not exceed 47.4 acr+feet.
8) A totalizing florrr meter musl be installed on this well and malnlained in good working order. permanent records of al!diverslons must be majnlained by the well olner (recorded al least annually) ana subrnitted lo the Division Engineer uponrequest.
9) This well shall be located not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permil.
10) This well shall be localed at leasl600 feet from any exisling well, completed in lhe same aquifer, that is nol owned by the
applicanl.
11) The owner shall mark lhe well in a conspicuous place with well permit numbe(s), name of he aquifer, and court casenumber(s) as apPropriate- The owner shall take necessary means and precaulions to preserve these markings.
Dec 18 06 04:43p
. Form No.
GWS.25
APPLICANT
p,6
OFFICE OF T1. - STATE ENGINEER
p,,q.hp"mBg,pJylp,,lp#g[,w#,r,Fs,sEsouRcEs
(30s) 866.35E1
RAPIDS ON THE COLORADO HOA
C/O GENE R HILTON
2102 W AMPAHOE DR
LITTLETON, CO 80120-3008
(303) 798-1640
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTYSW 114 SW 1t4 Section 4
Township 6 S Range g1 W Sirilh p.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
560 F[ from South Section Line
654 Ft trorn West Section Line
WELL PERMTT NU]U|BER 65109 -r__-_
Subdiv: RAPIOS ON THE COLORADO
Easting: Northing:
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT GONFER A WATER RIGHT
COND]TIONS OF APPROVAL1) This well shatl be used in such a way as to causa no rnaterial injury to existing water rights. The issuanoe of this permit
does not ensuto that no injury will occur to another vested waler right or prectude another owner of a vested water right fiomseeking relief in a civil courl action.
2l rhe constuction of this well shall be in mmpliance wllh he water well construction Rutes 2 ccR 4g2-2, unless apptovatof a rrariance has been granted by the Slale Board of Examiners of Water Wefl Construclion and pump lnstallationContractors in accordance with Rule lg.3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90'137(2) on the condition thal lhas well is operated in accordance wirh the Gene R. HiltonAugmenlation Plan approved by the DMslon 5 Water Court in the decree for case no. W-3262. fuiorto use of this rrtrellpursuant to caae no. W-3262, lhe owner must comply with the provisions of the decree, includjng, but not limited to,paragraphs 14, 15,28 and 31 of said decree. lf lhis well is not operated in aocordance with the terms of said decree, it willbe subjecl to administration including orders to cease diverting water. This well ls known as Rapids Well No. 2..+) The issuance of this permit hereby cancels permit no. 49660-F.5) The use of ground waler ftom this rirretl is limited to a waler supply for in-house uses for 121 single farnily dweltings in a121-lot subdivision ulilizing a non-lagoon oentral wastalater treatnent facility.6) The pumping rate of this well shail not exceed ZO GpM.7l The annual amounl of ground vvater to be appropriated shalt not exceed 24.g acr+.feet- The combined diversions fromRapids Well Nos. 1 and2 shallnot exceed 47.4 acre-feet.
8) A totalizing florl meler must be installed on lhis wetl and mainlained in good working order, permanenl records of a1diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submifled to the DMsion Engineer uponrequest.
S) This well shall be located not rnore than 2oo feel from the tocation specified on this permit.
10) This well shall be localed at least 600 feel from any existing well, compleled in the same aquifer, that is not oruned by rheapplicant.
11) The orvner shall mark the well in a conspianous place with well permit numbe(s). name of the aquifer, and court casEnumbor(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve lhese rnartings.
p.7Dec 18 06 04:43p
ORDER OF THE STATE ENGINEER
IN THE MATTER OF WELL PERMIT NO. 49660.F
LocATloN: sw%, sw %, sEcIoN 4, TowNSHrp 6 sourH, RANGE 91 WEST,
6TH P.M.
APPLICANT: GENE R HILTON AND THE RAPIDS oN THE coLoRADo
, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
THE STATE ENGINEER FINDS:
The well permit was issued on April 7, 1998 and had an expiration date of April 7,
1999.' On Oc'tober 3, 2006, the applicant flled an application for a permit that wouldinclude the uses allowed under Permit No. 4996GF and expanded'uses. permit No.6510$'F was issued on December 15, 2006, for the requested uses. As such, permit
No. 49960-F is redundant and no longer necessary.
The tirtell permit is hereby canceled and is of no further force or effect.
Dated this 15 day of December, 2006.
Cc:Division 5
Applicant
GU s ottl$tfr
Hal D, Sirnpson
Water Resource Engineer
DUnlrqF-rrJ
Fred Jarman
From: Lis, Craig [Craig.Lis@state.co.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03,2OO7 5:52 PM
To: Fred Jarman
Subject: RaPids on the Colorado
Attachments: Rapids on the Colorado'xls
Fred:
As you know, well permits have been issued for the proposed development. As such, based on the available
information it is oui opinion that the proposed water supply plan will not cause material injury to decreed water
rights so long as an adequate amount of Moore Ditch water is dedicated to the HOA. Per the attached e-mail, I
eitimate tha[0.200 cfs oi Priority No. 4 and 1 .190 cfs of Priority No. 14, for a total of 1 .390 cfs, must be dedicated
to the HOA. However, I am waiting a response from Bill Lorah, the applicantfs engineer, reg-grding my estim.ate. I
also have requested a copy of the evaporation calculations, the results of which may also affect the dedication
amount.
I will provide our final opinion as soon as possible.
Craig
U4t2007
Cluster Design Il lustration
Z.OZ.L47 ,The grouping of elements together in close proximity to one
another, and, in this context applies to dwelling units, wells, septic
systems,and other aspects of the elements of a subdivision"' (2003-L7)
L
Zone District Amendment Application
Continued Hearing lanuary 10, 2007
,' /-././
,/1,/ a&
t ,c-al
l*o"nt
f""*- 1
ftnl
,@4
fJH
1
rErf
ZON E DISTRICT AM EN DM ENT
*The Zone District Amendment Application
requests the 97.269 acre. Rapids on the
Co[orado Subdivision and an adjacent 24.218
bcre tract be rezoned from AII and ARRD to
Planned Unit DeveloPment (PUD).
#The proposed PUD will have a density qf 0.86
single-family residential units per Acre, lots
willne clustered, public parking with access
to 3.500 feet of Colorado River frontage is
provided and 660lo of the PUD will be open
2
Zone District MaP
Five to Ten Lot Clusters 660/o
L04 Lots
Open Spacce
'#.\/\?A\\\>V
iwn ruPios oN rnn coi,ontoo
PIANN&' ANTT DWEU)PAENTs] 1/4 fnc. n, sE ,,/1 SEC, 5 Lrys_J/l sBp. I
rlss. E9IJ OF TZE 6TE P.A-
oAnirED coulfrY, coLoRAQo
ffit-----t
lr#-l
fiffct']m------'lbgrffi IbJdE IhE-ilil IksdH IL--ilM Ilrr-E Ih-qsr I
H==- |Lr.e- IFa-.^!E IffilhrnDalEl
rmp6Gl
. ivMrBSE
- r$tfry
r'z[EaurmE!
.. tuN)aia.n
lre al irri lncr fin
o
Q=
5EJCLooc-l o
EE
oclt)clE
EEE.Eoo.,CF
Staft Report Issues
Additional Information Water System
Original Staff Points of Interest
StafF Recommendation Conditions of
1.
2.
3.
Approval
Add itional Information
#Well Permits Issued
. The CDWR has issued permits for the existing two wells under
Applicants' existing Plan of Augmentation W-3262.
#No Material Injury E-Mail From CDWR
The CDWR has provided Garfield County Building.and Planning
an E-Mail that states ".......it is our opinion that the proposed
water supply plan will not cause materia.! injury to decreed water
rights so'lbrig as an adequate amount of water is dedicated to
the HOA".
# Burning Mountain Fire District Revie\N.
project re-reviewed. Approved based on limitation of parking.
# Cluster Design Illustration Attached
Ouster Design Il Iustration
2.02,147 "The grouping of elements together in close proximity to one
another, and, in this conbrt applies to dwelling units, wells, septic
nsystems,and other aspects of the elements of a subdivision." (2003-17)*\:17-
i I ,,,*i l,ir'',7',
Basis of Lot Coverage Ratio Cluster
SF Residential Zone District
MINIMUM LOT AREA. CLUSTER SF RESIDENTIAI
ACTUAL LOT COVERAGE OF TWO HOUSES
House 1,802
Garage - Three Car 723
Drivewav - (51 Ft X 30.5 Ft ) x 50% for 71 Lob 793
Entry and Sidewalk 16 FtX 6 Ft 96
Pads atGaraoe and A/C 4X4 32
Patio and Steps (10 FtX22 Ft) + (2 X 8)236
Total Lot Goveraqe
ffi
-
,i ri;ilii{iliiii}ii3ii75.0:
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE RATIO (Yo)I
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATTO P/o)I
T
,,, i irttrt,i.jii*,iru,i1rirr.iffiili;.1ijir1,1fi".lirirli# j.'. iriliriilliilii.' i';,11 :
Basis - Building Height Two Story House
Cluster SF Residential
Tvpical Two Storv Home - 2007 Stule
- ffi;6;tAbov; ilrd;;*--
Pressure Treated Sill Plate - 2" x 8"
E/S Strucfura! Joists'11" x Design Length
Sub- Floor 314 lnch
Second Floor
E/S Structural Joists - {1" x
Sub- Floor 3/4 lnch
Ten Foot Ceiltngs
-._.__
50 ft Widt t X ilO%to Center of buildingX 5
to 12 Stope of Roof = 10.42 Gable Height
Plus S lndt Shingle Defih atCrown =
1 0.67 Feet x 50% to'mid'pint of eave line
and pak of a gabb, hiP, shed or similar
pitdr ed roof." (2.02.09) = 53{
P rov l& : S u fiae Va rialio n Allow a n e
CI uster Single Family Residential District
Proposed Changes to Zone District Limits
USeS BV Right: Single-family dweltings and customary accessory uses inctuding home
occupations, fences, hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features; driveways, sidewalks,
patio, irrigation system; landscaping, utility and drainage easements along all lot lines.
COnditiOnal USg: Day nursery for no more than four chitdren, group home for not more than four
elderly residents over sixty-five years of age.
Minimum Lot Area:
Maximum Lot Coverase:(Buildins Onlv)
Minimum Lot Line Setback
FRONT - From Front Lot Line (ln Feet)
REAR - From Rear Lot Line (ln Feet)
SIDE - From Side Lot Line (ln Feet)
AII uses shall be subiect to the provisions Under Section
(Supplementary Regulations) of the Garfield Gounty Zoning Regulations, as amended.
LOTS {-33
AND 8486
50
25
10
32
7,500 sq.ft.
50o/o
LOTS 34-83
LOTS 87-104
25
25
10
32
Internal $iAEt ROW Width
and Road Impacts to CR 335
9--
I
II + Kimley-Horn and Associates prepared a
I fraffic Impact Study that affirmed that the
1 impact of subdivision traffic on Interstate 70
II at Exit 105 will not exceed 20o/o and will noti affect the County access status,
# Kimley-Horn and Associates prepared an
Addendum to the Study that provided a 60
Foot ROW for streets with traffic in excess of
400 Vehicles Per DaY.
11
Variety of Housing Types
# Memorandum of Understanding - Town of
New Castle Staff,ino Com
flie L27
and
Town Council approved the LZL Lot Rapids
PUD includino multi-familv lots.PUD including multi-family lots.
*Variety of lot sizes will result in a variety of
housinq sizes while maintaininq the
neiglrb6rhood character of sinfle family
resl0ences.
six lots at time of final
MISSIONannPI
Proposing to specify six lots at time of fin
plat to bd restiicted ffiedroom, two
bath, two car garage.
o specr
Conditions of Approval
1. Representations Made by Applicant
2. Reduce Internal Road ROW to 50 Feet
3. Include In Plat Notes Right To Farm
4.Include In Plat Notes Minimum Lighting
Include In Plat Notes One Dog
County Process To Vacate Existing PIat
Plat Shall Denote 100 Year Flood
Provide Zone District Map
5.
6.
7.
B.
:liiri!i.ir!lit;'l:*iti,ri;:i.::is,.#ltl#:i;iili.,il:i:i:iiriirti: i:iiii+iiiiir+; i.#jriitrii;ili;,lii lii',i;i:
Conditions of Approval
(Conti nued)
9.
10.
11.
L2.
13.
L4.
15.
16.
L7.
Applicant Shall Construct Public Improvements - SIA
No Final Plat Before WWTF Site PIan Approved
Flood Plain Permit Before PIat Approved
Perimeter Fencing Exists - May not prohibit Deer, Elk
Pay RE-2 Fees
Pay Road Impact Fee - Giving Proper Credit To Prior
Payments and Road Alignment
Applicant Shall Modify the PUD Side Setback and Rear
Setback, per slide 10
Applicant Shal! Specify 6 Lots, ?t Time of Final Plat, for
houses with two-bedroom, two bath, two car garage.
Applicant shall Deed Restrict Trails for Public Uses - Limited.
exnlBrr
December 21, 2006
To Garfield County Planning Commission,
Since we will not be in Colorado on Jan- 70, when
you have your meeting, wo would like to voice our
concerns regarding the Hilton Suboivision on
County Road 335. We believe that 145 homes on
28 acies is much too high density and will create
a dangerous traffic problem on CR 335- We live
on Gartield Creek, County Road 312, and have to
travel that road to go to and from New Castle or
170, it is already fairly congested in the mornings
and evenings when people are going to and from
work from Apple Tree Park and frlountain
Shadows Subdivision. We ask that you take this
into consideration when you make your decision.
Respec tf u I ly s u b m itted,
Larry and Wrginia Schmuestr
EOST CR 312
New Coslc, CO 81617
EXHIBlT
Lynn and Pat Dwyer
4730 County Road 335
New Castle,CO 81647
Karen Nadon
2675 Co Rd 335
New Castle, CO 81647
January 4,2007
To the Garfield County Planning & Zorung,
This letter is a formal protest of Gene Hilton's proposed subdivision offCounty Road
335 in New Castle. Our driveway enters the 335 Road just west of the Apple Tree Park.
We have owned our properfy since 1992
A subdivision of the magnitude Mr. Hilty is proposing would put too much traffic on this
small, narrow, winding road. It would need to be widened and improved to be safe. We
also have concerns about the impacts to our rural area: the water, sewage and air quality.
For instance, wood stoves should not be allowed unless fitted with an air pollution
device. There is currently a problem during some weather conditions with smoke haze.
We would not object to a lower density development. We would be happy to discuss this
matter further.
Thank you.
MAR,28. ?003 12:34PM ;i.REU.- 61X tgg51'ffiffi '''.'-i.fi'?l
FRoll ; tnh sEXTrlt sLnuEY c-fflPtr FA,Y l,E. :6?DBtEa Jul- 13
WATERS
2oodqotl
-'
- 70.+g'
I
I|EII w,/
ffi.P(
N
FoFI
EESNNM'{G AT THE sSln{l g9111iC or-_sir-o'sEenoii'{ TH$rcE lroogo'oo.w +J6.ro FEETLINI C Sll0 SEcnON * tltENcE r.tzs,t5;rrti ro.r.Ae'7iril riiqN* xri,riC,ii.ri'ri6.sg rEEI
l?flX? HI T9"j!,F,rIL,LryI"fEttrqt *i1g.i[rk!i:u.qlii-Ad;'.,i fif 'dniii oi sAo
_... e ny deHrrv.i,.rT,rl_TrIir^LX;;.1" ry rrr.r.Es ,EErt ,nENof NtZOE,rt"U lti.Sg rEET;tz$el FEET To A porNi u rxE-cgiiEB [!niD BrV€$-iirdite _a,,orc THE cENrgR o, sructta$ FEET: THENcE s.lzrare"w-s2.-+i EEr; rri{,C'sii,iirrz"yl-;ii.li'i#i,"il-gr.,ce ssr?r{Er{cE s67rIr2"w l_Lor+s rEil THtNiE_IIi1._-oasliilrE'rq€r; rHsNs( s7f5a'+s,\y rreETEzg'trZ'yr 1s6,4? ffgi; rxeticr sgtiiHra.w rrr-oai frii'tL a Eanur ,.a, ?Lrr .d,tu r,-,-
IHT
THIS
is 0r
EXHIBIT
@
I fUI P ROV EIIII ENT LO C AT I O N C ERT I F I CAT E
TNoGAtES
fouN0
RE!n&
. PRoPERTT DtscRtPxof.{
(NrEE[)
f hoh ,e l0O tL
i !ff# s,#3, ip.+Tg Tll,J"lg g,.llgnTg^p;. ryg 9_ft.9!tq_o-!,8!, rrr rx srcro{ i u, ,**,!.1#.hlfl"g';lrg,gf*lHl*H3E1a!s,,tiro!h,ii,_!f fi ffi?ilf tFifir,Eriifilul[iS$h',ffi.H,#a;-[ fEjs#p'SttjEfrffil[iril'X=".ffi]'tiffi"[.]'1i*"?"'+,H*[*%*ffito'*OESCI$BAO AS FdIOY(S:
?t{EI{cE s6ztttz-w1f,q+g rE:ti. n*txce-..iiirt:irif''i;i;'S1?indi{Eli5:Jt{i ;'{'f#fr;[ !fifif;.f.r,
iitrit'idh'^i:gl-&'ff"'i.'!i['8.',!fl'llil'*;thg'tffih'l:1f"?.9 s.r's:=#H f,rs.%q1o sectioi s,
soulxcAsr coRrER of sfio sE'cnor{ s.- rrE Foiii'-oF-d'iiilfti:r{c
s A r,gtlfi sFt T}lg sg.rlH LlNp 955, 1,12..75 F€ET uong on Les-s Yl
IMPROVT}JIENI LOCATIO{ CERNNCATE
I HERTBY 9ERTIFY UAT Tllls lMPROvEl'{tNT LocAnoN ctRTIRcATt rrvAs pREpAfito
*f. '-P*q[ ..Itu iI E-N-o] 4-trryq-strn,rti irj"r
'iii
'rnCRdveuiiir'suRvEyvEv" t "':l -1: t:*"_"j n LflNtr rrvtlvtl rLrll VK I|f,fKUYBHBNI )Ul(V
*lP"$lT_tljs,.rypllg.,Et_RF!,r.E-q, upoN ron-rnslsriiiu5iurEr,ii"dii' FENci;. OIHTR TUruBE ilPROVTT,ITNT LINIS"
!. FlltTHtF .CERTIFI l!1it THt IMPR0EUqUS 0N THE ABovt orscRtBED pARctL 0Ntlgt. 07-(Yy^92,.rycJPI llnuTY cgNNElxqryS; ARi ENirRkiy uli'itN-fut adriNoli
IHE EAST
N5J'a?'08'\
slo'zo'43"w
APPROX.\--h- _---"
FL orrcH -1;rf
l$.qFlj-EICEfl-19 SH0'I{N, 'IHAT THERE eRE fuo euinordlrumufs'upriru rnr
UoIral
,f
t
h
-
-Ist
\^ilIrt\
., l,
I
.1,
r::J,ri.i.
]:i:
,i- r:
M
r,o,,filt,
,e
$s
{!rl\
ti,il
t
;$'
84,
"::!
l'tt' .i*l
{r
I
I
lflJ1
tI
,1, j.r i "'#
-:i,.
t^l
:l I; ,:r
,f,
ti
tlrr.i
I
.:t q
}li
. t,
{
'l:,"
I
,tI 'L;
.,'d
(9o
I
\a.
I
o{\
J
I
I
liIlrlrt
,,
1:
Itl
1r'
:1t
l.- '$'*.'' -?"
I
,t
.'.
,4t
r't'lr
i,r.ril
r
:
,
t\;,{fi" ii.'t
-L.,v.iffi
,}t l,l
I,{
ti
a'
t, i
J
"r
1;
!{
$t:
{,,
f;,
a:'
ll:i
{ rti
,l
i."
li
rL
SI\I
rl\
ffi
.|.1
ri
It
';
.n -'frIq
ilit,
('
Jl'il..i,
, ,{ 'il
ffi
:;lful
,2
o,a
rAo,a
3,,
WWTF Setback From Residences
o,a
MOUIYTAIN ERO6S
ETSNEERTIIG. lNC.
riaJcffiGohdO.ltiiiqlreugD@'u
ab'i;a
The RAPIDS on IheCOLORADO
Wasto Water Treatment Phnt
setback Exhibit
SCALE''ifr & o ,&
---l
\*o
ttfffiPrIIr'\)---
OUNTY .RD
4L
mx
.!
GK
#:%'
"a
$
(
:--!3
---.\\
a'\
-/
'5F;:a--'
---/ / "
I
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
From January \0,2007
PC Members Present
Phil Vaughan
Cheryl Chandler
Bob Fullenon
Shirley Brewer
Steve R.eynolds
Sean Martin
Terry Ostrom
Staff Present
Fred Jarman, B&P Director
David Pesnichak, Planner
Craig Richardson, Planner
Carolyn Dahlgren, Assistant
CountY AttorneY
Colin Laird (showed up around 7:20 p.m.)
Roll catl was taken and Jock Jacober is absent tonight'
Michael Erion of Resource Engineering is also present tonight for the County
Engineering review.
Phil Vaughan passed around a sign up sheet for anyone in the public who would like to
speak on these items tonight.
Cheryl Chandler made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 8, 2006
Planning Commission meeting with the few corrections noted and Shirley Brewer
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed unanimously'
Phil vaughan introduced Terry ostrom as a new member on the Planning commission'
Terry is iom the Silt Mesa area and he was welcomed to the Commission by all'
Item #4 on the agenda is a continued public meeting request to review a7-oneDistrict
Amendment to iPUD and a continued public hearing to review a Preliminary Plan
Application for the Rapids on the Cotoiado Subdivision. The propertl is located one
mile west of New Castte on CR 335. This application was continued from the November
S,z}O6Planning Commission meeting. The Applicants are Gene and Mary Hilton,
Rapids Development Corporation and the Rapids on the Colorado HOA'
Only the Planning Commission members that were prssent at the November Sft meeting
are allowed to vote on this item.
Phil Vaughan reviewed the process we would follow for this item. Carolyn Dahlgren
stated *J-" okay on public notice information. Phil swore in all speakers for this item.
Fred Jarman entered new exhibits into the record:
Exhibit II: Letter from L&K dated l2l2oto6 and well permits
Exhibit JJ: Email from Craig Lis (DWR dated ll30l07)
Both exhibits are accepted into the record. Previous exhibits were entered into the record
on November 8, 2006.
Fred Jarman is the County Planner on this proposal and he witl speak first' On
November 8, 2006 we moved through a number of issues on the PUD application. We
did not cover the Preliminary Plan as of yet.
Assessor Map of the area was shown. The November Sth site plan was shown with 104
lots being uppU"a through the PUD framework. Remaining challenges of the PUD:
o 25' to 32' building height request.
o Lot coverage from35Vo to 5OVo
o Variety of housing types. (Staffthought applicant was going to come back with
some of that.)
o Still need to address providing adequate privacy between dwelling units
o Need to demonstrate how 32' building height is necessary.
o Maximum lot coverage
. Received copies of well permits and email from Craig Lis with the State opinion
of no materia in3ury to decreed water rights as long as an adequate amount of
Moore Ditch water is dedicated to the HOA.
o Asking for clarification for project to be complete. Section 4.09.01 requires that
development must begin within one year of the PUD approval'
o Cul-de-sac ,urangement and fire hydrant spacing'
. Open space tracts, fisherman easement, trail, etc. - still no opportunity to discuss
this.
o Noxious weeds - no inventory or map provided. Who manages weeds and open
space.
Letter from Town of New Castle (Exhibit J) in compliance with their designation in
Town's Comprehensive Plan.
Moved to the applicant for their presentation next. Present for the applicant are Lee
Leavenworth ard K*l Hanlon, Attorney's with Leavenworth & Karp. Gene and
Mary Hilton are also here tonight. Curtis Rowe of Kimley-Horn did the trffic
impact study and he is also present tonight.
Lee Leavenworth will speak first. Request is zone district amendment from A./I and
A/R/RD ro PUD. Properry is approximately 121acres with 104 units proposed for a
density of .86 per acre. Houses will be clustered wilh 66Vo of the property left in
open space.
Items noted in the staff report:
o Burning Mountain Fire District re-reviewed the application and approved
based on limitations of parking. Has approved the requested street width with
no parking to be allowed on the street.
o A no material injury letter was received from the State Engineers Office
concerning water.
. A cluster design illustration was shown by the applicant. (Karl Hanlon
handed out a new design removing the lot lines)
o Lot coverage issued raised by staff. A PUD allows you to modify underlying
zoning. Applicant showed a basis for their request.
o Building height limit issue raised by staff. Appiicant showed slide of the
basis foi theii request. Afizoning allows for a 40' height limit and A/R/RD
allows for a25'height limit. Applicant is asking fot 32' maximtlm.
o Rear and side yard setbacks. Staff recommends a 25' front and rear setbacks
and a 10' setback on the sides. Applicant will accept staffs recommendations
on this instance.
Kimley-Horn did traffic study and they stated that no access permit is needed at Exit 105.
Addendurn to study 60' ROW for streets with traffic in excess of 400 vehicles per day.
Applicant went to the Town of New Castle and spoke to them about this proposal and
tfriy approved l2l lots with some attached single-family homes. Applicant thinks by
varyrng tfre lot sizes that will vary the types of homes being built. Six lots will be deed
restricted to a two-bedroom, two-bath, and two-car gatage homes.
Applicant wanted to speak about the conditions of approval staff is recoinmending next.
nppticant has some trgg.tttd modifications to those conditions.
o Will do flood plain permit.
o Don't have a problem with perimeter fencing. Asking for DOW fencing.
o Asking for credit on road impact fees for prior payment and road alignment.
o Deed-restrict six lots.
r Deed-restrict trail use for daylight hours'
o No final piat until WWTF site plan is approved.
o Have solved water issues so that is no longer a problem.
Two additional exhibits are accepted into the record:
Exhibit KK: Ciuster design illustration
Exhibit LL: Applicants power point presentation
No questions were asked of applicant at this time so we moved out to the public next.
Each speaker will have three minutes time to speak.
Carolyn Dahlgren asked the Chairman to remind speakers that we are discussing the PUD
only at this time.
The first speaker is Craig Schulz. Craig's wife donated her three minutes to him.
Craig's address is 2859 CR 335. He stated it is difficult to address all of his concerns in
the three minute time limit. He went to the Town of New Castle and looked at the cluster
plan wit the Town and this applicants design. As a homeowner, this doesn't make sense.
i.[ext thing to discuss is the wildlife. Have a problem with the 4 houses that are currently
out there now. The DOW thought kennels and dog runs would be used in that
subdivision. Mineral rights are another big issue. Bill Barrett owns those rights. Mr.
Schultz still doesn't understand water and how this will not materially damage other
people's welis. Clearly a portion of this property is located within the 100-year flood
ptain. Can't find where that has been addressed in the application. CR 335 has been
developed into three sections. Commercial and high density residential is aiready in the
area and this proposal wilt increase density by 450Vo compared to what is out there now.
Let's do a reasonable development. Asking for denial of this PUD due to the multiple
numbers of issues involved. Craig Schultz gave Fred Jarman copies of letters from
neighbors. I-effers were accepted into the record.
Steve Worell represents Mr. Collin's family and he would like to defer now and speak
later.
Peter Thomas, Council for Mr. John Olsen, an adjoining property owner would like to
speak next. One of the issues he hasn't heard a lot about is the negative impact this will
hare or reighboring property owners. The impact can be seen most with the last
statement made about the 45OVo increase in density. The reason we have all these
deficiencies and issues with this application is it's a product of the applicants own
creation. He is trying to shoe horn in as many residences that he can to maximize his
profit all at the expense of the neighbors. Mr. Thomas noted the location of Mr' Olsen's
well is 50' from waste water treatment facility. Colorado Department of Health can't
approve the location for waste water treatment facility. Either way, asking you to deny
ttrJ pUO outright. Need to get further clarification from the Colorado Department of
Health where applicant can site the waste water reatment facility.
John Olsen is the next speaker and he lives downstream from Mr. Hilton's property. He
challenges anybody to approve this appiication. His well is only 50' from where waste
water trearment facility is proposed to be located and that would be right in his backyard.
Mr. Olsen is pro-growth. He is a developer. He wouldn't develop like Mr. Hilton is
suggesting. Of the 104 acres, the houses will be placed on 28 of those acres. These are
Vo irelots. Mr. Olsen chalienges the way he went to townships to get his waste water
treatment facility approved. (Bret Jolley donated his three minutes to Mr. Olsen) Mr.
Hilton got Burning Mountain Fire District to stand behind him just by saying no cars
would be parked on the street. That won't be enforced and that was deceitful methods
being used. Mr. Hilton has never spoken to the neighbors. Make him put waste water
treatment facility in the middle of the property. Make Mr. Hilton sleep in the bed he
makes.
Kent Jolley lives at 832 Canyon Creek Drive, Glenwood Springs and he would iike to
speak next. He does not have a lot of new information to add. Density is out of line for
this end of the County. He is very concerned with his well. There should be a condition
that if their well is drained they can hook on to his system. Kent Jolley owns property
with John Olsen. Shouldn't have to take economic hit on this. If you approve we ask for
movement of sewer plant to a new location.
Ron Nadon is the next speaker and he lives at 2675 CR335, one mile west of this
iocation. What it boils down to is 120 homes on 28 acres. Has anyone driven by this
site? Asking for denial of this project.
Karen Nadon wouid like to speak next and she aiso lives at 2675 CR 335. She is also
asking for denial of this application. There are several issues. Open space for one. The
applicant is including the mountain side in their formula to calculate open space and that
iJ unusable space. This is very mislea ding 66Vo open space. Her concern about density is
a huge on". ff approved, this will set precedence. Why not take this development and
make it done correctly. This is far too dense for the area. Take into consideration the
neighbors in the area. The density currenfly in the area is no way compatible with what is
being requested. I-et's get the ddnsity down.
Peg Collins will donate her time to Ken Coliins.
Ken Collins lives at 3839 CR 335 and he will speak next. Ken handed out some pictures
to the Pianning Commission members. When he bought his property he told the owner
he wanted a low density area and owner of parcel said he agreed. This is way too dense
for the area. Developei said at the last meeiing that this was laid out to minimize impact
to neighbors. Ttrcre is no buffet zonebetween this development and the current property
owners in this area. As far as compliance, at the last meeting you asked the applicant to
reduce the density and he did not. ln fact he ignored you completely. Then you asked
him to get in iine with the master plan and he did not. Then you asked the developer to
use the cluster design and he did not. This is not a true cluster design. You also asked
them do to the Comprehensive Plan to maintain the natural views and wildlife habitat and
keep this pasture like. Ken doesn't see any of that in this plan. Neighbors were never
considered or notified of this meeting with New Castle to discuss this proposal.
Mr. Worell will speak next. (6 minutes to speak) Mr. Worell is an Attorney in
Glenwood Springs and his address is 201 8tn Street. His Firm was asked by the Collin's
family to take a look at this proposal. They looked at the poiicies, guidelines and
directives that this Commission would look at in considering this matter. IGA with the
Town of New Castle says you must defer to Town's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Worell
wanted to read very briefly something that he says Fred Jarman said at the last meeting.
It was a staff report and Mr. Jarman basically referred to the IGA and "says he must defer
to the Town of New Castle's Comprehensive PIan. As a result, the County defers by way
of the IGA to the New Castle's Master Plan for guidance of appropriate land use in that
area". To Mr. Worell, that is a critical issue. What input do you have from the Town of
New Castie? Mr. Worell read aletter from a Planner dated July 2006 from the Town of
New Castle, and he talks about the'Memo of Understanding" and some of the conditions
of the MOU. The primary input you have is this MOU that was submitted as part of the
application. It is almost two years old and he would submit at this time that this is a
Aliacto planning document. i,lr. Worell read some of the minutes from November 8th
Planning Commission meeting into the record. This PUD application has changed in this
two year time. Town of New Castle hasn't commented on this new application. No
notice from Town of New Castle that they were even considering this. Give the Town of
New Castie time to review this new plan and comment. Send apptication to the Town of
New Castle for their review.
Fred Jarman has a comment for Mr. Worell. You have said a variety of things that you
think I've said. Mr. Worell said h6 is reading from the minutes. Fred said he is looking
at the same ones and on page 14, to be specific, what you are quoting that I said was
actually said by Bruce Jensen. Fred just wanted to make sure everyone knew those were
not his words.
Cathy Chase lives at 2870 CR 335 and she will speak next. This is way too dense for the
area. Go to area and look at the place. It is important not to overload this area. Water is
a big consideration too.
Bobby Hayes, Trustee for the Town of Silt would like to speak now. We have some
county roads that have been efficient in the past but with the growth we are experiencing
in the county and the towns nearby the road systems need to be modifred and redesigned
and basically more bridges over the Colorado River.
No further comments were made by the public so that portion of hearing is closed and we
came back to the Commission.
Phil Vaughan brought up that there are flve members that are present and are voting on
this item. Colin Laird was late tonight but he has reviewed the staff report and was
present at previous meeting so he does feel comfortable voting on this item. Cheryl
bhandler made a motion to allow Colin Laird to vote on this item since he has been
present for most of the discussions on this item. Shirley Brewer seconded the motion.
All five members agreed and approve Cheryl's motion.
Mr. Iravenworth wants to comment further. He stated that mineral rights are not leased.
Mr. Hilton owns 1007o of the mineral rights north of the river; he owns 50Vo of the
mineral rights south of the county road. The other SAVo is owned by the Federal Land
Bank. They are not leased. In any event, there is a350' setback for a gas well from a
residence which would basically insulate this property from gas driliing. Mr.
Leavenworth also stated there are no requirements for dog runs in that neighborhood.
The covenants do require that dogs be on a leash. The DOW land just south of this
property was sold to the DOW by Mr. Hilton. There was also a concern rnade!o the
viability of the physical water supply. Both the County and State Engineers have
approved both the physical and legal water supply for this property. The City Fngineer (I
think he meant County Engineer) has also signed offon the flood plain. Both the
applicants Engineer and the County Engineer confirm that the houses shown on the site
plan are not in the flood plain. Town of New Castle Master Plan says one house per acre
allowed. MOU maybe 2 years old. Town of New Castle is a referral agency and they did
receive a copy of the application. The Town is relying on their MOU. There is no reason
to send this back to the Town of New Castle. The density in this project is as close to
Town of New Castle as Stillwater is to the Town of Silt. There is a major misconception
of location of the waste water treatment facility. Have a site plan of well which is 300'
from the central waste water facility that will be built. (Up gradient from discharge
point) Would like to submit site plan as an exhibit. IVIr. Iravenworth aiso made
ieference to impact on road and that the traffic study done made some recommendations.
MOU hoped impact fees wouid be used on CR 335. No violation of location from sewer '
treatmenf faciiity on any setbacks. Several references were made to the number of acres
of this proposal. Area north of the county road is 97 acres with a substantial amount'of
op"n tpu.". Not an affempt to shoe horn. Did reduce density proposed from 121 units to
104 units. Preservation of op"n space even on a slope has value. Only change in PUD is
reduction in number of iots. Asking for approval of proposed PUD with conditions.
Came back to the Commission for further comments. Cheryl Chandler asked if the
minerals would travel with the land. Mr. Leavenworth said they will probably be
retainod. Mr. Leavenworth said they will accept a condition of no surface use by gas
drillers on any portion of the ground.
Bob Fullerton asked about the possibility of hooking up this site with Apple Tree and
other developments in the ar"a. Mr. Leavenworth said there is a potential bul there is no
agreement in ptace. That is the goal of the State. Bob Fullerton also asked about odor.
iVIr. L"ur"rworth thinks it witl be fairly minimal. Bob Fulterton asked what the county
projected population for 2030 is. Fred Jarman said around 130,000.
Cheryl Chandler asked about public access to amenities. Mr. Leavenworth said the
amenities (basketball courts and basebali fields) arb not intended for public use. Public
access will be to river access and trails only.
Bob Fullerton asked about comments concerning reduction in street size. Lee
Leavenworth stated that county road to the first side road is the only area that needs to be
60'. Bob Fullerton asked where does enforcement come from and Mr. Leavenworth
responded that wili be through signage and the Sheriff s Department. Mr. Leavenworth
also said they can put a note in the covenants.
Colin Laird said he appreciates deed restricted houses on six lots but nothing further was
done on density and iiustering the units. Same cofllments hold from last meeting.
Tripling the number of units, making it lucrative for the applicant, and not arcal cluster
development, is disappointing to Colin. This is a huge up-zoning in a rural area'
Cheryl Chandler stated that other restrictions and requests can be done at the preliminary
plan stage. We are looking at the PUD portion of appiication now'
Phil Vaughan said we have three options before us. One is a motion to approve the
rezone request. Second is motion of denial of rezone and third a questionable motion of
continuante since we have continued once already. Our By-Laws allow for one
continuance and then after that it is D.O.A. (Non-technical term)
Shirley Brewer asked staff, do you feel applicant has addressed and answered questions
from tlhe November 8e meeting. Fred Jarman said the question as to the water. Yes they
have satisfied that because they have met with the State so on a technical level that has
been satisfied. The points in Fred's memo to you still stand as issues today. Purpose of a
pUD is to have a Oeiign plan that has merit to it that can't otherwise be achieved with the
underlying zone district. Fred's still waiting to be satisfied on the height' We also rely
on the Town of New Castle's plan. In Fredis mind, a lot has been satisfied' A lot of this
hinges on the MOU but that isthe Town's perspective. Is this density appropriate in this
location? It appears that the Town's MOtrlsays it is appropriate. Does this plan meet the
cluster design?- Fred agrees with Colin Laird that this is not a ciuster design. It is your
decision whether issues mest your satisfaction on interpreting regulations'
Cheryl Chandler asked about protecting view shed and is it possible to say_these houses
will be single level homes. Fred Jarman said that would be part of the PU! review.
Cheryl Chindler asked can we make the statement to connect the neighbor's wells to this
deveiopment. Fred Jarman doesn't think we can. Fred Jarman said that Colin l'aird
called out affordable housing which there are no provisions for. Oniy deed restricted is
proposed. No regulations in this are for affordable housing requirement'
Colin Laird said we saw this Applicant in August, November and now tonight and each
time we say density is too -r"t. Applicant has done nothing to address that issue in any
of these hearings. There are a numbJr of people here tonight that think density is an
issue. We need to set a standard as to how this parcel is developed today'
Colin Laird would like to make a motion to deny the request for zone district amendment
for the Rapids Development Corporation. No second to the motion was made so motion
died.
Shirley Brewer made a motion to approve the PUD rezoning with the^recommended staff
conditions and information apptic*i hut agreed to. Conditions 1 - 13 are okay, with a
change to condition #8 that "o fna plat shall be approved until site plan of WWTF is
appr&eO by CDpHE. Condition #14, modification to the PUD side and rear.setbacks to
staff recommendation. Condition #15, deed restricts six lots to two bedrooms, two bath
with two car garageunits. Condition #16, that 2 homes on east end of project hzve a25'
building height maximurn.
Cheryl Chandler made a friendly amendment. All six lots located by Mr. Collin's
prop"rty to be all single-story. Sirirt"y Brewer accepted that amendment. Sean Martin
seconded the motion.
Cheryl Chandler wants to see minerals travel with the land. Carolyn Dahlgren concerns
are with who owns them has the right to get them.
Shirley Brewer would like to amend motion to add condition #17 stating no surface use
be allowed for drilling operations on north side of county road and oinly S}Voon south
side. Sean Martin agreed with amendment.
Cheryl Chandler asked if the property to the west well becomes contaminated what
recourse other than full legal battles with the State you can give to the neighboring
properties. Carolyn Dahlgren said there is oniy legal recourse.
Cheryi Chandler asked about DOW approved fencing. Already amended condition #11.
A vote was taken on motion made and PUD rezoning was approved by a vote of 4 (Y) to
1(N).
The next item of discussion on the agenda is a continued public hearing review of a
preliminary plan appiication for the Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision. Pubiic noticing
was reviewed at the last hearing so Ms. Dahlgen stated it is okay to proceed tonight.
Phil Vaughan swore in all speakers for this item. Phil reviewed the process we would
follow for this item.
Fred Jarman is the County Planner on thii item and he will review the project information
and staffcomments. A lot of comments were made at the PUD presentation. All
ownership,land size, etc. are all the same as stated previously. There is an existing water
supply in the ground today that.serves the existing 33 lots that are approved out there
todaywith 15b,000 gallon tank of storage on site. The applicants have obtained one acre
foot of contract water from West Divide Water Conservancy District but such amount
does not appear to be adequate. The applicant should obtain an amended water allotment
contract for additional water prior to the BOCC hearing. This central system also serves
as the water for fire protection through out the subdivision by way of hydrants. The Fire
Protection District his signed off on the plan. Staff received an email from Craig Lis
with the State Division of pater Resources Office that states potable water system is
adequate legally and physically to serve 104 units. (Exhibit JJ is the email from Craig
Lis) Need to ask applicant where we are with issues that were brought up by Mt. Lis
(DWR). The BOCC and the Board of Health recommended that the CDPHE approve the
waste water treatment facility site. The State appiication has to be approved before the
BOCC can sign off on the final plat.
Internal road access being proposed is the same aq what is out there now. Two ways in
and two ways out with a looped road. 50' of righGof-way proposed. BOCC can approve
more narrow roads then what the regulations call for. There is a question as to how do
you manage on-street parking that is not allowed. If the Fire District okays the plan then
ihir n uy not be such an issue. 1000 ADT will be generated. Large part of traffic will go
out to I-70 but it still remains below the 207o threshold. CDOT did mention some
considerations such as striping. County road impact fees will be collected. Monies will
be spent in the district that this road falls under.' Some fees have been paid on the
existing 33 lots previously.
Referred this application to the Colorado Geological Survey and there is a specific item
they wanted to-address concerning some berming to wrap around cul-de-sac lot. Add as a
condition of approval Exhibit CC. Recommending a plat note for site specific gootech
design and engineered foundations at building permit stage'
Fred Jarman asked Michael Erion to speak about flood piain area. Michael stated that the
property actually does have areas that are within the flood plain boundary. The previous
subdivision approval included a flood piain SUP which allowed for the elevating of those
lots to be one foot above the 100 year base flood elevation. Michael said technically
these lots are within the 100 year flood plain but they are elevated above the 100 year
flood in accordance with their SUP. We are asking that they clean up and are asking for
a new flood plain SUP for this project. Lots are elevated above the 100-year flood plain
elevation. Michael stated the drainage plan does meet the criteria that CGS put in their
review letter. Shoutd list as a condition of approval to continue the berm around the
corner as CGS suggested. Fred Jarman stated that the drainage plan submitted by the
applicant's engineer is coqsistent with county standards and criteria.
Moving on with fire protection, this property is located within the Burning Mountain Fire
Protection District. The District has reviewed this application a couple of times with
different variances of request. Brit Mclin did review the revised PUD site plan. See
Exhibit EE for his additional comments.
Staff raises issues about amenities. Tot lot, basketball and baseball field are internal
amenities to this property. Trails and fisherman's easement dedicated to the pubiic.
Carolyn Dahlgren added, looking for a condition of approval. Applicant will bring to
BOCC information as to how this dedication will happen and who will hold, etc.
Fred Jarman said in respect to wildlife, application was referred to the DOW and we did
not get cornments from them. Proposal to place property south of the county road into
conservation easement. Staff condition number 5 discusses DOW fencing limitations.
Rely on condition of approval that was approved earlier.
Referred application to Garfieid County Weed & Vegetation Manager Steve Anthony.
Applicant needs to inventory and map weeds on the property before it goes to the BOCC
for Steve's review. Steve Anthony brought up a number of challenges. (Exhibit BB)
Should collect security fore re-vegetation. Will need to impiement a weed management
plan.
RE-2 School Site Fees will be collected at $200.00 per new lot created and will be
required to be paid prior to final plat approval. Property is located within Traffic Study
Area 3 and fees will be due for that as well. Will look at what has been paid by the lots
already in place.
Bob Fullerton asked Fred Jarman if he had a handle on those fees already paid and Fred
stated he can get those figure fairly easily.
Moved out to the applicant for their presentation next. Lee Leavenworth will speak first'
Water is a non-issue and will be ready by BOCC to prove that up. That will be dedicated
to HOA. In terms of the sewer, CDPHE would not process application without rezoning
being approved by BOCC. Approval has to be in place prior to final plat. Applicant is
okay with that. Roads are looped. 50' versus 60'. 400 trips per day only occur up to the
fust cul-de-sac. Road profiie doesn't change. They are fine with the CGS suggestions
related to extending berms and site specific geotech and engineering requirements' No
formal map revisions are being done but will amend flood plain SUP if needed. All roads
will be owned by the HOA. HOA will be required to maintain pond. Amenities will be
owned by the HOA. Will explore easement and who will own, etc. Agree all fencing to
be DOW wildlife friendly. Concerning weeds, soil management specifications are on
plans drawn up by Chris Hale of Mountain Cross Engineering. Agree HOA will need to
ipray weeds. It will be stated in the covenants that each homeowner will be required to
maintain weeds on their own lot. HOA will have two sprayers available for homeowners
to use. Applicant will pay required impact fees as required. Lee Leavenworth said he
will work-with county staff on conditions of approval between now and BOCC meeting.
I-ee is asking that PUD be made part of record for preliminary plan submittal.
Moved out to the public for comments next. The first speaker on the list is Lisa Schultz
and she would like to donate her speaking time to her husband Craig Schultz. The
Schultz's live at 2895 CR 335. Craig stated you approved 104 lots under the PUD, so
what do we do now? Numerous problems over the years have occurred on this property.
HOA has all fencing, all trail *uint"nan"e, all snow removal, many of the amenities, they
operate ditch, water and sewer plants, maintain parking which will all be huge costs to
ttie HOA. Make developer pay for these things now. Trees and landscaping should be
agreed to up front. Need to pave trails. CR 335 is a dangerous road now' Need
sidewalks. There is substandard signage on property now which needs to be permanent
signage. Proper asphalt with a minimum of 4" should be put in. We need to do up front
all we can do to make this a good development.
John Olsen would like to speak next and he lives on the lot next to the future sewer plant.
He is asking one more plea to move the sewer plant to the middle of this property. Why
should:he have the burden of sewer plant practically on his property? Mr. Olsen thinks
there is no reason this request shouldn't be made.
Kent Jolley will speak next and he lives atS3zCanyon Creek Drive. He is John Olsen's
partner and he wants to reiterate what John is saying. Kent was not noticed of hearing for
sewer treatment facility or the Town of New Castle's review of this application.
Commission needs to take their concerns under consideration tonight. Mr. Jo1ley is also
concerned with his well. Commission can make a condition to protect their wells.
Karen Nadon lives at 2675 CR 335 and she would'like to speak next. She would like to
reiterate what Craig Schultz said. There ilre a lot of costs being placed on the shoulders
of the homeowners. What are we going to do to ensure their quality of life in the area?
Cathy Chase will speak next and she iives at2870 CR 335. Her concern is with weeds.
Can you require u iign off by the County Weed Manager before passing on to the HOA?
Asking for a consideration to neighbors to move the sewer plant. Asking Commission to
look at houses that will block views for the Coliin's.
Bobby Hayes would like to speak next and he submitted pictures for the Commission to
review. ipictures are accepted into the record) Need to re-design road systems. It is
appropriate for the applicant to pay road impact fees for these roads
No other public comments were made so that portion of hearing is closed.
l*el-eavenworth would like to speak again. The costs that will be incurred on
homeowners through the Association .are fairly standard cost obligations for an HOA in
this type of development. (For HOA dues) Some concerns were also mentioned on
depth of asphalt. Asphalt meets the County standards. Applicant would accept as a
.o.rditio, of approrul to berm or landscape to help screen the property to the west' Can't
move the sewer plant. That would require an amendment to the PUD.
Cheryl Chandler asked, what about the weeds. Lee Leavenworth responded that their
plans do have soil management on them.
Bob Fullerton asked if applicant has estimated cost for HOA fees. Lee Leavenworth said
they would propose an HOA budget and have before the BOCC hearing.
Shirley Brewer asked about reserve fund and would they have one. Lee Leavenworth
said yes they would have one.
Fred Jarman suggested adoption of Steve Anthony's suggestions related to weed
management.
;1eel*avenworth said they will need to add to the covenants strong language related to
no parking allowed on streets. Also signage. .,-_,
Colin Laird thinks it is wise to add a condition to berm around sewer plant.
I*eI*avenworth said they will prepare a weed management plan. Fred Jarman
suggested that the fairly mature plants need immediate response.
The same five Pianning Commission members that voted on the last item can vote on the
preliminary plan.
Shirley Brewer made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plan Application for the
Rapids on the Colorado with the staff recommended conditions of approval, adding a
berm around the cul-de-sac off of CR 335 and applicant will bring to BOCC resolution
publicly dedicating amenities, condition of DOW fencing, HOA to spray for noxious
weeds in common areas and open space and the homeowners be responsible to spray their
L2
own noxious weeds. Work with County Attorney on standard conditions' Applicant will
prepare a proposed budget for HOA before BOCC. Berm or landscape to screen sewer
piant from thi western Lnd owner; adopt Steve Antony's recommendations for weed
**ug.*.nt and control; in consideration of the 50' width of street of asphalt is to have
goodiigfrage and no parking on street with strong enforcement language in the
.or"n*tr. (Take all-17 conditions from previous application and add these additional
18-25 here)
Lee.Leavenworth mentioned one option would be to have the BOCC accept thetrail if
they choose to accept dedication.
Sean Martin seconded Shirtey Brewer's motion. A vote was taken and motion passed
4(Y) to 1 (N).
The last item of discussion on the agenda is a public hearing request to review a Special
Use Permit Application for Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural
Resources and Development in the 100-year Flood Plain for a Gravel Extraction
Operation known as the Grand River Park Project. The parcel is just west and adjacent to
thl Town of Silt, south of the Colorado River and I-70. The Applicant is Gypsum Ranch,
LLC.
Tim Thulson, Attorney for the Applicant is present tonight and Bitl Roberts, representing
applicants.
phil Vaughan would like to discuss the fact that it is 10:15 p.m. right now. He can see us
being here possibly five hours. This is a public hearing and Phil wouid like to hear
comments from the Commission on this.
Colin Laird said it is late and this will take a lot of time but he is open for discussion and
would tike to hear from staff.
Cheryl Chandter would like to open hearing for public notice review.
Steve Reynolds asked, if we start, do we have to get to a resolution.
Terr),Ostrom wouid like to hear from the public.
Bob Fullerton is torn on what to do. Rather not get to l2:30and then call it quits for the
night.
Shiriey Brewer would like to hear from the County Attorney. Carolyn Dahlgren said that
the By-Laws say this can be continued to the next regular meeting. The nexttwo regular
meetings are alieady booked. To hear this item sooner you would have to hold a special
meeting.
13
Phil Vaughan asked, could we continue this to Monday, January 15,2007 at 6:00 p.m'
Steve Reynolds said 6:30 p.m. works better for him on that date. Phil Vaughan suggests
doing noticing review tonight but nothing else.
Shirley Brewer made a motion to hear noticing testimony tonight and to come back on
Monday, January 15,2C/i7 at 6:30 p.m. to hear the application presentation. Cheryl
Chandler seconded the motion
Tim Thulson said he would be short on his presentation, maybe 15 minutes, because they
are in agreement with the staff recommended conditions of approval listed in the staff
report.
Phil Vaughan repeated the motion to open the public hearing tonight and review noticing
requirements then we will continue the rest of the meeting to Monday, January 15,2007
at 6:30 p.m.
Fred Jarman mentioned that the staff report for Gypsum Ranch, LLC Grand River Park
Project, will be put on our website for the pubiic to read.
A vote was taken on motion made by Shirley Brewer and all approved unanimously.
Carolyn Dahlgren mentioned the 120 day time line for hearing this item. We are still .
okay with time limits and are incompliance.
Carolyn Dahlgren will review noticing requirements with applicant. Tim Thulson will
respond to her questions. Owner of the property is Gypsum Ranch LLC. They used the
County Assessor records to obtain owner names and mineral owner names. Ms'
Dahigren asked if there are any public land owners and Tim Thulson said yes, CDOT.
Mineral interests are separated from the land. Certified mailing of pubiic notice was
done on December 8s. They did not get all of the green return receipts back. Notice of
hearing was published in the Glenwood Post Independent on December 8'h and 96.
Owner of the property was properly identified in the notice. Bill Roberts and Shawn
Mello posted tt" prop"rty on December 7n with the gold card provided by the County.
Notice is still in place today. Shawn Mello responded that the notice was posted and is
visible from CR 214.
Carolyn Dahlgren said the documentation is consistent with the testimony and it is okay
to proceed with hearing. This hearing will continue to be heard on Monday, January 15,
2007 at 6:30 p.m.
No other business so meeting is adjourned.
rIITIIITIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
FIESOUFICE
ENGINEEFIING
Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
!NC
July 19, 2007
RE: Rapids Development Corporation - Floodplain Development Permit Review
Dear Fred:
At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, lnc. (RESOURCE) has rwiewed the
Floodplairi Development Permit Application (submitted as a Special Use Permit Application) for
the Rapids Development Corporation. The new application was recommended by staff to be
included as part of the new R'apids on the Colorado PUD, since the existing Floodplain Special
Use Permit was not consisteni with the new proposed project. The new application seeks
approvalof the previously approved fillwithin the Flood Fringe District of the Colorado River 100
yiir Floodplain as defined by effective mapping prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
tooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board dated December 1982.
We recommend approval of the Floodplain Development Permit for Rapids Development
Corporation for the proposed Rapids on the Colorado P.U.D. with the following conditions.
The 100 year floodplain boundary line and the floodway line should be shown on the
appropriate subdivision maps consistent with the effective 1982 Flood Plain Study.
The area within the Flood Fringe District that was filled to an elevation at or above the 100
year Base Flood elevation should be identified on the same subdivision maps that depict
the floodplain boundary.
A ptat note should be included on any final plat of the Colorado on the Rapids PUD that
stdtes the specific lot number building areas or envelopes which have been filled,
references the floodplain development permit number, and indicates that construction on
these lots must conform with ine OnnCO Floodplain Regulations and the approved
permits.
A plat note should be included that indicates the minimum finished floor elevation for each
lot within the flood fringe area.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
tNc.
1.
RECEIVED
JUL 2 3 2007
#,fffi,ifu'rti^y^ililJ
MJUmmm
885-50.0
KtOlienb\88s GARC0\50.0 The Rapids on the Colo\fred floodplain dev review 885.doc
ConsulEing Engineens and Hydnologists
9OS Colonado Avenue I Glenwood Spnings, CO Bl 60l I (970)945-6777 I Fax [97OJ 945-1137
May21,2007
Board of County Commissioners
Plaruring Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO.
fiIAY
RE: U.S. AgBank,FCB, (Formerly Farm Credit Bank of Wichita) Mineral Reservation
28526-6-0
Dear Planning Commission:
We have recently received a notification (attached), that some form of development is
planned for an area that is adjacent to, or includes our mineral estates. The Bank has no
Lbjection to this plan of development, as long as they do not impede our ability to
develop our mineral estate.
Part of The Farm Credit System
ADMrNrsrRATrvE oFFtCE: 245 N. Waco 67202 . P.O. Box 2g4O 67201-2940 'Wichita, KS 'Tel: 316-265-5100, Fax 316-266-5121
i, j '
l
2E
.f,r\, :1.,,{.Jl
2007
chard K. Carli-sle
sAcRAMENTo oFFrcE: 3636 American River Drive, Ste. 100 . Sacramento, CA 95864-590,| 'Tel: 916-973-3014, Fax:916'973-3092
Tourn oflTew Casfle
450 W. Main Street
PO Box 90
New Castle, CO 81647
Administration
Phone: (970) 984-231I
Fax: (970) 984-2716
www. newcastleco lorado.orE
July t7, 2007
Mr. Fred Jarman
Garfield County Planning Director
108 8th St., Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Jarman:
RECEIVED
JUL 2 4 2007
li:..1 ,;:, r.. {loi,rNTy\r.rt,_._.t. +.., o e,._\LlNlNG
The New Castle Town Council considered the Garfield County application referral of the
proposed "Rapids on the Colorado" Planned Unit Development at their regular meeting on
July L7,2OO7. This project is located approximately 1.3 miles west of the New Castle
municipal limits and lies within the 3-mile planning area of the Town. The application is a
request for a zone district amendment and a preliminary plan for 104 single-family lots on
tZL.488 acres.
After careful consideration of the comments provided by the applicant, the public, and town
staff, the New Castle Town Council takes no position on the zone district amendment and
preliminary plan application for the Rapids PUD. lf, however, the Board of County
Commissioners chooses to approve the application, the Town of New Castle strongly
recommends that the following conditions be included:
1. Road impact fees to be paid by the Rapids project shall be applied to improvements on
County Road 335 based upon recommendations from the engineers representing Rapids
PUD, New Castle and Garfield County.
2. The Garfield County Board of Commissioners, recognizing the impact of traffic that this
project will create on the Interstate 70 interchange at New Castle, agrees to join the Town of
New Castle in its efforts to improve the capacity of this interchange.
3. The applicant is encouraged to explore the concept of regional rural wastewater treatment
planning to address the needs of the property in proximity to this development.
4. Public access and parking shall be provided to the Colorado River for noncommercial
recreational uses, and the Applicant shall construct a public trail along the length of the river
frontage.
5. The land owned by the Applicant south of County Road 335 shall be retained as
undeveloped open space.
6. The Rapids project shall include a variety of housing types (not just single-family) to
address affordable housing needs in Garfield County, to comply with the County
Comprehensive Plan housing policies and to promote clustering of the lots/units thereby,
supporting open space in the development design.
FFred Jarman
Garfield County Planning Director
Re: Rapids on the Colorado Planned Unit Development
Page 2 of 2
7. A landscaping plan should be included in order to mitigate the visual impacts caused by
this development, including how the development is viewed from Interstate 70. Garfield
County should adopt a requirement to include landscaping plans as part of a subdivision
application.
The Town of New Castle appreciates the oppoftunity to provide'input on this project. Because
it is within our planning area, it will create impacts to our community. The proposed
conditions outlined above are an attempt to help mitigate those impacts. The Town values
the cooperative relationship with Garfield County on land use applications within our planning
area and sees it as a benefit for both municipal and county residents.
cc: Kar! Hanlon, Esq.
Peter Thomas, Esq.
Stephen Worrell, Esq.
Duane Guettler
Mayor Pro Tem
STATEOFC
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 86&3581
FAx (303) 86G3589
http:/ rv!,t vr.water.state.co'us
RECE{VffiB
FEB O 9 ZOIT
GARFIELD CCUruTY
BUILDt NG A pi.qf\fliruO Bill Rltter, Jr.
Gowmor
Hanis D. Sha.man
Exectrtive Dircctor
l'lal D. SlmPoon, P'E.
State Engineer
February 6,2007
Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th St Ste 401
Glenwood springs to t'uo'
*", The Rapids on the cororado preriminary plan
Sections 4, 5 & 9, T65, R91W, 6u'PM
W. Division 5, W. District 45
Dear Mr. Jarman:
Based on a meeting with the applicant, Mr, Hilton, his attorney, Jack R9ss, and consultant
Bill Lorah of Wright WaterEngineers, lnc. (WWE), and additional information (attached)
submitted by thJconsultant, we are providing the following modified comments for the 1bov9-
i"i"r"n."o firoposalto subdivide a parceloflpproximately 121.5 acres into 121 single-family
residential lots, one wastewater treatment site, one utility district site, and open space. f!: . .
domestic water tuppfy i5 io be provided through an exisiing central system, which is supplied by
two existing wells and a 150,000 gallon storag-e tank. Total.domestic diversions are estimated to
be a7 .aAiannually and the cons-umptive us6 is estimated to be 1.42 AF annually. Replacement
oi"u"por"tion for tne napios pond and landscape and amenity irrigation water.for 40'2 acres is to
be provided by the Moore Ditch pursuant to the plan for augmentation decreed in Case No' W-
gZ6Z. Sewag-e disposal is to be provided through connection to a new wastewater treatment
i".int, A bder of commitment fiom the RapidJHomeowners Association (HOA), the owner of a
portion of the water rights, was included with the submittal.
permit Nos. 65110-F and 65109-F were issued on December 15, 2006 for the Rapids Well
Nos. 1 and Z, respectively, for use as the water supply for in-house uses tor 121 single-family.
owettings in a i21)ot.rbdiri.ion. Both of these weli permits were approved on the condition that
the welts are operated in accordance with the Gene R. Hilton Augmentatiq ?!]! approved by the
Division 5 Water Court in Case No. W-3262 and amended in Case No. 98CW104' These permits
ieplacethe permit Nos. 49661-F and 49660-F, which were previously issued for: the subject
Rapids Wells.
A welltest completed by Aqua-Tec Systems, lnc. indicates that the Rapids Well No' 1
produced 59.2 gpm over aZ4-hourperiod on April 9, 1996, that the drawdown was 19.33 feet,
"nJtn"tthe
g9% recovery occurred'within 120 minutes. Awelltest completgd byAqua-Tec
Syit"6, lnc. indicates tnlt the Rapids Well No. 2 produced 46 gpm over a 24-hour period on
Airril 15, 1996, that the drawdown was 58.2 feet, and that the 98.5% recovery occurred within 205
minutes. With suffici"ni rtorrg" capacity, these wells should provide an adequate supply for the
proposed use.
The Gene R. Hitton Augmentation Plan approved in W-3262 allowed a change in water --
rights for the Moore Ditch and other water rights io provite^a water supply for a maximum of 9700
residential units on lands owned by the appllcant in T65 R91W, T7S R90W, T7S R91W, all in the
Fred Jarman
Aspen Equestrian Estates
Sixth PM. The decree approved the use of wells as alternate points of diversion for the applicant's
Moore Ditch water rights, and allowed the applicant to construct reservoirs in Section 4 or Section
23, T65 R91W, Sixth PM to replace non-irrigation season depletions. The submittal includes a
proposed pond (Rapids Pond) and refers to the decree's approval of potential reservoirs for
r"pi"."r"nt of non-irrigation season depletions. Additional information submitted in a December
5, 2006 letter (attached) from Bill Lorah of \NWE, indicates lhal40.2 acres will be irrigated via the
ditcn as landscape and amenity irrigation. Depletions from the household uses, landscape and
amenity irrigation, and evaporation from the Rapids Pond will be replaced via dry-up of land
irrigated by the Moore Ditch, which formerly irrigated 70 acres.
Based on the December 5, 2006 letter and an e-mail (attached) from Mr. Lorah dated
January 31,2007, dry-up of 63.33 acres of land under the Moore Ditch, and the dedication of 0.20
cfs of Moore Ditch Piiority No. 3 and 1.1904 cfs of Moore Ditch Priority No. 3 are necessary to
replace the proposed depletions (see attached Table 1: The Rapids on the Colorado, Moore Ditch
Dedication Estimates). The submittal indicates that 19.7%, or 0.0394 cfs of Moore Ditch Priority
No. 3 and 0.2535 cfs of Moore Ditch Priority No. 3 were previously dedicated to the HOA. As
such, an additional 80.3% (0.1600) cfs of Moore Ditch Priority No. 3 and 72.8o/o (0.9369 cfs) of
Mooie Ditch Priority No. 3 must be dedicated to the HOA. (Note that 40.2 acres of the dry-up will
be converted from agricultural irrigation to landscape and amenity irrigation. As such, only 23.13
acres will actually bJremoved from irrigation.) Non-irrigation season depletions (0.827 AF) will be
replaced through a West Divide Water Conservancy District contract (No. 971201RDC(a)) for 1.0
AF of Ruedi Reservoir water or through release of water stored in the Rapids Pond'
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1XhXl), that the
proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the
applicant maintains vilid wett permits, and is physically adequate. lf you or the applicant has any
questions concerning this matter, please contact me at this office for assistance.
Craig M. Lis, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
Enclosures: E-mail (attached) of December 18, 2006 from Bill Lorah of V/WE
E-mail (attached) of January 31,2007 from Bill Lorah of WWE
Table 1: The Rapids on the Colorado, Moore Ditch Dedication Estimates
CML: Rapids on the Colorado ii.doc
Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
James Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 45
Page2
February 6,2007
Sincerely,
kuuV
-'/-"
f r:"kh"
\\-/''
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
August 6, 2007
Rapids on the Colorado
The Rapids on the Colorado
Project History:
Ol980s: 319 UnitPIJD
CCurrent Approval: 33 Units
.2005 Proposal: 12l Units
S2007 Proposal: 104 Units
Vicinity Map
Rapids on the Colorado
\ia--- ^ ----
1980s Approval: Wood Landing
i
319 Lots, PUD Zoning
i
r,
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
August 6, 2007
Rapids on the Colorado
r S Summary:
i I. Zone District Amendment Application
i .RezonefromA/RlRDandA,/ItoPUD
i [. Preliminary Plan Application
r Subdivide into 104 lots
Ill.Planning Commission Conditions of Approval
Rapids on the Colorado - 104 Lots
Illustrative Plan
,.Current Project History
I
Olnitial Appearance with Garfield County
Planning Commission: August 9, 2006
r Continued to reduce density, increase
clustering, and eliminate attached single family
dwellings
}Revised Plan Presented to Garfield County
Planning Commission: January 2007
r Approved with Conditions
t1
121 Unit Site Plan
Existing Rapids on the Colorado
.
Subdivision Improvements
i
i
$Public Water System i
OPaved Roads With Access to C.R' 335
ONatural Gas Installed
OTelephone Service Installed
OElectricity and Transformers
0Wireless Internet Service
OCell phone Service
2007 ProDo6al:
Rapids on the Colorado - 104 tots Illustrative Plan
I. Zone District Amendment Application
Zone District Map - 104 Lots
. Five to Ten Lot Clusters - 660/o Open Space
.1:
Map - Proposed Land Use Districts
ZONE DISTRICT AMENDMENT
:ir------- --'i'OThe Zone District Amendment Application
i requests the 97.269 acre Rapids on thei Colbrado Subdivision and an adjacent 24.218
i acre tract be rezoned from Ay'I and ARRD to
I Planned Unit DeveloPment (PUD).
.)Proposed PUD
. 0.86 single-family units per acre
' Lots clustered
. Public parkino with access to 3,500 feet of
Colorado River frontage
. 66Vo of the PUD will be ooen space
Existing Zoning
General Welfare of the CommunitY
a The PUD design prorides public recreational access
to trails and over 3,500 feet of river frontage access.
a The PUD design increases open space from 17.95
Acres (18o/o) in the existing subdivision to79.747
Acres (669o) in the proposed PUD.
O In addition, construction of a WWTF would improve
water quality by eliminating 33 septk s,ystems
General Welfare of the Community
(Continued)
-1r-------"---
SProposed cluster design incorporates ;
many of the Goals and Obiectives of the
Comorehensive Plan 2000 regarding:
r Housino, Ooen Soace, Trails, Development
within Urban Areas of Influence,
Recreation, Transportation, AgricUlture,
Water Service, Sewer Service, and the
Natural Environment.
PUD Design Benefits
O Flexibility ofPUD Design Process is Used to Cluster
Home Sites into 5 to 10 Lot Clusters NearExisting Roads
and Infrastucture
O PUD Design Increases the Amount of Quality Open Space
to 660lo ofGross Acres
I Provides for Moderate Income Housing Types Within an
Exising Subdivision
a Permits Range ofHousing Types & Prices
O Provides fuver Trail, Fishing, and Public Parking
O Expends Open Space Protection to Wildlife Area
O Sensitive to and Protects the I-70 Visual Corridor
t) WWTF Helps to ensure Future Colorado River Quality
b
Compliance with New Castle
Comprehensive Plan
iI OStafffound the proposed plan to be in
r conformance witJr the New Castle
, Comprehensive Plan
I llown ofNew Castle took no position
regardingthe application at its July 17,
2007 meeting
STown of New Castle did provide proposed
conditions ofapproval
Urban Services
OCurrent Subdivision utilizes a central water
treatnent facility
SCurrent plan replaces 33 individual septic
systems with a centralized waste water
treafinent facility
lCurrent plan reserves sufficient space on the
site to expand the facility to serve other
developments (either new or existing)
l
Rural Character i
-:i
ii SCurrent Subdivision places all property
i under individual ownership with no public
; open space
' OProposed Plan provides for open space
consistent with the agricultural heritage of
the property
Compliance With Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan
ti- --^^--
Sstafffound the plan to be in conformance
with the Garfield County Comprehensive
Plan except for the following:
r Development requiring urban
services/proliferation of private water or
wastewater systems
r Rural Character
r Mix of Housing Types
Mix of Housing Types
' O Based on Staffconcems, the 8 single-family attached sites
included in the oriqtn l l2l unit design (in order to provide
more diverse housing types and at a morc affordable price),
werc changed to single-family detached sites.
r Staffs oosition ws that the attached sites were onsidered multi-, fmilv ind St8fr mintained that S-F Anached wrc trot @nsistqt
with ihe Nw Cmtle mning ategory for "Clusa - Single-Fmily -; Residentiat".
O The Aoolicanl in resoonse to Plannins Commission and
Publiirbmmeirt, lowered the density Fom l2l to 104
O The Aoolicant. also in resoonse to Plannine Commission
and Public co;ment, prqiosed to limit 6 uiits to 2
bedroom, 2 bath, and 2 car garage
I Reduced Height in the pod closest to the Collins property
Basis of Lot Coverage Ratio - Cluster
SF Residential Zone District
:
Maximum Lot covera$e (cont.)
l
i
4As currently approved: 15% (ARRD) |
r Maximum of approximately 13,000 sq. ft. on 2
acre lot
QAs propose d: 50Yo (PUD)
r Maximum of approximately 6,000 sq. ft. for the
average 12,000 sq. ft. lot
Basis: Building Fleight Two Story House
Cluster SF Residential
1
I
I
l
l
PUD Proposed Zoning Criteriav--*---
a-' I
sanaartrcauStandadrcdterla ARRD AI RlUO PEpa.d PUD
Minlmum Lot AE 2 Ad6 2rc 7,5(x) sq,A Z50O tq. |L
Intsml Road ROIV 50 nla 50
Bufidlng Helght 25 t0 25 32
Madmum Lot 15%15%35%t0116
Rer Yad Setba&25 25 25 to
Slde Yad Setba*t0 l0 10 t0
Relationship to Surrounding
i
. Propertiet
,
OVicinity Map
OTraffic
i OWastewaterTreatment
OWildlife
OCommunity and Public Amenities
Vicinity Map
Rapids on the Colorado
- Eristing, Ahnual GrOwth,
153 Unit Apartments and Rapids 104 Lots
Km[*mm.r0d.AsscciaE Iltcr I
o RapldsRDrtouldnot@useimpactonroadsystgn i
o AddittmofPrcJectTralficbEdtloslsl€ss$an2oyo, i
oThedorc CDoTA6PqmltbnotEqul€d. i
ramD at tleu Gstle lnterdrame upuld berEfrt from
dglit trm lanes on the off-raftp.
ftom all way stoD
whel& whiteo Stop slgrB sllollld be
o In@rponte siOmge and $rlplng lnto cnd dEwings.
l4ounEin Cffi Engircrino:, CR 335 East of Applt TE to Exit 105
Perstage of Road Gpaclty Wized 34.8/o. CR33SWestofRaolds
PelgtaeE of Road Capadty t Ulized 7,Lo/o
Traffic lir-------
i. *Traffic Study - Kimley-Hom and Associates i
I: . Study determined there was no requirement for
: CDOT Accss Permit
' . Report amended to reflect the smaller 104 unit
subdivision. Reftrence Volume III of Preliminary
Plan Application.
. Curtis Rowe with Kimley-Horn to discuss baffic
issues
I
I
1
Wastewater Treatment Faci I ity
The Rapids on the Colorado
Demonstrated Need for WTF ,
i
gEliminates 33 Individual Septic Systems in the i
Existing Rapids Subdivision
*Permits Other Goals Established in the Garfield
County Comprehensive Plan to be lncorporated
lnto a Re-subdMsion of the Property as a 104 uoit
PUD, such as:
r Inwres Open Sprefrml8Volo66'/o
r Public Ames to Fishing md Hiking Tnils Along thc Riw
r Prctects Wildlife Habitat South of CR 335
r Clustm Dwelopment Around Existing Roadg sd Infrastructrrc
. Redues Sprawl by Bettq Utilizing the Exirting Subdivision
'1"
BOCC Recommended Site
i
Ap-plication Approval Based On
i
i
OCompliance with the Following: i
. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
r New Castle Comorehensive Plan
r CDPIIE Preliminarv Effluent Limits
r Site Incation, Floodplain, and Geotechnical
Reouirements
. Desim Capacity Adeouate to Serve Proposed PUD.
r Water Oualitv, Site Location and Plant Capacitv
Reouirements
"$
WWTF Berm/Landscape.i-----
OApplicant agreed to berm and/or landscape l
the facility
SFinal site application approval will dictate
the exact location of the improvements
Wildlife
ODevelopment ouBide of identified critical
habitat
$Covenants provide for dog control and
fencing
sWildlife mssaoe to the Colorado River
betweeri hou6s, at breaks between clusters,
and around the WWTF
$When the adjoining property was sold to
DOW for wildlife purposes, the property was
zoned for 319 units and was recognized
Map Critical Winter Range - Elk
Community and Public Amenities
,,:J
SRiver Access
OTrails
CTot Lot
SBasketball Court
ClntemalOpen SPace
Additional Information
i
I OWett Permits Issued ir CDWR iras issued Dermlts for the odsung two wells under i
ADDlicant's odstinil Plan of Al8mentation W-3262
: ONo Material Injury E-Mail From CDWR
. CDWR has prwijed Garlield Cou]ty Bullding and PlannirE an
emall sbtid?: "...il is our opinion that the proposed water
supply plan'iryill not cause iaterhl injury to decleed water.
rigilts so lorE as an adequate amunt of water is dedkated
to 0E HOA."
OBuming Mountain Fire District Review
. Project re-rerrlewed ard approved based on limlbtion of
Pa*ing'
660lo Open Space
a
i
General Welfare of the CommunitY
...:, ..................... ...
i r ne PUD design provides publlc recreaUonal acessi to uails and over 3,500 feet of river frontage accss.
a The PUD design increases ope4 9pa9e frory^f7-.!!
Acres (18%)'r-n the existing subdivision to79.747
Acres (550/0) ln the proposed PUD.
a Construction of WWTF would improve water quality'
by eliminating 33 sePtic q/stems
t The erlstino "Rapidg' subdivision is better utilizitl to
orovide addltional diverse hou$ng types needed ft,r
bnergy related growth in Western Garfeld County.
Water Supply
4Well Permits Issued
. The cDwR has lssued Dermits fur the odsung tv'ro welb
under Aoolicants' o(lsting Plan of Ar€mentauon W-3262.
4No Material Injury E-Mail From CDWR
. The CDWR has pro/ired GarfieE County tuildlng.and. . ..
PlannirE an E-tviall that states "... ... .lt ls our oplnlon that ttle
orooos& water supply plan wlll not cause maErial ln ury to
biieed water rlstiti 6o brE as an adequate amount of
water is dedlcated b the HoA"
B
.i:---......................--.--..-------.-.
Wastewater Treatment Faci I ity
The Rapids on the Colorado
Compliance - Site Location
i/---
i f County StaffReport states: "According to the
; report completed by Zancanella & Associates, the
: proposedheatnentplant is not located in the
, identified 100-year floodplain."
OH-P Geotech conducted a geotechnical study that
indicates the property is suitable for the proposed
development based on geologic conditions and
there are no geologic hazards that would prevent
the development as proposed.
Traffic
i:' :-- - -
<)Traffic Study - Kimley-Horn and
I Asociates
i . CDOT Access Permit Not Required
r Repoft amended to reflect the srnaller 104
unit subdivision. Reference Volume III of
Preliminary Plan Application.
r Curtis Rowe with Kimley-Horn to discuss
traffic issues
]
State of Colorado Design Criteria
i
4CDPHE Policv 96-1 Design Criteria 1.3.3.9 :
states:
"... plans for wastewater treatment plants to
serve new sewer systems should be designed on
the basis of an average daily per capita (gpd)
wastewater flow of not less than 70 gallons per
capita per day (265 liters) and not more than 100
gocd (380 liters)..."
C.ompliance: The Aoolication is based on 1(D ocpd.
Compliance - Capacity To
Serue Proposed Development
.O Site Apolication Plant Capacity - GPD 45.000
4.State Design Criteria- 100 GPCD
. NumberofUnits l2l
r (x) Number of Residerts / Unit 3.5
. (x)Gallons/Capita/Day 100
. (:)Plantcapacity/Day-GPD 42-350
6 Conclusion: Based on State of Colorado desigrt
criteri4 the plant caoacity requested in the Site
Aoolication is adequate for the proposed
development.
s
Traffic Studies - Existing, AnhUa
153 Unit Apartments and Rapids 104 Lots
-e49gtl9qi!dA$oeist6.l!r. i
o" Bucd o rhc mallsis, Rrpidr PUD v@ld mt 6e inpEct m rqd s,ut@ |
o Additi@ of Prcjcd Tfrmc b Exit 105 is ls lh@ 2flq thefre r CDOT :
Accs P@it is d reqDircd. i
o I-70 wGtbound ReD at Nd CGdc iDtscluns€ rculd baclit ion
cc?uaic left ad right tm lmc o ttc off-ruq.
o 1.70 E$lbonl RmD !t Nd C.stlc rculd b@cfit fi@ dl my 8t ,p
@rml. IDtcrcdion would opffi Mc"tably.
o Stq sigE st@ld bc plac€d @ appmrh6 to Paddlc Wh6l & Whit! wtt6
o lrcqDo.te Si8lagc ud Stripitrg iato civil thawingp.
M@hh CMs Engirding
, CR 335 Eas of Alple T@b Exit 105
Pdemgc of Road Capeity Utiliz€d yf/.
. CR 335 W6t of R pids
Paeutagc of Road Crp&ity Utiliz.d 1.1'/.
Fire Protectionti---*-*-
, Cfire Protection provided by Burning
Mountain Fire District
: SRoad width acceptable based on the noi parking restiction
Slope Hazard
Y;r+
,Floodplain
i
i
CA revised floodplain permit was applied :
for and granted
lRecommendations of Staff regarding
plat notes will be incorporated into the
Final Plat
Soil Hazard
Drainage
ORequested revisions have been
incorporated into the Plan
,Jegetation Ma nagement
i Oweed Management Plan prepared by
i Zoran Illievski
i ORecommendations incorporated into the
' Covenants
.
The Rapids on the Colorado
i Road Impact Fee Resolutions
Resolutions - Traffic Impact Fees
, ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
i
i * Resolution 97-04
1E,7
and
on a capital
improvements plan.
OResolution 97-111
r A Resolution was approved by the BOCC on
December 8, 1997 that adopted a Capltal
Improvements Plan that established a traffic
impact Cost / ADT value fur eleven road areas.
A ResoluUon was approved on
that established a prccedure and
The Rapids on the Colorado
urRoad
Impact Fees
O The Applicant agr€es to pav Road Impact Fees fur i
1,078 ADTS associated with 104 singlefamily
residential units, in accordance with provisions
contained in:
. Resolution 97-04
, Resolution 97-111
,) Rapids has oedit fur lmprovements made to C,R. 335
ln 1s,7 - $118,205. Refercnce Plat Note 7.
Computation Factors
i
*Road Impact Fees
f
; a ADTs For lM Ints (Kimley-Horn) - 1,078 i
i O County Discount Rate (Garco Treasurer) Prime plus .25%
i a ltapids credit for improvements made to C.R. 335 in 1997
i -$118,206. ReferencePlatNoreT.
l} 807o Road md Bridge Tax Credit - Based on Actual R &
B Taxes In 2006 Tax Schedule.
$ Denver-Boulder CPI 1997 and Prcsent.
Road Improvements To C.R. 335 .
Prwided In 1997 by Rapids on the Colorado
i
:
O In 1997 the BOCC was in the orocess of establishing a :
Road Impact Fee for new dfGi6ffiEiiil - i
I Simultaneously, the Rapids on the Colorado was in the
review and approval orocess for a 33-Lot sub-division
I As a condition of approval, the BOCC required tum /
acceleration lanes at the subdivision entrances.
additional lane width, shoulders, road base and
: improvements. Sight distance conec-tions and theof an historic irrigation ditch needed to be
Road Improvements To C.R. 335
Provided In 1997 by Rapids on the Colorado
O Ranids made sisnificant imnrovements to C.R. 335. in
tglz ana 1998, fncluding prcividing additional lane wiitth,
shoulders, road base and drainage improve-mants.
Vertical and horizontal sight distance problems were
corrected and turn lanes weie construcM.'Two inches of
asphalt surfacing was applied to approximately one-half
mile or road.
<) The Plat for Rapids, approved by BOCC in September
1997, recognizedthat the applicant was to receive a credit
of$l 18,206 in road impact fees.
($3,582 Lnpact Credit Pq Ipt X 33 lats = $l 18,206)
Road Impact Fee Calculation - ,
104 Single-Family Residential Lots
i
r) Base Traflic Imoact Fee i
r Area3-Resolution9T-lll -$/ADT $ 226
r ADTPerSFLandUse(Kimley-Hom) 10.365
.BaseTrafticlmpactFeePerSF $2,343
. Paid: l99TRoadExpenditures/ l04L.ots (1.137)
($l 18,206 Expaditues / 104 bts = $ 1,137)
r Balance BaseTmffrclmpactFee S 1.206
Road Impact Fee Calculation
,,
1-04 S,lngle-Family Residential Lots
TAXCREDITS
Concept: Resolution 97-04 provides a tax credit of80% oftlrc
R & B taxes per SF unit, for a period based on the life of the
road. The credit is adjusted to ihe pres€nt value utilizing the
county discount rate (prime plus .25%).
8@/o Annual R&B Property Tu Ps Lsd Us $ 76.96
($96.20 R&B Tu P6 Lmd Uw X 800/o)
CMty Disunt Rde -tuime + .25o/o= 5.25o/o
RoadDesignlifc in Ym 13
PmtwonhFacto!(PwF) l9-0t
(Sl.0q !3 Yeilq 5.2s% - 19.08)
Tu Credit = Prcperty Tu Equivdent X PWF 3l-488
The Rapids on the Colorado
Road Impact Fee Calculation
'{1r'-- - -
I
CALCTJLATION
O BeTBfficInpsctF@-SF -1997
O Paid Itr 1997 - Cdticd RoEd Constuction
O Be Tnffic Inpsct Fe Ercluding Paymerts
INFLATION ADruSTMENT
O Dovs-Boulds CPI Y6- 1997 153.10
a D6vtr-BouldqCPIYw-2OO? 2U3O
a InflEtiorFactor 1.2922
o BeTnfficlmpactFeMjustedForlnflation $1,559
O TuCredit-8e/oofPrcj@ledR&BTus,PV (1,488)
PRE.CONSTRUCTION INFLATION ADruSTED FEE
t Nmbc of SingleFmily lots
$2,343
(1.r37)
$ 1,206
t.2922
$7r
104
37-384
B
Concerns of Neighbors
OTraffic
0I-70 Intersection
OWater Supply
$Wildlife
ODensity
4Site Location WWTF
ffi. Planning Commission
Conditions of Approva!
O Applicant shall be allowedto reduce the Garfield County
Sreet and Roadway design standards in designing the
internal road network to the Secondarv Acceis desipn
requirements formd in Section 9:35 ofthe Subdivision
Regulations and as shown on the PUD map and
Preliminary Plan.
a The road rights-of-way shall be no less than 50 feet in
width throuehout the subdivision with on-steet Mkins
prohibited. The Applicant shall prepare covenarits that-
corfiain strongJanguage to enforce such a prohibition
which also includes an aggressive signage progmm.
Planning Commission Conditions
,
of Approva! (cont.)
'i
cov@ils thal restrict the six nqcst lots to thc prcpsty owned by :
Ken Collins to no higher thm 25 fcet u mruwid by the County
Zoning Resolution of 1978, s mcnded.
a The ADoli@nt shall sbmit m aDolidion for ! FlmdDlsin Pmit mior
ro the bbcc hdine. Additioruillv. the AoDlicant sh8l d@ict the loo-
yeu flood way md ilrc toG,yw lftiod frirfuie following ilehs on tbc
Final Plat.
a The Appliont shall provide a gnphic repr*ntdion (map) of the thrc
anc districts orcmsd which irclude the Utilitv- ODo Sre ud
Clu$s-Singld Fainily Residmtial zonc Distdci iriu to the hoing
before the BOCC
Planning Commission Conditions
i
ti.---*^ of APProval (cont.)
i
iI OApplic*t shull include the following plat notes: i
I . "Right to Farm," per C.R.S. 35-3-l0l et. seq.
I r Rural Obligations (fences, ditches, weeds, etc.)
i r Exteriorlighting
' r Individual Site Specific Geotechnical Invesigations
Submitted with Building Permit Application in PUD
r OrcDogPerUnit
r No Further Subdivision
r Streets Dedication to Public, Repair and Maintenance
byHOA
Planning Commission Conditions
. of Approval (cont.)
.
i a ttcLootimslall@ffi atlthcDublicimmcoEwtidr iDcludc
! sidcwi*s, crc. .nd which shdl b. iilhd.d in i[c StA. i
ii a No Fiul Pld shdl bc ammd util thc Sir Aoolic*iou fa ttc wrstcwta! @@nt feiliN hx bi& mrcvcd bvthc Coli,i6doDcDmtof Publici Hcalrh and Envfmmm (cDpHE) Ma a lffi ofthat e,bmvil ha b6i sbEitrod to thc C@ty srs pd ofrhc Fiut Pht subEitid.
Planning Commission Conditions
. of Approval (cont.)
i,
: O The Applicant shall restrict surface use activities relaled to
i oil and gas drilling operations to the portion ofthe property
i that is located south ofCounty Road 335. There shall be no
i surface disturbance from these activities on the portion of
i the property north ofCounty Road 335.
C Prior to or as part ofthe approval for Finsl Plat, the
Applicant shall obtain approval from the Board ofCounty
Commissioners to properly vacate the existing plat for the
Rapids Subdivision
Zoning Matrix
Standard Prooosed PUD
Minimum Lot Area 7,500
Internal Road ROW 50
Buildinq Heiqht 32 feet (6 lob at 25 feet)
Rear Yard Setback 25
Side Yard Setback 10
Front Yard Setback 50 feet Lots 1-33 & 8+86
Front Yard Setback 25 feet Lots 34-83 & 87-
104
.,''"nn'x? ffir#J":'?l;:onoitions
.
O The propqty is lcared in thc RE2 Sch@l Distria which requires .
$200 pq unir be paid s a eh-in-lio of Schml / Lul Dedia8tion
Fee. ln this re- h aoows tha if rhe eiminq 33 lm alreadv oaid this
fee the Appliuit is drly respomiblc for paying the fe for /l'units or
S 14,200 d the time of fiml plat. This obligation shall be memorialized
in the SIA.
a The Applimt shall be requircd to pay a md impad fee for 7l ofthe
lO4 le bees fels have alreadv been mid for the *i$ina 33 ltr
Thorc fe would apprcximtely be $226 per ADT. h thisime, that is
rcughly $l 64,471. 50. Thore monies rc t[m required to be spmt in
amrdm@ with the tm of the County's CsDital InDrovemeils Plm.
This obligation shall be memorirlircd ii thc SIA
Planning Commission Conditions ,
of Approval (cont.)
SProposed Dimensional Requirements: The
basic modifications from the ARRD and AI
mning and subdivision regulations shall be
allowed as part of the proposed PUD
included the following matrix:
Planning Commission Conditions
of Approval (cont.)
Prior to the hwinc before the Bo{d of Coudv Commisiotrm the
Applirot shallzubmit the following to the'Courty Stafr for'm.iw
ed @menti
a. Prcvide a noxiou wmd inventory ard map;
b. Implement a weed mgercnt plsn based oo the i[vmtor]t
c. Inventory ed tred the Ruseian olive md tamisk r mn u
possible;
d. Providc more details in the covmts regarding mpombility of
weeds ud mosquites;
e. Complete s rwegetltion plan u ntared above, with a plail
matsials list md with e estim8tc of dhtu6ed rea& I sruity for
reregetation will be established once this inforution is zupplied;
f Prcvide a rcil mmagemcnt plan as stated 8bore; md
g. Addr$s 8 plu of aaion should Kchia ud Russiu thistle
be@mes I prcblem.
Planning Commission Conditions
of Approval (cont.)
ir---*..*-
I a lhe Applicant shall speci$ 6 lots, at the time ofFinal Plat,I forhousesthat shall beconstucted tohave amaximum of, two-bedrooms, two baths, and two car garages.
I I the Applicant shall present an acceptable method to the
Board ofCounty Commissionen that preserves tlre use of
the intemal trails, small parking area containing 16 spaces,
and fisherman's easement for public use.
O The berm shall be redesigned and extended as
recommended in the lettei from the Colorado Geologic
Survey.
Planning commisiion ConOltioni
of Approval (cont.)
*The Applicant shall prepare a budget that provides
the expected operational expenses and revenues of
the HOA to be submitted to the BOCC.
*The Applicant shall prepare a berming /
landscaping plan effectively screens the waste
water treatnent plant ftom the neighbors to the
west. This shall be prepared prior to the hearing
with the BOCC.
i
Rapids on the Colorado )
I
.l u
\%
Proposed Land Uses
' kcrtd{
The Rapids on the Colorado
The Rapids on the Colorado
Project Description
1. South: BLM (Open Space)
2. l,lotth: Colorado River / l-70
3. EASI ARRD
4. West: ARRD / Commerchl General (BiWy Exemption)
General Lrcation
1. ARRD & Al Zone Disttict in County
2. lnsicle Area ot Urban lniluence" tor New Castle
3. 1-Smil$fmNewCastle
1. Watec Centrul Watet Sy9tem (2 wells & 150,000 gallon tank)
2. Sewer: 4ISDS (Nproval for Central Wastewatet System)
3. Elecitw:_tloly Cross & Natual Aa6: Xcel Eneryy
4- Phone:Qw6t
Privdtely owned lads wlth site
specific use limitations suafi as
f,ood plain, dop6 hazard, septic
constraints, or surticial geology
(mud flow, debis tan) to be eval-
uated at plan review
New Casde Comprehensive Plan
.Area of Ljrban Influence
.Recommended Denslty: 1 acre p€r dwelling unit
.Re6mmended Design; Cluster'Low Density" Design
.New Castle Town Councll Comments: (Exhibit V V)
WPE
I renculrumLREsouRcE
IIEEI auReau op UND MGMNI
Does the design meet the "cluster"
intent?
Are the following changes to PUD
acceptable to BOCC?
3
Cluster Desiefl
B@efits:
.Reduced lnfnsN@re CosE
.Markding / Sales Ad@hges
.value ,{ppreciauon
.Reduced Impm on Public Patklaod
.Reduced Dedopmot "foot pdnt"
.Preseoe 'Key'' qualities of a padoltr pro,pefty
Appropriate relationship to sumounding
area?
Does the BOCC wish to incolporate the
Town of New Casde's Comments?
1. Road Impact Fees on CR 335;
2. Join with the Town on I-70 Improvements;
3. Applicant should explore'regional" WWTF,
a. Public access shall be provided to rlver with a trail along
river;
ii s. Land south of CR 335 shall remain undeveloped;
. 6. The project shall lnclude a variety of housing types in support
- of the County's PUD regs and Comprehensive Plan policies in
housing;
7. A landscaping deslgn should be required to better mitigate
visual impacts.
Lack of $7ildlife Impact Analysis
r. The Applicant should be required to
submit a wildlife study prepared by a
qualified professional in order to
adequately analyze the wildlife impacts?
z. Additionally, should the plan be
redesigned to allow for an open space
break in the northern line of lots to allow
for wildlife passage?
Have the Traffic Impacts been
adequately addressed?
4
Traffic Analysis
No Information on Impact to LOS for:
.Intemctlon of CR 335 and CR 312 (Garfield Creek Road);
.Only provides a 2008 lmpact and does not do long-term fore@st;
Trafric Study dffi include:
.AM Peak = 82 and PM P@k = 111
.153 condominium unit Complex;
.Project's 2008 traffic count arrived using a 3olo growth rate;
.Evaluation of impacts to l-70 with Los w and vo project; and
Conclusions:
.Project "will not 6use impact to existing rcadway network";
.NO CDOT Acms Permit required;
.Suggested recommendations :
.I-70 W6tbound Ramp lmprovements
.I-70 Eastbound Ramp Imprcvements
.Prcject Imprcvements
Tnffrc Impact Fees (p. 34)
1. With the existing 33 lots, the developer constructed the accel
/ decel lanes at a cost 0f 9118,206.00. Consistent with the
plat note above, the County would not collect a Traffic Impact
Fee from Building Permit Applicants for the existing 33 lots
because the developer put those improvements ln to mltlgate
the traffic impact,
2, The developer is asking the county to approve 71 additional
lots which requires a trafflc impact fee of $180,520.00 ln
order to satisfy the County's Traffic Study Area Impact Fee,
However, the developer wants to only pay $14,400.00 rather
than $180.620.00 for the additional 71 lots, As a result, the
developer is asking the BOCC to reduce the development's
obligation by 166,220.00 even though he wants to increase
the lots from 33 to 104.
5
Planning Commission Recommendation
(plge 36)
1. That Ell representations made by the AppllGnt in the appllGtion, and at
the public hsring before the Planning Commission and the Bcrd of
County CommlssioneE, shall be conditions of apprcval, unle$
speciflBlly altered by the B@rd of County CommlssioneB.
2. The Applicant shall be allowed to rcduce the Garfield County Street and
Roadway design standards in designing the internal road network to the
Secondary Access design requirements found in Section 9:35 of the
Subdivision Regulations and as shown on the PUD map and Preliminary
Plan.
3. TIE rcad right-of-ways shall be no l6s than 50 fet in wldth thmughout
the subdlvision with on-street parking prchibited. The Applicnt shall. prepare covenants that contain strong language to enforce such a
prohibition which also includes an aggressive signage prcgram.
4. Customary Plat Not6
Planning Commission Recomrnendation
(p.F 36)
5. The Applicnt shall include a plat note and language ln the prctectlve
covenants that restrict the six nearest lots to the property owned by Ken
Collins to no higher than 25 feet as measured by the County Zoning
Resolutlon of 1978, as amended.
6, The Applicant shall depict the 100-year flood way and the 100-year
flood fringe following items on the Final Plat.
7. The Applicant shall construct all the publlc improvements whlch include
sidewalks, etc. and which shall be included in the SIA.
8. No Final Plat shall be approved until the Slte Appllction for the
wastewater treatment facllity has been approved by the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and a letter of that
approval has ben submitted to the County as part of the Final Plat
submittal.
Planning Commission Recommendation
OISE 36)
9. Perimeter fencing shall be discouraged arcund the boundaris of the
entire development so that large game can access the river for water.
Should fenclng be dsired, lt shall be constructed accordlng to standards
approved by the Dlvision of Wlldtlfe. The Applicant shall provide sald
wlldlife friendly fencing designs wlthin the prctectlve covenants. Oue to
the llmited amount of mature / dead vegetation in the Colorado rlparian
mrridor along the northem prcperty boundary, lt shall be left untouched so
that lt can @ntinue to serye as lmportant raptor perch habltat fior hunting
in the river.
10.The prcperty ls loeted in the RE-2 School District which requires $200
per unlt be paid as a cash-in-lieu of Sch@l / t nd Dedietion Fee. In this
6se, it appeaB that lf the exlsting 33 lots already paid this fee, the
Applicant is only €ponsible for paying the fee for 71 units or $14,200 at
the time of final plat. This obligation shall be memorialized in the SlA.
Planning Commission Recommendation
(pes. 36)
11. The Appllcant shall be required to pay a rcad impact fee for 71 of the
104 loB because fees have already been paid for the existing 33 lots.
Those fees would approximately be $226 per ADT. In thls ca*, that is
rcughly $164,471.50. Those monies are then required to be spent in
acordance with the terms of the County! Capltal lmprcEments Plan. This
obligation shall be memorialized in the SIA.
12. The Applicant shall Etrict surfae use activlties related to oll and gas
drilling opeGtions to the portion of the prcperty that is loGted $uth of
County Road 335. There shall be no surfac dlsturbance from these
activities on the portion of the prop€rty north of CR 335.
13. Prior to or as part of the apprcval for Flnal Plat, the Appllcnt shall
obtain approval frcm the Board of County Commissione6 to pmperly
vacate the existing plat for the Rapids Subdlvision.
Planning Commission Recommendation
(pag. 36)
14. The Applicnt shall speciry 5 lots, at the time of Final Plat, for houss
that shall be constructed to have a maximum of two-bedrcoms, two baths,
and two €r garages.
15, The Applient shall present an acceptable method to the Board of
County Commissioners that preserves the use of the internal tralls, small
parking ar€ cont ining 16 spaces, and fisherman's easement for public
use.
16. The Applicant shall prepare a budget that provids the expected
operational spenses and revenues of the HOA to be submltted to the
BOCC.
17.The Applicant shall prepare a beming / landscping plan effiectively
screens the waste water treatment plant frcm the neighboE to the west,
This shall be prepared prior to the hearing with the BOCC.
6
Visual Mitigation for S7!7TF