The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.0 CorrespondenceDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF February 24, 2015 O CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Regulatory Division (SPK -2008-00253) Andrew Lane TCI Lane Ranch 401 Tree Farm Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Dear Mr. Lane: We are writing in reference to your Department Of the Army. (DA) permit, dated July 2, 2012, which authorized the discharge of fill material into 0.35 acres of waters of the U.S. associated with the TCI -Lane Property project. The project is located along Old Highway 82 within Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Latitude 39.4036600, Longitude -107.1447970, Garfield County, Colorado. Our files indicate that you have not complied with one or more of the terms and condition of your permit. Specifically, the following Special Conditions have not been met: Special Condition No. 1: Within 60 days prior to construction within waters of the U.S., you shall submit to the Corps a copy of your final construction plans to insure that the final project design is consistent with your preconstruction notification and complies with the terms and conditions of the permit verification. Special Condition No. 2: Prior to construction within the waters of the U.S., you must provide evidence that you have fully implemented your historic conservation plan as required by the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District and the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the TCI Lane Ranch Development, Garfield County, Colorado. Special Condition No. 4: You shall develop a final comprehensive mitigation and monitoring plan, which must be approved by Corps prior to initiation of construction activities within waters of the U.S. Special Condition No. 5: To mitigate for the loss of 0.35 acre of the waters of the U.S., you shall implement your approved mitigation plan or provide evidence of the purchase of an approved quantity of credit from a Corps approved mitigation bank that services your project area. -2 - Special Condition No. 6: You must sign the Compliance Certification enclosed with your permit and return to this office within 30 days after completion of the authorized work. These conditions are a requisite of your DA permit. In order to bring your project into compliance, your immediate action is requested. Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit, evidence that you have fully implemented your historic conservation plan, a copy of your final construction plans, a final comprehensive mitigation and monitoring plan or provide evidence of the purchase of an approved quantity of credit from a Corps approved mitigation bank, as well as any relevant information you have relating to this matter, signed Compliance Certification, including evidence that you are actively seeking to comply with the aforementioned Special Conditions. If you have not completed your project, please notify me at the below address or e-mail. For any additional work within waters of the US or to complete your project after the expiration of your permit, a new permit application must be submitted to this office for approval. Please refer to identification number SPK -2010-01380 in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at our Durango Regulatory Office, 1970 E 3rd Ave, #109 Durango, Colorado 81301, email kara.a.hellige@usace.army. mi1, or telephone 970-25-1604. You may also use our website: www.spk.usace.army.mi//regulatory.html. Sincerely, Kara Hellige Senior Project Manager, Colorado West Regulatory Branch Enclosure 1) Compliance Certificate M. Mr. Jon Fredericks, Landwest Colorado, LLC, 345 Colorado Avenue, #106, Carbondale Colorado 81623 Mr. Andrew Gorgey, 108 8t" Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Ms. Ellen Mayo, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 Horizon Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 Mr. Mark Tobias, Colorado Historic Society, 1200 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80203 COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION Permit File Number: SPK -2008-00253; TCI Lane Ranch Nationwide Permit Number: NWP 29 Permittee: Andrew Lane TCI Lane Ranch 401 Tree Farm Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 County: Garfield Date of Verification: July 2, 2012 Within 30 days after completion of the activity authorized by this permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1970 E. 3rd Ave, #109 Durango, Colorado 81301 DLL-CESPK-RD-Compliance@usace.army.mil Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit your authorization may be suspended, modified, or revoked. If you have any questions about this certification, please contact the Corps of Engineers. **4****** I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above -referenced permit, including all the required mitigation, was completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit verification. Signature of Permittee DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES RECEIVED Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman MAR 2 6 2009 Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. March 23,dRIELD COUNTY Director BUILDING & PLANNING Scott Hall Garfield County Building and Planning Department 1088 1h St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: TCI Lane Ranch PUD/Preliminary Plan Secs. 31 & 32, T7S, R87W 6th PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Mr. Hall: We have reviewed the above -referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 100.52 acres to contain a total of 89 single-family dwellings. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District (the District) is to provide the domestic water supply and wastewater disposal. The District provided a conditional letter of commitment dated February 14, 2007. Irrigation water will continue to be supplied by decreed surface water rights. No water use estimates were provided. The District currently uses five existing permitted, decreed wells, in conjunction with a decreed plan for augmentation and a contract for 300 acre-feet of Ruedi Reservoir water, to supply developments within its boundaries. Existing annual diversions by the District of 773.3 acre-feet provide potable water for 1578.2 EQRs. The total production capacity of the wells is 1345 gallons per minute during the irrigation season (May through September), and 975 gallons per minute during October through April due to the fact that Well Nos. 3 and 4 appear to be hydraulically connected to the Robinson Ditch. Note that there are plans to line the Robinson Ditch in the near future and this may negatively affect production from those wells. The District anticipates that when build -out within its boundaries is reached, a total of 2760 EQRs will be served, and additional future development in areas currently outside District boundaries will increase the demand to 4267 EQRs, which is equivalent to 1673 acre-feet per year. Since the well permits allow the withdrawal of up to 2294 acre-feet per year, and the District has additional decreed sources of supply available, it appears the District has an adequate legal water supply. While the MVMD Water Rights Analysis by Schmueser Gordon Meyer (dated February 13, 2009) concludes that the District has an ample supply based on annual and monthly demand estimates, the MVMD Water System Master Plan by Schmueser Gordon Meyer states that the firm capacity of the wells is not adequate to meet the maximum daily demand of 2330 gallons per minute. Additionally, the reports provided do not include any information on the anticipated yield of any of the wells. As a result, we are unable to verify the District's water supply is physically adequate. The District should demonstrate that it has sufficient water resources to meet its commitments in terms of an overall annual water supply and daily availability. The submittal indicates that existing ditch water rights will be used on historically irrigated lands, as well as for irrigation of individual lots and for water features and wetlands creation. The use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and a Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 www.watenstate.co.us Scott Hall March 23, 2009 TCI Lane Ranch PUD/Preliminary Plan Page 2 change of water rights application may be necessary to allow for irrigation of lands that were not historically irrigated, including wetlands, as well as for use in water features (e.g. the proposed "naturalistic stream course" for the Blue Creek Ditch). The submittal also indicates that up to one acre of wetlands may be created to compensate for disturbances to 0.5 acres of existing wetlands. The creation of the wetlands will cause depletions to the stream system through evaporation from the water surface and the consumptive use of water by plant life. The Roaring Fork River is in an overappropriated stream system, therefore, to prevent injury to vested water rights, wetlands mitigation must be limited to a one-to-one ratio. If the mitigation exceeds this ratio, the stream system must be compensated for these depletions in time, place and amount through a court approved augmentation plan or a State Engineer approved substitute supply plan. The creation of the wetlands may also expose ground water, which by Colorado State Statute is considered a well, and must be permitted by this office prior to construction. Our records also indicate that several exempt wells, including the Oscar Cerise Well Nos. 1 through 4, may currently exist within the proposed development. Note that Section 37- 92-602(3)(b)(III), CRS, requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. Therefore, the existing exempt wells must be included in an augmentation plan, or must be plugged and abandoned since the provisions of CRS 37-92-602 which allowed for issuance of the well permits will no longer apply. Therefore, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), it is our opinion that the proposed water supply will not cause injury to existing water rights so long as the District operates according to the terms and conditions of its current plan for augmentation. However, due to a lack of information we are unable to comment on the physical adequacy of the water supply. Note that use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place or type of use is changed. Please contact me if you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, Cynthia J. Love, P.E. Water Resources Engineer CJL/TCILaneRanchPUDii.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Brian Epstein, Water Commissioner, District 38 STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Govemor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER y� Thomas E. Remington, Director K rj �EIVEI 6060 Broadway 1<�:I Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife. state. co. us FEB 10 2009 February 02, 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Scott Hall Garfield County Building and Planning Dept 1088 th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: TCI Lane Ranch Development preliminary plan review. Dear Scott: 4 kph OF For Wildlife - For People The proposed TCI Lane Ranch property located between Hwy 82 and the Roaring Fork River east of Blue Creek Ranch does not lay within any mapped critical wildlife areas, but is adjacent to important elk and deer winter range on the south side of the Roaring Fork River. Use by deer and elk on the property generally occurs during the winter and spring months but with some year round deer use on the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River and Blue Creek. Elk use and game damage problems have increased in the last couple of years on the property with elk being drawn to hay being stored on the property. In addition the property is home to many small mammals, neo -tropical song birds, raptors, wild turkeys and amphibians. The Division is pleased with many of the elements of the proposed development. The conservation easements to be held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy will go far to help protect the riparian and wetland habitats along the Roaring Fork River and Blue Creek. The DOW is also very supportive of the developments plan to allow public fisherman access to the Roaring Fork River. The proposed development will have some direct and indirect impacts on wildlife. Until a final site plan is implemented not all impacts to wildlife can be addressed, but the Division would like to make the following recommendations to help minimize potential impacts: 1. Building envelopes for lots 60-64 should be pulled as far north as possible to eliminate any removal of riparian vegetation. Maximize building in the pasture areas that have previously been disturbed. 2. The riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River and Blue Creek are extremely important to wildlife. Due to the critical nature of these areas for wildlife it is recommended that any proposed trails/paths be minimized and public access should be limited into these areas. Access should be closed completely Dec 1- March 15 to limit disturbance to big game and wintering bald eagles utilizing the riparian corridor. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION. Robert Bray. Chair • Brad Coors. vice Chair. Tim Glenn. Secretary 3. As noted the property in not located within any mapped big game critical habitat areas, however elk usage of the property has increased considerably during the winter months. Deer and elk conflicts are to be expected in the development and plantings of native vegetation are encouraged to help reduce some of those conflicts. Eliminating plantings of any bent', fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs will help discourage elk, deer, bears and other wildlife from feeding on landscaping. Homeowners need to be aware that the Division of Wildlife is not liable for any damage to landscaping by deer, elk, or bear. 4. The proposed bridge over the Roaring Fork River should be gated to prohibit access to the RFTA during the winter closure period. 5. Bear/human conflicts have increased in the Roaring Fork Valley and in the vicinity of Blue Creek Ranch and Catherine Store, and have the potential to be a reoccurring problem. It is important that certain measures be taken to minimize these conflicts: a. Homeowners have and use an approved bear -proof container for storing all trash/garbage. b. Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be left outside; c. BBQs should also be securely housed in the garage or cleaned with a bleach solution when not in use due to the fact that leftover food and grease are an overwhelming bear attractant; d. Round door knobs on the outside of doors rather than lever -type can limit bear access into houses. 6. All utilities buried. 7. Fencing should be held to a minimum. Any necessary fencing should be wildlife friendly. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. 8. Homeowners are responsible for removing dead wildlife which may die on their property. 9. Follow recommendations outlined in the wildlife report prepared by Eric Petterson of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact DWM John Groves at (970) 947-2933. Sincerely, Perry Will' Area Wildlife Manager Cc: DOW — R.Velarde, J.Groves, file STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Ili, "t"a Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone 303.866.2611 Fax 303.866.2461 DEPARTMENT OF RECF-TV'rJ�D NATURAL FEB 0 9 2009 RESOURCES February32009 Bill Ritter , GARFIELD COUNTY Governor BUILDING & PLANNING Harris D. Sherman Scott Hall Executive Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department Location: Vincent Matthews E'/z Sec 31 and W'/z Sec 32, Division Director and 108 8`" Street, Suite 401 T7S, R87W of the 6`h P.M. state Geologist Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: TCI Lane Ranch Development — PUD/Preliminary Plan File Number SPP16909, Garfield County, CO: CGS Unique No. GA -09-0004 Dear Mr. Hall: Colorado Geological Survey has completed its site visit and review of the above -referenced project. I understand the applicant proposes to plat 89 residential units on a 100.5 -acre parcel located between the Roaring Fork River and Highway 82, southeast of Catherine Store. With this referral, I received a Preliminary Plan/PUD Application, including a Preliminary Geotechnical Study (HP Geotech, March 14, 2008), a Final Drainage Report (Drexel, Barrell & Co., September 12, 2008), a set of two Preliminary Plat drawings (Drexel, Barrell & Co., December 24, 2008), and a Radiation Survey (Yeh and Associates, February 27, 2007). CGS visited the site on January 16, 2009. The site was covered with snow at the time of our visit. HP Geotech's geotechnical report provides a very good description of regional and site geology. I agree that flooding and sinkholes are the primary concerns on this property. HP provides appropriate general recommendations regarding mitigation of sinkhole hazards (pages 5-6) and preliminary foundation, subsurface drainage, below -grade construction, floor system, and surface drainage design recommendations (pages 8-10). These recommendations should be strictly adhered to. Roarinb Fork River flood -related hazards. The Final Drainage Report states (page 2): "...portions of the property are within the 100 -year floodplain. Several home sites on the southern portion of the site are located within the existing 100 -year floodplain. These sites will be elevated to a minimum of 1 -foot above the 100 -year base flood elevation. Designated finish floor elevations in this area are a minimum of 1.5 -feet above the 100 -year base flood elevation." Flooding is a hazard that must be addressed beyond raising building pads one foot above the 100 -year base flood elevation, not only to reduce risks associated with rising waters but also to reduce the risk of undermining due to stream channel erosion and undercutting. Slope armoring such as riprap should be placed on the face of all constructed slopes used to raise building pads and roads above the flood zone. The need for and feasibility of additional channel and bank stabilization, scour mitigation, and energy dissipating measures should be evaluated. Sinkholes. Sinkholes are a potential concern on this site, but are of far less critical concern than flooding and flood -related erosion hazards. HP's recommendations on pages 5 and 6 are appropriate: "If conditions indicative of sinkhole related problems are encountered during site specific soil and foundation studies for the houses and other movement -sensitive facilities an alternative building site should be GA -09-0004_1 TCI Lane Ranch 10:16 PM, 02/03/2009 Scott Hall February 3, 2009 Page 2 of 3 considered or the feasibility of mitigation evaluated... Prospective homeowners should be advised of the sinkhole potential, since early detection of building distress and timely remedial actions are important in reducing the cost of building repair should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole after construction." Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions, need clarification of issues identified during this review, or require additional review, please call me at (303) 866-2611 ext. 8316, or e-mail jill.carlson@state.co.us. Sincerely, Jil Carlson, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist GA -09-0004_1 TO Lane Ranch 10:16 PM, 02/03/2009 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES RECEIVED Governor Jr. Harris D. Sherman FEB 0 6 2009 Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. GARFIELD CC�.;NTY Director February 3, 2009 BUILDING & PLANNING Scott Hall Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re. TCI Lane Ranch PUD/Preliminary Plan Secs. 31 & 32, T7S, R87W 6th PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Mr. Hall: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 100.52 acres to contain a total of 89 single-family dwellings. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District (the District) is to provide the domestic water supply and wastewater disposal. The District provided a conditional letter of commitment dated February 14, 2007. Irrigation water will continue to be supplied by decreed surface water rights. No water use estimates were provided. Pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), a municipality or quasi -municipality is required to file a report with the county and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not provided by the District. See the Updated Memorandum Regarding Subdivisions (online at www.water.state.co.us/pubs/policies/memo subdivisions.pdf) for the necessary information. The submittal indicates that existing ditch water rights will be used to on historically irrigated lands, as well as for irrigation of individual lots and for water features and wetlands creation. The use of the irrigation wafer rights must not result in an expansion of use, and a change of ` 9ter right� r p!i tint} ;; h,-� r� c v + I(�vy� ir- t r of tan that %,e not . a , ca_ r�„�z, ares ;�r,r ,o al .. fnr �-� n , ! , d�> t ,.._.re ,: historically irrigated, including wetland's, as well as for use in water features (e.g. the proposed ,,naturalistic stream course” for the Blue Creek Ditch). The submittal also indicates that up to one acre of wetlands may be created to compensate for disturbances to 0.5 acres of existing wetlands. The creation of the wetlands will cause depletions to the stream system through evaporation from the water surface and the consumptive use of water by plant life. The Roaring Fork River is in an overappropriated stream system, therefore, to prevent injury to vested water rights, wetlands mitigation must be limited to a one-to-one ratio_ If the mitigation exceeds this ratio, the stream system must be compensated for these depletions in time, place and amount through a court approved augmentation plan or a State Engineer approved substitute supply plan. The creation of the wetlands may also expose ground water, which by Colorado State Statute is considered a well, and must be permitted by this office prior to construction. Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 www.water.state.co.us Scott Hall TCI Lane Ranch PUD/Preliminary Plan February 3, 2009 Page 2 Our records also indicate that several exempt wells, including the Oscar Cerise Well Nos. 1 through 4, may currently exist within the proposed development. Note that Section 37- 92-602(3)(b)(III), CRS, requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. Therefore, the existing exempt wells must be included in an augmentation plan, or must be plugged and abandoned since the provisions of CRS 37-92-602 which allowed for issuance of the well permits will no longer apply. Since insufficient information was provided, we cannot comment on the potential for injury to existing water rights under the provisions of CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II). Note that use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place or type of use is changed. Please contact me if you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely. Craig M. Lis, P. . Water Resources Engineer CML/CJL/TCILaneRanchPUD.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Brian Epstein, Water Commissioner, District 38 February 6, 2009 TOWN OF CARBONDALE i 11 COLORAllO AVF'Nl N111 CAlMONI)AI,F, CO 81623 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8`h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: TCI Ranch Planned Unit Development Dear Commission Members: RECEIVFn FEB 0 9 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING At its January 29, 2009 meeting, the Carbondale Planning Commission reviewed the referral for the Planned Unit Development Application for TCI Ranch. The Planning Commission requested that their comments be forwarded on to Garfield County. The property is located between Blue Creek Subdivision and the Waldorf School and is south of Hwy. 82. The proposal is to rezone the property from A/RR/D to a PUD and subdivide 100.52 acres into 89 lots with 68 of those acres remaining in open space. While, the property is currently zoned A/RR/D which only allows one unit per two acres, the County approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in July of 2007. The amendment changed the land use designation from Residential Low Density to Residential High Density. There are a number of recommendations in the TCI Lane Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment Report that are intended to protect the wildlife that currently exists on the property. Some of the impact mitigation recommendations include discouraging fencing which is not designed to allow wildlife passage, limiting the number of domestic animals, planting of vegetation along roadways to avoid spotlighting of foraging game at night, etc. The Carbondale Planning Commission would strongly suggest that all of the recommendations in the report be accepted and incorporated into the subdivision documents. While these recommendations should be included in the Declaration documents, they should also be incorporated into the PUD plan so they cannot be changed by a vote of an association of property owners. Ute Ladies' -tresses, an orchid which is listed on the Endangered Species list, is found on this property. The TCI Lane Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment Report sets out a number of recommence M nagement practices to control weeds, as well as suggested management (170) 96 3-273 3 Fax: (970) 963-91 l0 practices to assure that the orchid population remains stable on the property. The Planning Commission would like to recommend that these management practices be incorporated in the Declarations, as well as in the PUD plan. The Planning Commission had concerns about the ability of the Hwy. 82 and County Road 100 intersection to absorb the additional traffic. They are concerned that there could be potential stacking of vehicles on the frontage road. The Planning Commission is aware of the number of bicyclists that use the frontage road. The Commission is concerned about conflicts between bicyclists and vehicles on the frontage road and asked that issue be addressed. The Traffic Impact Study included with the application notes that the northbound approach of the Hwy. 82/County Road 100 intersection currently appears to be operating unacceptably during the morning peak hour, given there is a single lane for all three potential northbound movements. The northbound right turning movement currently accounts for 75% of vehicles using this approach during the morning peak hour. The County should consider that a condition of approval be that a dedicated right turn lane be constructed to allow cars coming off of County Road 100 to turn right onto Hwy 82 towards Aspen. The Planning Commission noted the proximity of the development to the Roaring Fork River. They suggest that there be no construction within the 100 year floodplain due to potential impacts downstream. Firefly Loop raises particular concern because of its location near the river and the floodplain. The Planning Commission asked if it would be possible to cluster the development on Firefly Loop to lessen the impacts on the river and floodplain. The Commission discussed the impacts on the pedestrian bridge to the Roaring Fork River and asked that those impacts be assessed. The Commission assumes that the Army Corp of Engineers will be consulted prior to any construction. The Planning Commission asked that the Roaring Fork Valley Planning Commission be consulted as part of the land use process for the TCI Lane Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission appreciated the pedestrian and bicycle connections and suggested that the County be sure that those concepts remain intact through the process. The Commission also appreciates the Open Space concept and asks that the concept also remain in place. The Commission commended the development as far as the net zero energy plan. On broader discussion regarding development on the valley floor, the Planning Commission would like to suggest that any future changes to the Comprehensive Plan be done in consideration of the entire area rather than on a piece -mail basis. When the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan was developed, the citizens of Carbondale and Town Staff were involved in the process. This planning document was intended to guide growth and development in the rural areas around Carbondale. The Planning Commission is concerned with changing the zoning density without major attention to issues of access and safety. Also, once infrastructure is extended to this development, it may set a precedent for the nearby agricultural land to develop. Thank you for allowing the Town of Carbondale the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Janet M. Buck Senior Planner THE FI@151@I C O M PA N Y Real Estate Svecialists Since 1975 www.TheFicisherCompany.com Mr. Scott C. Hall Garfield County Planning Department 1088 1h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 re: TCI Lane Ranch Dear Mr. Hall: January 30, 2009 RECEiVED" FEB 0 9 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING The residents at Aspen Equestrian Estates are concerned about the additional traffic impacts the TCI Lane Ranch subdivision will have on the intersection of Catherine Store Road and HWY 82. The TCI Lane Ranch is proposing to add an addition 98 homes to a 100 -acre site. The proposed site is located between Blue Creek subdivision and the Waldorf School. The Catherine Store Road would be the nearest access to HWY 82. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Guideline estimates that each single family home will generate 9.57 vehicle trips per day. With the addition of 98 homes in the TCI subdivision, there would be an additional 938 vehicles a day using this intersection - most of these trips will be during the peak hours. To accommodate the additional traffic at the Catherine Store Road intersection, a dedicated right turn lane needs to be constructed on the south side of HWY 82 to facilitate right turns up -valley. As it is now, a vehicle waiting to turn left will block the right turn movement. Some drivers have begun using the dirt shoulder to facilitate the right turn. This is not a safe practice. We asked that Garfield County place a Condition of Approval on the developer to widen the paved area of the Catherine Store Road and establish a dedicated right turn lane. There should also be enough room to allow for stacking of vehicles waiting to execute the right turn up -valley. Sincerely, Linda L. Wylie Aspen Equestrian Estates HOA Manager 314 South Galena St., Ste. 200 104 Midland Avenue, Unit 102 995 Cowen Drive, Suite 201 1530-C Railroad Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Basalt, CO 81621 Carbondale, CO 81623 Rifle, CO 81650 tel 970. 925.2122 • fax 970.925.2924 tel 970.927.6828 . fax 970.927.5378 tel 970.704.1515 • fax 970.704.1444 tel 970.625.1838 • fax 970.625.1530 y LRoss F O c 2 -c J O Sso'6O January 14, 2009 Mr. Jon Fredericks Noble Design Studio 19351 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • PO. BOX 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081 JAN 1 6 20081 RE: TCI Lane Ranch @ 16411 Old Highway 82, Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Mr. Fredericks: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy. Holy Cross Energy has existing power facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. These existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERGY Bob Saathoff, Engineering Department bsaathoff@holycross.com (970) 947-5401 BS:vw cc: Scott Hall Garfield County Building & Planning 108 81h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Saathoff\Fredericks Svc let 1 A Touchstone Energy Cooperative( DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY �1 r U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF April 20, 2009 Regulatory Division (SPK -2008 -00253 -CW) Jon Fredericks Noble Design Studio 401 Tree Farm Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Dear Mr. Fredericks: RECEIVED APR 1 2'(1,109 GARFIELi_) �10LINTY BUILDING & PLANNING We are responding to your consultant's request for an approved jurisdictional determination for the TCI Lane Project. This approximately 100 -acre site is located within Sections 31 and 32, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, near the Catherine Store, Garfield County, Colorado. Based on available information, we concur with the estimate of waters of the United States, as depicted in the November 2008, Wetlands SE, Central and West drawings prepared by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services and Nobel Design Studios. Approximately 9.4 acres of waters of the United States, including Blue Creek and the Roaring Fork River and wetlands adjacent or abutting to both, are present within the survey area. These waters are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, since they are tributary to the Colorado River, a traditional navigable water. This verification is valid for five years from the date of this letter, unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. This letter contains an approved jurisdictional determination for your subject site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form is enclosed. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the South Pacific Division Office at the following address: Administrative Appeal Review Officer, Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, CESPD-PDS-O, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103-1399, Telephone: 415-503-6574, FAX: 415-503-6646. In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 60 days from the date of this letter. It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this letter. -2 - You should provide a copy of this letter and notice to all other affected parties, including any individual who has an identifiable and substantial legal interest in the property. This determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. This determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work. We appreciate your feedback. At your earliest convenience, please tell us how we are doing by completing the customer survey on our website under Customer Service Survey. Please refer to identification number SPK -2008 -00253 -CW in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Mark Gilfillan at our Colorado West Regulatory Branch, 400 Rood Avenue, Room 142, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563, email mark.a.gil illan@usace.army.mil, or telephone (970) 243-1199 extension 15. You may also use our website: www.spk.usace.army.mil/regulatory.html. Sincerely, Ken Jacobson Chief, Colorado West Regulatory Branch Enclosure Copies furnished without enclosure Garfield County Building and Planning Department, 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Mr. Eric Petterson, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc., 0222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone, Colorado 81623 OF 'COL vNi�/ X90 Q S�Ne rvUM`�w '77 IS 7 6� DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES April 29, 2009 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 "CEIVED MAY 0 4 2009 GARS Re: TCI Lane Ranch PUD/Preliminary Plan Secs. 31 & 32, T7S, R87W 6" PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Bill Ritter, Jr Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Director Dear Fred: We have reviewed additional information regarding the above -referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 100.52 acres to contain a total of 89 single-family dwellings. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District (the District) is to provide the domestic water supply and wastewater disposal. The District provided a conditional letter of commitment dated February 14, 2007. Irrigation water will continue to be supplied by decreed surface water rights. No water use estimates were provided. The District currently uses five existing permitted, decreed wells, in conjunction with a decreed plan for augmentation and a contract for 300 acre-feet of Ruedi Reservoir water, to supply developments within its boundaries. Existing annual diversions by the District of 773.3 acre-feet provide potable water for 1578.2 EQRs. The total production capacity of the wells is 1345 gallons per minute during the irrigation season (May through September), and 975 gallons per minute during October through April. The District anticipates that when build -out within its boundaries is reached, a total of 2760 EQRs will be served, and additional future development in areas currently outside District boundaries will increase the demand to 4267 EQRs, which is equivalent to 1673 acre-feet per year. Since the well permits allow the withdrawal of up to 2294 acre-teet per year, and the District has additional decreed sources of supply available, it appears the District has an adequate legal water supply. While the MVMD Water Rights Analysis by Schmueser Gordon Meyer (dated February 13, 2009) concludes that the District has an ample supply based on annual and monthly demand estimates, the MVMD Water System Master Plan by Schmueser Gordon Meyer states that the firm capacity of the wells is not adequate to meet the maximum daily demand of 2330 gallons per minute. The District also holds conditional underground water rights for seven additional wells, each decreed for 500 gallons per minute. The decreed locations appear to be located in or near the alluvium of the Roaring Fork River. If the proposed wells produce at rates similar to the wells that are currently in use by the District, and with sufficient storage capacity, the water supply should be physically adequate. The submittal indicates that existing ditch water rights will be used on historically irrigated lands, as well as for irrigation of individual lots and for water features and wetlands creation. The use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and a Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 www.water.state.co.us . , ) Fred Jarman April 29, 2009 TCI Lane Ranch PUD/Preliminary Plan Page 2 change of water rights application may be necessary to allow for irrigation of lands that were not historically irrigated, including wetlands, as well as for use in water features (e.g. the proposed "naturalistic stream course" for the Blue Creek Ditch). The submittal also indicates that up to one acre of wetlands may be created to compensate for disturbances to 0.5 acres of existing wetlands. The creation of the wetlands will cause depletions to the stream system through evaporation from the water surface and the consumptive use of water by plant life. The Roaring Fork River is in an overappropriated stream system, therefore, to prevent injury to vested water rights, wetlands mitigation must be limited to a one-to-one ratio. If the mitigation exceeds this ratio, the stream system must be compensated for these depletions in time, place and amount through a court approved augmentation plan or a State Engineer approved substitute supply plan. The creation of the wetlands may also expose ground water, which by Colorado State Statute is considered a well, and must be permitted by this office prior to construction. Our records indicate that several exempt wells, including the Oscar Cerise Well Nos. 1 through 4, may currently exist within the proposed development. Note that Section 37-92- 602(3)(b)(III), CRS, requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. The Oscar Cerise Well Nos. 1 through 4 were granted absolute water rights in W-890 on January 5, 1973, and may be considered beneficiaries of the Green Mountain Reservoir Historic Users' Pool for a mainstem call on the Colorado River. However, these wells could be subject to administration in the event of a local call on the Roaring Fork River. Therefore, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), it is our opinion that the proposed water supply is physically adequate and will not cause injury to existing water rights so long as the District operates according to the terms and conditions of its current plan for augmentation. Note that use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place or type of use is changed. Please contact me if you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, Cyn is J. Love, P.E. Water Resources Engineer CJL/TCILaneRanchPUDiii.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Brian Epstein, Water Commissioner, District 38 401 Tree Farm Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970.963.7027 February 11, 2009 Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Via Email. RE: Garfield County Road 100/ SH 82 Intersection Dan, Thank you for your referral comments dated January 23, 2009 regarding the TCI Lane Ranch Preliminary Plan/ PUD in Garfield County. I would like to take the opportunity to open the discussion on a topic that you brought forth in your letter regarding the current and future operation of the CR 100/ SH 82 intersection, as TCI Lane Ranch is an interested stakeholder and potential future user of this intersection. As you know, the northbound approach to this intersection has been achieving substandard performance for some time, as CR 100 is frequently used as an alternative route to and from the Town of Carbondale. To further challenge this situation, CR 100 was likely never designed for the traffic volumes that it currently experiences. The Level 2 Traffic Impact Study for TCI Lane Ranch, prepared by Drexel, Barrell & Co., identifies that the northbound approach currently operates at LOS E during the morning peak hour and LOS D during the evening peak hour. The traffic counts were performed here on May 29, 2008. The current intersection configuration provides one lane for all NBL, NBT, and NBR movements. There is, however, an existing acceleration lane for the NBR movement onto SH 82. In your letter, you acknowledge the need for a dedicated northbound right turn lane, with or without the projected traffic from TCI Lane Ranch. On this topic, the Traffic Study states: "A northbound right turn lane would alleviate problems with the morning peak hour, under both Year 2009 background and total conditions. The northbound right movement already has an acceleration lane on State Highway 82, and if properly designed, could provide free movement conditions for turning vehicles." Your letter identifies that the future traffic generated by TCI Lane Ranch will account for less than 5% of the total volume of this intersection, and therefore an access permit is not required from CDOT. With the understanding that TCI Lane Ranch will have some impact (although relatively minor) to the traffic volume at this intersection, and that future residents of this project may benefit from an improved intersection, we would like to express our interest in becoming a partner in potential improvements. Your letter further recommends that "Garfield County work with the users of the road to develop a method in making these improvements recommended by the Study." You also suggest the potential use of other funding sources to help make these improvements (DOLA, Hazard Elimination Funding, and STIP Funding). Given your recommendations and those of the Traffic Study, we have taken the initiative to explore a potential northbound right turn lane configuration. This is included as an Exhibit attached to this letter. We have voluntarily performed this feasibility analysis in order to provide a starting point for discussions with potential stakeholders and users (i.e. Garfield County, CDOT, Town of Carbondale, RFTA, TCI Lane Ranch, Blue Creek Ranch, St. Finnbar, Aspen Equestrian Estates, Catherine Store, etc.), and to demonstrate the willingness of TCI Lane Ranch in becoming a partner in potential intersection improvements upon project approval. One potential outcome may be a cost-sharing agreement among appropriate stakeholders. Please review the attached Exhibit at your convenience. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with CDOT, Garfield County and other stakeholders to discuss how to make these improvements a reality. Sincerely, TCI Lane Ranch, LLC Jon Fredericks, ASLA Director of Land Planning/ Project Manager Att: CR 100/ SH 82 Conceptual Exhibits 1 & 2; February 10, 2009, Drexel, Barrell & Co. CC: Alisa Babler, CDOT Scott Hall, Garfield County Janet Buck, Town of Carbondale Jason White, RFTA Ann Bowers, Drexel, Barrell & Co. Curtis Stevens, Drexel, Barrell & Co. F N �LLJ J oLn W =L� m ,M X Z J W O Q J /0 ` m � T /� � 0 `Ld • LL 1X Z Q < •v 7 aq >- w Z = O cv ZZ U 00 k �r 4 0 LL. LLJ co CP wM LLJ LLJ ` e O Q U *►. Zs • �'�'♦i-`t"'-`=...t` � �'�11�Mi fir. -. ... _ , �� t U _• '4 �_t . W o � 3 CO J N MM �p h K A m 0 a a fi C) 1 - � w MAP - « M 03 J Q rr t tiw' w =W / ` LLJ keg Q U eY� `,�• i 6 .s Va /`Aid -mvm N Iw N rn 0 0 d 0 N II m w O O mm X I- W Z J � Q z O U d O W :;- U U = Q z CD O N U 00 N >_ m W Q 0. Ll uj Q) O o tu C3 LIJ U. 0Q) Z w� `Q LLI Q: Q) CA: Ll Scott Hall From: Fred Jarman Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:41 PM To: Jon Fredericks; Scott Hall Subject: RE: Traffic impact I can help on this one. The nearest (geographically) Traffic Impact Fee Study Area is Area 11 which covers much of Missouri Heights just across 82 from TO Lane. That fee would be about $384 per ADT. So, in this case, that would be about $327,000. Scott can give you more detail. From: Jon Fredericks[mailto:jfred@windrivertrees.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:37 PM To: Scott Hall Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: TO: Traffic impact Scott, I have a question regarding the traffic impact concern to the County Road system: If TCI Lane Ranch were in a designated Traffic Impact Zone per the County maps, what would be the calculated impact fee for the project? I think you see where I am going with this — I'm just trying to look at all alternatives right now in an effort to analyze all of the equitable solutions. Knowing all of our options will assist the ownership in making educated decisions. Thank you - Jon Fredericks, ASLA Director of Land Planning NOBLE DESIGN STUDIO 401 Tree Farm Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 p: 970.963.7027 f: 970.963.9833 Explore the newest deep -green Bonsai Communities: th tree,,far�m — cMI!%VIIINA Cliwulr�%�y The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the use of the individual(s) and/or entity(res) named above. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or pr vilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission, ff the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, disclosure. dissemination, distribution. or copying of this communication or any part of it is strictly prohibited U N Lo I- W 00 . J Lf -)0 LL W 0 °' o o o N II m w = LI p ,= S o r -- O O I— r-) CO � = F— X Z J W Q Z O � � U W ~ Z Z ~ Q O N U�o'J Ld W Z LL- W Q I-- i ti Lir •� �. m N R N tr) f- W OC) .. _J le i IL w rn 0 O d 0 N II m _ til <L o O O r I— Q m X �— IJ z J :D <ZO F- IZ F- Q U Z Z _ < O - N O IY 00 N >- (D m 3�: L LJ Q V) O U c+ O��o co N d _c8g9s w O k A GAT-HERINE`6 f'tI t� TORT r 11 GAT-HERINE`6 f'tI t� TORT 11 Scott Hall From: Roussin, Daniel [Daniel.Roussin@DOT. STATE. CO. US] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:50 AM To: Scott Hall Cc: Fred Jarman; Babler, Alisa; Yeates, Sean Subject: TCI Lane Ranch PUD Review Scott — Thank you for the opportunity to review the TCI Lane Ranch PUD on near SH 82 and east of County Road 100 (Catherine Store). CDOT has already issued an access permits for simple connections on the Frontage Road system without highway improvements indicating conceptual improvement. The applicant has not submitted a Notice to Proceed (construction plans) for the access permits. The traffic study (Drexel, Barrell & Company, dated June 27, 2008) doesn't show any frontage road improvements at the access points. However, the study recommends intersection improvements at SH 82/County Road 100. The study recommends additional northbound right turn lane on CR 100 and an additional northbound left turn lane on CR 100 (double left) in the future. The study states the northbound right turn lane is needed without project traffic. CDOT does not have any mechanism to require improvements when there is a off-site existing improvement needed on a County Road. I would recommend Gar field County work with the users of the road to develop a method in making these improvements recommended by the study. I also recommend any other funding source that is available (DOLA, Hazard Elimination Funding, and STIP Funding). The Access Code states an access permit is needed when the traffic volume is over 20%. CR 100 traffic volume is 835 DHV. This development will only increase the traffic volume by less than 5%. Therefore an access permit is not needed at the CR connection for this project. CDOT does not have any process to make the developer address this need. The County through the land -use process does have the ability to address this impact to the majority of the road users in the area. This is a tough issue and CDOT is willing to sit down at the table and talk on ways to improve the operation of the CR 100. If you have any additional questions, please let me know. Dan Roussin R3 Permit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Rm 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 970-683-6290 Fax 0 #.."W n` ti's-«,, wS.•P �►'q, "" , �., . 'i — 114 — r- W 00 . _J 01. W U rn o 0 0 N �) a' - a a < M 0 O _ O m T _ r) X ry W Q] V) F-- = Z Z x J O D W Q O D Q O O WL` -Z ~ z O Q U O g N E U 00 W O Q � J = W Z Q Q � � J � � Z Drexel, Barrell & Co. On Engineers W Surveyors TO: COLORADO DOT REGION 3 ACCESS MANAGER 222 South Sixth Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 ATTN. DAN ROUSSIN CC: Scott Hall, Garfield County FROM: Ann Bowers, P.E., PTOE DATE: April 6, 2009 RE: State Highway 82 / County Road 100 Intersection Capacity Improvement Memorandum Garfield County, Colorado Introduction: This memorandum outlines the proposed effect of anticipated improvements to the intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 100 within Garfield County. The primary improvement anticipated at this time is the construction of a right turn lane from northbound County Road 100 to the up valley direction of State Highway 82. Project Background: A traffic study was submitted to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Garfield County by Drexel, Barrell & Co. - June 27, 2008 - regarding the projected impacts of the TCI Lane Ranch residential development to be located along the SH 82 Frontage Road. This development is approximately one quarter mile to the east of the intersection of County Road 100 and State Highway 82. CDOT granted two access permits for this development to the SH 82 Frontage Road (No. 308134 and 308135) on August 26, 2008. As part of the study, the northbound approach of the County Road 100 / SH 82 was identified as operating unacceptably under existing conditions. There is a strong imbalance in traffic flow at the approach during the AM peak hour, with 74% of total approach traffic turning right onto SH 82. As this approach is single lane, the right turning vehicles are forced to queue with the through and left turning vehicles. This also results in the unpaved shoulder of County Road 100 being used as a right turn lane. A right turn acceleration lane on SH 82 is already in existence at this location. The existing conditions at this location can also been in Figure 1.- 123 : 123 N 7'1' Street. Suite 300 Grand Junction. Colorado 81501 Tel 970 257 1350 Fax 970 257 1066 .„"sem.._ ta"`m.»............ Figure 1 - Existing Roadway Geometry As can be seen in Figure 1, there are existing constraints to further expansion at this location. The close proximity of the Catherine Store to County Road 100 currently limits widening to the west. The existing Roaring Fork Transportation Authority park and ride facility provides some barrier to the east. While TCI Lane Ranch is expected to use this intersection as its primary access to SH 82, the anticipated 23 vehicles using the northbound approach during the AM peak hour would constitute only a 6% increase over the projected Year 2009 background traffic. Queuing Analysis: Synchro Version 7 was used to estimate the queues generated for the northbound approach of this intersection, with and without the addition of a northbound right turn lane. As there is an existing dedicated right turn acceleration lane in the up valley direction of SH 82, the potential right turn lane was modeled as a free movement. Modeling in this fashion assumes that no substantial queue would be generated by this movement. Therefore, the primary focus of this investigation is on the existing northbound left -through -right lane. Following construction of a right turn lane, this lane would only serve the left and through movements. The results of this analysis are tabulated in Table 1. The full Synchro queuing analysis reports are attached to this memorandum. 123 N 7`h Street, Suite 300 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Tel 970 257 1350 Fax 970 257 1066 Table 1: Queueing Analysis *As the potential northbound right turn lane would be considered a free movement, no substantial queueing would be a)pected. Two variables are illustrated in Table 1; the 50" percentile queue and the 95" percentile queue. The 50th percentile queue is the projected average queue expected during the peak fifteen minutes of the respective peak hour. The 95th percentile queue is typically taken as the longest peak hour queue to be anticipated under normal operating conditions. As can be seen in Table 1, the construction of a dedicated right turn lane is expected to have a substantial positive effect on the length of the queue experienced for northbound left and through vehicles, especially during the AM peak hour. With the turn lane, the projected Year 2030 queues, including TCI Lane Ranch traffic, would be expected to be substantially lower than those experienced under existing conditions. The PM peak hour, while also improved by the addition of a right turn lane, would not be expected to experience as dramatic of an improvement. This is likely due to the somewhat more balanced turning movement distribution experienced during the PM peak hour. The unusual geometry of adjacent roadways may have an effect on the actual queues experienced at this location. The north flowline of the intersection of County Road 100 and the SH 82 Frontage Road is approximately 130 feet south of the SH 82 traffic signal. It is unlikely that the right turn lane would be extended past this point unless the entire section of roadway is reconstructed. When through -left queues exceed this distance, right turning vehicles are likely to be forced to remain with the through traffic, further contributing to the queue at this location. 123 N 7t'' Street. Suite 300 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Tel 970 257 1350 Fax 970 257 1066 NBAp roach* Year Traffic Condition 50th Percentile 95th Percentile 2008 Existing AM 305 724 2009 Background AM 348 757 2009 Total AM 403 825 2030 Background AM 761 1001 2030 TotalAM 819 1061 2009 Background AM (w NBR) 75 184 2009 TotalAM (w NBR) 84 198 2030 Background AM (w NBR) 179 289 2030 Total AM w NBR 191 316 2008 Existing PM 182 461 2009 Background PM 190 485 2009 Total PM 202 516 2030 Background PM 889 1139 2030 Total PM 932 1184 2009 Background PM (w NBR) 77 195 2009 Total PM (w NBR) 105 247 2030 Background PM (w NBR) 272 458 2030 Total PM (w NBR) 1 2831 478 *As the potential northbound right turn lane would be considered a free movement, no substantial queueing would be a)pected. Two variables are illustrated in Table 1; the 50" percentile queue and the 95" percentile queue. The 50th percentile queue is the projected average queue expected during the peak fifteen minutes of the respective peak hour. The 95th percentile queue is typically taken as the longest peak hour queue to be anticipated under normal operating conditions. As can be seen in Table 1, the construction of a dedicated right turn lane is expected to have a substantial positive effect on the length of the queue experienced for northbound left and through vehicles, especially during the AM peak hour. With the turn lane, the projected Year 2030 queues, including TCI Lane Ranch traffic, would be expected to be substantially lower than those experienced under existing conditions. The PM peak hour, while also improved by the addition of a right turn lane, would not be expected to experience as dramatic of an improvement. This is likely due to the somewhat more balanced turning movement distribution experienced during the PM peak hour. The unusual geometry of adjacent roadways may have an effect on the actual queues experienced at this location. The north flowline of the intersection of County Road 100 and the SH 82 Frontage Road is approximately 130 feet south of the SH 82 traffic signal. It is unlikely that the right turn lane would be extended past this point unless the entire section of roadway is reconstructed. When through -left queues exceed this distance, right turning vehicles are likely to be forced to remain with the through traffic, further contributing to the queue at this location. 123 N 7t'' Street. Suite 300 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Tel 970 257 1350 Fax 970 257 1066 Level of Service: Per the 2008 Traffic Study, the northbound approach of the County Road 100 / SH 82 intersection is currently operating at Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Level of Service (LOS) F conditions during the AM peak hour, indicating that the approach is experiencing a high level of congestion. This is consistent with the queuing analysis provided. While some of the delay experienced on this approach can be attributed to the long 180 second cycle length used at this intersection, the lack of a right turn lane also affects delay at this intersection. With the addition of a northbound right turn lane at this intersection, the approach would be expected to improve to LOS C following the build out of TCI Lane Ranch during both the AM and PM peak hours. It is anticipated that the Level of Service for this approach would then be maintained at an acceptable LOS D during the AM peak hour through the long term planning horizon of Year 2030. The stronger influence of left and through traffic during the PM peak hour may further degrade Level of Service on this approach to LOS E by Year 2030, regardless of whether TCI Lane Ranch is constructed. However, given the long cycle length of this traffic signal, LOS E is not atypical for minor street approaches. Given this, the queue length should be considered the most important Measure of Effectiveness at this location. Conclusion: The construction of a northbound right turn lane is believed to provide increased capacity for the northbound approach of the County Road 100 / SH 82 far in excess of the impacts anticipated from the addition of TCI Lane Ranch traffic. At part of this effort is also anticipated that a raised median between the northbound and southbound directions will also be constructed on County Road 100. This separation of traffic flow should also provide a safety benefit to the south approach of this intersection as part of the construction effort. Please call if you would like any additional information or have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Drexel, Barrell & Co. r Ann Bowers, PE, PTOE Regional Manager/ Transportation Department Head 123 N 7`h Street. Shite 300 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Tel 970 257 1350 Fax 970 257 1066