HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 10.07.1996REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
BOCC 10/7/96
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Preliminary Plan review for The Rapids on the
Colorado Subdivision.
The Rapids on the Colorado, LLC/Gene R.
Hilton
A tract of land located in portions of Sections
4 & 5, T6S, R91W of the 6th P.M.; located
approximately one (1) mile southwest of New
Castle, north of County Road 335.
SITE DATA: 97.28 Acres
WATER: Community wells
SEWER: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS)
ACCESS: Direct access to County Road 335
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD; A/I
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD; A/I; O/S
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject tract is located in District A - New Castle Urban Area of Influence; District D -
Moderate Environmental Constraints; and District F - River/Floodplain Severe Environmental
Constraints, as designated by the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's Management
Districts Map (1981; 1984).
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject tract is located approximately one (1) mile southwest
of New Castle north of County Road 335, consisting of 97.28 acres, of which 9.8
acres are located on the south side of the county road. This land consists of a steeply
sloped, pinion and juniper hillside, with slopes calculated to be between 58% and
66%. The majority of the site, situated north of the county road, consists of a broad,
flat, river terrace adjacent to the Colorado River, which has historically been utilized
as irrigated crop and pasture land. The east side of the parcel is defined by the
Garfield Creek drainage and the northern boundary of the property is defined by the
south bank of the Colorado River. Portions of the property are located in the
regulated, 100 -year floodplains of the Colorado River and Garfield Creek. The
Moore Ditch flows across the subject tract, generally parallel to, and south of, CR
335.
NOTE: Since the Planning Commission decision on this Preliminary Plan, the
applicant has proposed excluding the steep hillside south of CR 335 from the
development, thereby reducing the amount of open space and potentially foregoing
the necessity of a boundary line adjustment for land that is not intended to be included
within this subdivision. The Planning Commission did not review or consider this
information in making its recommendation to the Board.
B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 33
single family residential lots on 80.36 acres (net) with residential lot sizes between 2.0
and 3.6 acres. Approximately 18.3 acres of the tract would be dedicated as open
space/parkland. The residential lots would be served by a central water system
consisting of two (2) wells, but each lot would have an individual sewage disposal
system. Access to each lot is proposed to be from a 50 ft. wide, "horseshoe" road,
with two points of access onto C.R. 335 and two cul-de-sacs radiating from the loop.
C. History: In October of 1980, by Resolution No. 80-258, the Wood Landing PUD
was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The PUD allowed for a
maximum of 317 residential lots and two multi-purpose commercial lots, to be served
by central water and sewer facilities, on the approximately 91.0 acres of land included
in the PUD. As a condition of approval, the developer was required to agree to
making improvements to County Road 335, to alleviate traffic problems that would
result from the development of the project. An agreement to that effect was signed
in January of 1981; however, the road improvements were never completed.
In the spring of 1987, public hearings were conducted to consider the revocation of
the Wood Landing PUD and reversion to the original agricultural zone districts. The
applicant was granted a three (3) year extension, with all original conditions and
obligations remaining in effect. In March of 1992, the Planning Commission
commented on a proposed Sketch Plan for the Woods Landing PUD. After a
recommendation by the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Board
of County Commissioners, the Wood Landing PUD was revoked by Resolution No.
92-053. See Resolution No. 92-053, pages
The proponent has since submitted a Sketch Plan to the Planning Commission for The
Rapids on the Colorado, which was reviewed at its December, 1995, meeting.
Essentially, the only significant difference between the Sketch Plan and original
Preliminary Plan submittal was the number of proposed lots had increased from 33 to
40. Staff notes that the Sketch Plan submittal did not portray any lots extending into
the Colorado River, as shown on the Preliminary Plan. The Planning Commission, at
its August 14, 1996, meeting continued the Preliminary Plan hearing to allow the
applicant to address density and open space issues originally identified at the time of
Sketch Plan. The revised Preliminary Plan contemplates a total of 33 residential lots,
and four (4) areas that would be reserved to the Homeowner's Association as open
space and/or private parkland.
III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A. US West Communications: States that the development is within its New Castle
exchange boundary and that facilities are available to provide service. See letter, page
B. Division of Water Resources: Evaluated the proposal and found that the water
augmentation plan, Case No. W-3262 is in effect and apparently would be
implemented as stated in the Enartech letter dated May 21, 1996. It is the opinion of
the State Engineer that the water supply appears to be adequate; however, notes that
any groundwater source is subject to annual fluctuations. The letter further states that
valid well permits must be issued prior to any use of the wells. See letter, pages
C. Colorado Geological Survey: Notes that the entire parcel is an ancient alluvial fan
that has formed on and over an older terrace deposit of the Colorado River. The fan
was derived from the Wasatch Formation cliffs located south of the tract and Garfield
Creek has incised into the eastern portion of the fan. Based on this analysis, the
Survey suggests that the underlying Wasatch may be susceptible to settlement and
that infiltration of water from the surrounding drainages may create a seasonally
shallow water table. For these reasons, the Survey recommends that all building sites
be investigated by a qualified soils and foundation engineer. The Survey further notes
that all floodplain issues be addressed and, if necessary, the plat adjusted accordingly.
The survey concludes that if its suggestions are followed, as well as the Lincoln-
DeVore report, and made conditions of approval, then the Survey has no geology -
related objections. See letter, pages
D. Garfield County Road and Bridge: Submitted a memo indicating the Department is
faced with numerous problems on CR 335 adjacent to the subject tract. These
problems include: width of the county road, the seepage from the adjacent irrigation
ditch, difficulties with winter maintenance of the road, lack of certainty in the
dedication of the right-of-way of the county road. Additionally, the road is weight
restricted and Road and Bridge suggest the developer bond for road damage
insurance or agree to make repairs to damage resulting from construction of the
project. See Memo, page . At this time, no impact fee structure has been
approved by the Board.
E. Roaring Fork School District RE -1: Did not provide a letter to the Planning
Department; however, the District has indicated a preference that all residential
developments dedicate land or cash to off -set impacts. Customarily, prior to
recordation of a final plat, all residential lots are subject to a $200 school impact fee.
F Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: Responded with a letter
that questions the platting of the Colorado River and asks if the developer has
considered utilizing the central waste water facilities at Apple Tree. See letter, page
. Submitted an additional letter stating an inability to provide additional
comment. See letter dated August 1, 1996, page . See also letter dated
September 24, 1996, page
G. Talbott Enterprises: Has responded to the Colorado Department of Public Health
letter, indicating it has no desire to provide water treatment for the development. See
letter, page a
H. Geneva Bailey: Has provided a letter essentially objecting to the development,
generally due to environmental and wildlife concerns. See letter, page
I. Kenneth Collins: Submitted a letter and photographs detailing numerous issues
concerning the subdivision and its potential impacts. See letter, pages
J. Gary & Gail Schultz: Have provided a letter stating opposition to the proposed
subdivision, on numerous grounds. See letter, page
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Physical Constraints: The development site is subject to certain physical and
developmental limitations, as the tract encroaches into the regulated, 100 -year
floodplains of the Colorado River and Garfield Creek. Development in these areas
would be subject to County Floodplain Regulations and federal regulation by the
Army Corps of Engineers. The floodplain delineation indicates that portions of Lots
1 thru 20 would be impacted by the floodplain(s) and would require the issuance of
Special Use Permits to allow development, within the flood fringe, on these lots. See
the floodplain map, page
Section 9:12 of the Subdivision Regulations gives specific guidance to development
in areas with identified natural hazards and, in summary, these lands shall not be
platted for habitation unless mitigation is proposed by a qualified, Colorado -
registered, professional engineer and in no case shall a project conflict with the
Garfield County Floodplain Regulations. It would be required of the Board of County
Commissioners, prior to final plat, to determine that all provisions of Section 6.08 and
6.09, inclusive, can be met.
The geotechnical report indicated that large portions of the subdivision site are
encumbered by potentially expansive clays. The report states "where the clays are
encountered foundations must be designed with the expansive potential of the
subsurface soil in mind." These conditions may require engineered foundations for
a considerable portion of the subdivision. Furthermore, the report concluded that
corrosive soils may be encountered on the site and mitigation would be necessary.
Staff recommends that all lots be subject to site specific percolation tests and
subsurface soil investigations as part of building permit application.
B. Lot Design/Layout: All proposed lots comply with the minimum size required by the
A/R/RD and A/I zone districts (2.0 acres); however, Lots 1 thru 20, as noted earlier,
are impacted by the Colorado River or Garfield Creek floodplains and Lots 1 thru 19
further appear to utilize significant amounts of river -bottom to meet the minimum, lot
size requirement. The actual, developable size of these lots would not be the
equivalent of two (2.0) acres, in some cases much less. The applicant's engineer has
stated that all lots would be capable of meeting all applicable regulations concerning
ISDS and building setbacks.
Pursuant to Section 5.05.02 of the Zoning Resolution a setback of 30 feet, measured
horizontally from and perpendicular to the high water mark of a live stream, shall be
protected as greenbelt and maintained in conformance with the definition contained
in Section 2.02.28. It appears this provision has been met by the designation of the
individual building envelopes on the affected sites. This greenbelt area shall be
protected, at time of final plat, by easements or deed restrictions, for all affected lots
(Lots 1 thru 20), as well as the inclusion of a plat note.
Roads: The proposed, internal roadway system would be developed to Secondary
Access standards, which, according to design standards, should be sufficient to handle
the expected amount of generated trips. Secondary Access standards require a 50 ft.
right-of-way, two 11 ft. travel lanes, a shoulder width of 6 ft. and a 6 ft. ditch width,
with a chip/seal surface. There are two cul-de-sacs proposed to radiate from the
main, internal roadway, which largely comply with applicable standards as they would
be built with a 50 ft. ROW and have radii of 45 ft. Staff notes that the only deviation
from the standard is that the cul-de-sac that radiates westerly from Sunset Drive is
approximately 100 ft. longer than regulations specify. Staff has no objection to this
additional length as it appears adequate fire protection would be provided as a part
of the longer design.
Section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations states that all streets are dedicated to the
public; however, all maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Homeowner's
Association. Staff recommends that, with the exception of Lot 1, all lots be accessed
internally, with no direct access to County Road 335 for individual lots. Staff further
recommends that the applicant receive approval from County Road and Bridge
regarding the siting of the subdivision's intersections with CR 335, prior to final plat.
A traffic study has been submitted, under separate cover, which analyzes the impacts
to CR 335 that could be expected from this development. The traffic study included
an analysis of existing, peak hour traffic; a calculation of peak hour traffic to be
generated by the development; a determination of traffic capacity for CR 335; and an
analysis of sight distances at proposed roadway intersections. The study concluded
that "County Road 335 has sufficient capacity for future peak hour traffic, including
traffic generated by the Rapids Subdivision." See Traffic Study, pages
Staff recommends that, upon adoption of County road impact fees, the individual lots
within this development be subject to paying that fee.
Staff noted that at time of on-site investigation (June 21, 1996) a significant amount
of large stones had eroded from the steep hillside directly west of the subject tract and
were scattered across CR 335. Staff speculates that this situation is a chronic problem
that could be worsened with increased use of the county road and potentially
increasing complaints that would be received by the County regarding this problem.
No proposal for mitigation of this or any other potential problem has been specified.
D. Water Supply: The applicant is proposing to construct a community water system to
service the development. This system would consist of two (2) wells (known as
Rapids Well #1 and #2) that have a total, pump -tested capacity of 105 gallons per
minute (gpm) and would supply water to a 118,000 gallon (minimum) storage tank.
The pumps that would be installed in the two wells would provide a combined
pumping capacity of 100 gpm, which should exceed the maximum daily water
requirement of 73 gpm (Note: this requirement was for the originally specified 40
residential lots and has not been revised), at time of build -out, with the applicant's
engineer concluding "there will always be a sufficient supply of water to meet
demand." Staff recommends that, at this time, it is appropriate to designate exactly
what water rights, supply, storage and other infrastructure would be necessary to
provide for the demands of this subdivision, as now proposed. The Board should
determine the amounts of physical water, legal water and infrastructure that should
be dedicated to benefit this proposed subdivision.
The wells were completed in the Wasatch Formation, which underlies the Colorado
River alluvium in the stream basin. Apparently, in this location, the Wasatch is
overlain by approximately 10 feet of alluvium and below this alluvium is the bedrock
aquifer of the Wasatch. Water production in both wells is below the 38 foot interval
and the wells are grouted to isolate the alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Given the
amount of water in the wells and their ability to produce relatively large volumes of
water, it is staffs opinion that the alluvial and bedrock aquifers are in hydraulic
connectivity, which suggests that a significant amount of recharge to the water -
producing interval is via infiltration from the Colorado River. The engineering
submitted suggests that "The bedrock layer between the ground surface and the water
production zone of the wells protects the well water from any potential of
contamination from sewage disposal leachfields." This conclusion is not supported
by the information submitted.
As a water system serving at least 15 dwellings and/or 25 people, it would be subject
to design and operation standards regulated by the Colorado Department of Health
and the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The applicant proposes to
have the Homeowner's Association contract with an outside, licensed entity to operate
the water supply system. The preliminary plan has provisions for lawn and garden
irrigation and further specifies that drip irrigation systems be recommended. Staff
agrees with these provisions and suggests they be implemented through restrictive
covenants and further recommends all water usage be metered. Additionally, the
developer would be required to turn -over the ownership of all water rights and
facilities to an incorporated entity formed on behalf of the homeowners within the
subdivision.
The Preliminary Plan suggests that the sizing of the water supply has occurred "with
excess capacity available for future development on adjacent property owned by the
project developer." This "future development" could be considered a second phase
and staff recommends that any approval of the Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision
proposal shall not be construed as approval of a later subdivision proposal or phase.
Water Quantity: The pump -test results indicate the two (2) wells have a combined
capacity of 105 gpm and, given the type of pumps to be used and the dynamic head
to be pumped against, the engineer has calculated that the combined capacity of the
two wells would be on the magnitude of 100 gpm. Both wells were pumped for 24
hours, with Rapids Well #1 showing a production rate of 59.2 gpm and an apparent
stabilization of 35 ft. below the surface. Recharge characteristics were gathered for
a period of two (2) hours, indicating the well recovered to its original level. See Well
#1 pump test information, pages . The pump -test for Rapids Well #2
indicated a production rate of 46 gpm and apparently never reached stabilization,
showing a maximum drawdown of 76.33 feet within the 83 ft. deep well, a 92%
drawdown. Recharge characteristics were gathered for a period of 2.5 hours,
indicating the well recovered to its approximate, pre -pumped level. See Well #2
pump test information, pages
Given these reported results, it would appear that there is sufficient water for the
proposed uses; however, due to annual fluctuations and hydraulic characteristics,
there is some concern, by staff, for Rapids Well #2. It is conceivable that, if the static
water level of the well were to drop approximately eight (8) feet, under the same
pumping circumstances, the well could be pumped dry. Staff recommends that the
static water level be monitored and if it drops below a level of 24 feet, then another
24 hour pump -test be required. The static water level for Rapids Well #1 should also
be monitored; however, staff does not have the same level of concern for this well as
with Well #2. Additionally, the pump tests were conducted at different times,
approximately one (1) week apart, and given the separation between wells of 400 ft.,
it is reasonable to assume that the pumping characteristics may be negatively affected,
if both wells are pumped simultaneously.
The static water level within both wells has been monitored as recently as August 14,
demonstrating the static level has actually risen in both wells on the magnitude of
approximately six (6) feet. This information suggests that the wells would have a
greater drawdown capacity and assists in demonstrating a viable water supply. Staff
still recommends the monitoring of the static water levels to better understand the
characteristics of the wells and aquifer.
Although it appears that in-house water would be sufficient, it does not appear that
there is a sufficient supply of irrigation water to continue to irrigate the historically
irrigated lands. It is conceivable that weed infestation could become a problem across
the tract.
Water Quality: A lengthy water quality analysis has been presented in the preliminary
plan submittal; however, the results have not been interpreted for the reviewer. It
would appear that no tested analyte exceeds state regulations.
Legal Water Supply: The letter from the Division of Water Resources, attached on
pages , indicates that with the implementation of the specified water
augmentation plan, Case No. W-3262, there would appear to be a legal water supply.
Staff notes that it is the intention of the developer not to implement the augmentation
plan "until 1997 at the earliest." Staff does not know how this provision may affect
the legality of the water supply. Consistent with the DWR letter, staff recommends
that all well permits be granted by the State prior to the authorization of a final plat.
Water Tank: The 118,000 gallon water tank would be placed on the hill overlooking
the Colorado River valley, southeast of the terrace where the majority of the
development would occur. It shall be required that, as part of the Final Plat, utility
easements be provided from the water tank, across CR 335, and to the developed
portion of the property. In no case shall the access road to the water tank exceed
14% grade. The easement for the water tank should be a 40 foot radial easement,
with roadway profiles demonstrating the access road will be less than 14% grade,
provided within the Final Plat submittal.
E. Sewer/Water Table: The applicant proposes to use individual sewage disposal
systems to treat the waste water that would be generated. According to the Soil
Conservation Service, soils on-site are considered to be within two main
classifications. The Kim loam class comprises the majority of the site and is
considered to have moderate constraints to the use of ISDS due to slow percolation
rates. Contrary to this information, the geotechnical report indicated that perc rates
in these soils were, with one exception, within allowable parameters, ranging from 3
to 60 minutes per inch. The second class of soil is the Torrifluvent classification, the
soil that has developed along the southern bank of the Colorado River. Although
these soils are not included within the SCS constraint information, the text states that
"Community development is limited by flooding, the seasonal high water table, and
variable texture. On-site investigation is necessary."
Three different geotechnical studies have been conducted, gathering and evaluating
subsurface soils information concerning the use of ISD systems and building
foundation requirements. The first study was conducted by Lincoln-DeVore in
February, 1978, with a follow-up study conducted in July, 1980. Free water was
reportedly encountered in five (5) of the pits, generally at depths between 9 and 11
feet. One pit encountered water at approximately six (6) feet and it was speculated
the water was due to seepage from the Moore Ditch. The second study, conducted
by Hepworth-Pawlak in May, 1995, analyzed six (6) additional test pits, generally to
a depth of eight (8) feet. Apparently, no free water was encountered in these pits, at
that time. The third study, conducted by Hepworth-Pawlak in late -July, 1996,
analyzed nine (9) additional test pits along the Floodplain line of the Colorado River.
The percolation tests indicate that these test holes perked within the range required
(5 to 60 minutes per inch) and no free water was discovered in any of these holes.
See study, pages . Furthermore, the septic leachfields, where impacted
by the floodplain, must be located above the water surface elevation of the 100 year
flood, which may necessitate something different than a conventional system.
This information has been submitted to the Colorado Department of Health, Water
Quality Control Division, for comment on the adequacy of the waste water treatment
proposal. Pursuant to C.R.S. 30-28-136 (1)(g), "No plan shall receive approval of
the Board of County Commissioners unless the department of health to which the plan
is referred has made a favorable recommendation regarding the proposed method of
sewage disposal." All information concerning the method of waste water treatment
has been referred to the stated health department and it is staffs opinion that no
"favorable response" has been received, to date.
F Fire Protection: The only discussion of fire protection within the preliminary plan
appears to be the statement that "water mains are sized to provide a fire flow of 750
gpm at 20 psi residual pressure at any of the fire hydrants, as per design criteria for
single family residences by the Insurance Services Office (ISO)." Staff notes that fire
hydrants are proposed throughout the subdivision, generally spaced at 700 foot
intervals. The Burning Mountains Fire Protection District has reviewed the proposal,
recommending the placement of two (2) fire hydrants be modified. With the inclusion
of these modifications, the District essentially approves of the development. See
letter, page . Staff suggests making these recommendations conditions of
approval.
G. Open Space/Parkland: When the Sketch Plan was presented to the Planning
Commission in December, 1995, the Commission instructed the applicant to
contemplate designating additional open space and recreational opportunities and
design these elements into the development. The Preliminary Plan, as originally
submitted to the Commission, paid little heed to these comments and instead
increased the density of the proposed development by 17.5%, generally by platting
portions of the stream bottom of the Colorado River. The Commission instructed the
applicant to scale -back the proposal and again instructed the applicant to provide the
requested, additional open space, which required a continuance of the hearing. The
applicant has complied with these requests and currently proposes approximately 18.3
acres of open space/parkland (18.8%). The steep hillside, south of CR 335, accounts
for 9.79 acres of the total and consists of land that, due to its excessive slope, is
unusable for development purposes. The remainder of the open space/parkland would
consist of two (2), four acre parcels and a narrow strip of land (0.36 acres) that would
provide access to the Colorado River. One of the four (4) acre parcels is proposed
to be developed into a park that would consist of a small pond and trail. There was
some discussion, at the time of Planning Commission consideration, as to how the
park would be developed and what amenities it would provide. However, at this time,
the applicant has not submitted definitive development plans. Additionally, the
Drainage Easement/Private Parkland should be included in either lot 6 or 7 with the
provision of easements to provide for the specified uses, which would eliminate the
creation of a lot that may be in conflict with zoning (less than 2.0 acres in size).
H. Agricultural Impacts: The most significant impact on agriculture this development
would have would be the loss of formerly irrigated and productive cropland, replacing
it with residential development that would be allowed to irrigate only 5,000 square
feet per acre. This situation would likely result in an infestation of weeds that could
have negative impacts to agricultural lands over a wide area.
An additional analysis of impacts to agricultural lands has been presented for review,
essentially concluding that potential problems resulting from this development would
be of a very limited scope. Staff generally concurs with this analysis, yet adds the
caveat that continued transitioning of land to more intensive land uses will result in
further reducing and weakening the agricultural base in Garfield County. See
Agricultural Impact Analysis, page
Comprehensive Plan Issues: The applicant has not addressed the Comprehensive Plan
in the application other than to make a statement that the Board of County
Commissioners previously determined that the subdivision of this property "to be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of Garfield County." Staff notes that any
such determination by the Board was for the previously noted PUD and that the
present application must be reviewed on its own merits. There is no obligation to
consider a previous approval as extending approval for this proposal. The following
staff comments are made regarding the Comprehensive Plan:
Agriculture: (Policies: 1, 2, 3 and 4) The proposed site is irrigated cropland. The
increase in residential activity may create conflicts between residential and
agricultural uses in the area.
Housing: (Policies: 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) There is an indeterminate number of platted lots
in the vicinity. The development will offer one (1) type of housing apparently
to fill a moderate income market. The development may not have adequate
separation from adjacent agricultural uses.
Recreation/Open Space: (Policies: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) The applicants are providing
recreational facilities. Provisions for perpetual protection of open space areas
should be provided. Public access to public lands (DOW) is not addressed.
The plan provides very limited internal access to the River.
Transportation: (Policies: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8) The applicant was previously
obligated to make improvements to the adjacent county road.
Water and Sewer Services: (Policies: 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6) The proposed development
will require the establishment of a new water system and ISD systems. The
development could conceivably connect with an existing, central water
treatment system just upstream at Apple Tree/Mountain Shadows.
Environment: (Policies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) A significant portion of the
property is impacted by floodplains, which are subject to further regulation
and mitigation. No major air or water quality problems have been identified.
Soils on the site may be limiting due to the presence of expansive or corrosive
soils. The development should not result in any vegetative removal or cuts
and/or fills. The open space area to the south of the County Road has been
identified as critical deer winter range.
Community Services: The applicants should talk to the Fire District to determine
if any additional improvements to fire protection can be made. The local fire
district is a volunteer organization.
J. The Latest Developments: As stated earlier, additional information has been
submitted that has not been reviewed or commented upon directly by the Planning
Commission. The reduction in the number of proposed lots (from 40 to 33) could
likely result in additional water being available for other uses; approximately 10 acres
of land that was originally designated as "open space" would be removed from the
development; the legal description of the tract in question would be altered; it is still
unknown whether or not a boundary line adjustment would be required. The Board
and the applicant should be advised that the changes to the Preliminary Plan that were
not part of the Planning Commission's consideration and recommendation, may be
significant enough for an outside entity to initiate legal action.
V. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper publication and public notice and posting were provided as required by
law for the hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners.
2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and
issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing.
3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in general compliance with the
recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of
the County.
That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution.
5. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State
of Colorado and Garfield County have been submitted and, in addition, have been
found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
That the Garfield County Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Preliminary Plan.
That for the above -stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County.
8. That, based on the dynamic nature of this particular proposal, the following
modifications to Planning Commission recommendation are required:
a) Deletion of plat note 9a;
b) Deletion of condition of approval #22,
c) Deletion of condition of approval #26,
d) Addition of condition of approval #33;
e) Addition of the following language to plat note #9e: "...unless said fees have
been paid by the developer."
f) Addition of condition of approval #34
VI. RECOMMENDATION
At its September 11, 1996 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL*
of the Preliminary Plan, pursuant to the following conditions: *Staff and the Planning
Commission note that, concerning the method of sewage disposal, the Colorado
Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, has not provided what staff
would consider to be a "favorable response," as required by C.R.S. 30-28-136 (1)(g).
Pursuant to this provision of State Statute, it may be inappropriate for the Board to
grant APPROVAL of the proposal, without the "favorable response." Staff suggests
that, at this time, the Board make a determination of compliance with said Statute,
based on the information submitted to the Department and the replies received, and
then render its decision.
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be considered conditions of
approval, unless stated otherwise by the Planning Commission.
2. The Homeowner's Association shall be incorporated in accordance with Colorado
Revised Statute requirements.
3. The applicant shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements Agreement
addressing all on-site improvements, prior to the submittal of a final plat.
4. The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all roads, bridges, utilities, fire
protection, improvements, signage and drainage structures prior to the submittal of
the final plat.
5. That all utilities shall be placed underground and any propane tanks shall be placed
underground or otherwise obstructed from view.
6. That all cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native
grasses, shrubs and trees with adequate weed control. All revegetation shall be in
accordance with the applicant's revegetation plan. Revegetation and landscaping shall
be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. In addition, adequate
security shall remain in place for a period of two (2) years to guarantee the survival
of all plantings.
7 That the applicant shall demonstrate that procedures are established for the
maintenance of all roadways and bridges, including snow removal, through the
Homeowner's Association.
8. That the applicant shall pay $200, per lot, ($6,600 total) in School Impact Fees prior
to the approval of the Final Plat.
9. That the following plat notes shall be included on the Final Plat:
a) "Site specific, engineered building foundations and individual sewage disposal system
designs shall be subject to individual Floodplain Special Use Permit applications and
approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction identified
within the 100 -year floodplains of the Colorado River and/or Garfield Creek."
b) "The minimum defensible space distance shall be 30 feet on level terrain, plus
appropriate modification to recognize the increased rate of fire spread at sloped sites.
The methodology described in "Determining Safety Zone Dimensions, Wildfire Safety
Guidelines for Rural Homeowners," (Colorado State Forest Service) shall be used to
determine defensible space requirements for the required defensible space within
building envelopes in areas exceeding five (5) percent grade."
c) "Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare and submit
a soils and foundation report, an I.S.D.S. design, and a grading and drainage plan
prepared and certified by a professional engineer. All improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with such measures, which shall be a condition of the
building permit."
d) "That all lot owners shall comply with the provisions under which the well permits for
the subdivision were approved. Except for Lot 1 and Lot 19, no lot shall irrigate
more than 10,000 square feet of land with water from the central, domestic system,
and all waste water disposal systems shall have non -evaporative leach fields."
e) "Upon adoption of road impact fees by the Board of County Commissioners, the lots
created by this exemption shall be subject to paying the fees, paid at time of building
permit application, paid by the building permit applicant."
0 "Individual lot owners shall be responsible for control of noxious weeds and the
Homeowner's Association shall control noxious weeds on all Open Space/Parkland
portions."
10. That all well permits be issued prior to final plat, that sufficient water provided
through the approved augmentation plan, water rights associated with the wells,
together with well permits, all physical components of the water system and shares
from the Moore Ditch, if any, shall be transferred by the developer to a homeowner's
association which shall have the power and the duty to enforce compliance by lot
owners with the terms and conditions of the augmentation plan. Appropriate
Protective Covenants shall further require compliance with the terms and conditions
of the augmentation plan, the metering of water usage at the individual lot and
provisions for drip -irrigation.
11. That the applicants shall prepare and submit protective covenants, articles of
incorporation and other Homeowner's Association documents including by-laws will
be submitted for review by the County Attorney prior to the approval of the Final
Plat.
12. No resubdivision or Accessory Dwelling Units shall be approved for this subdivision
that would impinge upon or diminish the services provided for the lots approved
herein.
13. That all roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards in
effect at the time of submittal of the Final Plat. With the exception of Lot 1, in no
event shall an individual driveway have direct access to County Road 335.
14. That the static water level in Rapids Well #2 be monitored and if the static water level
falls below 24 feet, a 24-hour pump test and appropriate recharge rate calculations be
performed, with all results reported to the Planning Department
15. That adequate easements for wells, waterlines and other attendant facilities and
utilities shall be provided on the Final Plat.
16. The applicant shall provide road signage in accordance with the Uniform Manual of
Traffic Control. These should be included in the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement.
17. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit approved plans (by
Colorado Department of Health) for the proposed community water system.
18. That access and utility easements to the proposed water tank shall be shown on the
final plat and dedicated to the Homeowner's Association, that the applicant shall
receive the necessary permit from County Road and Bridge regarding the crossing of
CR 335 with the water/utility line(s) and in no case shall the access road to the water
tank be in excess of 14% grade.
19. A finalized boundary line adjustment occur before Final Plat approval for the
remaining land not being included in this subdivision.
20. Open hearth, solid fuel fireplaces shall not be allowed within the subdivision. One (1)
new, solid -fuel burning stove as defined in C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq. and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling
units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and
appliances.
21. All provisions contained in the Burning Mountains Fire Protection District's letter
dated July 10, 1996, shall be adhered to and made part of the Final Plat.
22. Prior to Final Plat, the developer's engineer shall submit site specific engineered plans
for residential development within the flood fringe of the Colorado River and Garfield
Creek. Furthermore, all development in these areas shall be consistent with these
plans and shall be required to furnish as -built, elevation certificates demonstrating that
all construction meets the provisions of Section 6.09 of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, as amended, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
by the Garfield County Building Department.
23. All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and shall 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.
24. That the recording fees for the Final Plat and all associated documents be paid to the
County Clerk and Recorder prior to the signing of the Final Plat by the Board of
County Commissioners and a copy of the receipt be provided to the Planning
Department.
25. That the Final Plat submittal include a copy of a computer disk of the plat data,
formatted for use on the County Assessor's CAD system.
26. That the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment shall provide a
favorable response to this subdivision's proposed method of waste water treatment,
prior to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
27. Protective covenants shall specify that only one (1) dog is allowed, per lot.
28. Protective covenants shall specify there be no incineration of trash.
29. Prior to Board of County Commissioner review, the applicant shall provide to the
Planning Department an updated Preliminary Plan submittal that is inclusive of all
changes contemplated by the applicant. This information shall be submitted in a
timely manner.
30. That specific building envelopes for the individual sewage disposal systems be
designated away from the watercourses of Garfield Creek and the Colorado River for
all lots identified within the respective floodplains.
31. That all building envelopes affected by the floodplains of Garfield Creek and the
Colorado River shall be elevated above the level of the 100 -year floodplain, as a
requirement of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement.
32. The developer shall provide specific designs and plans for the development and use
of the open space land, for review by the Planning Department, prior to the Board of
County Commissioner hearing.
33. Prior to submittal of final plat, applicant must complete boundary line adjustment
required by current proposal.
34. Development within the areas identified within the flood fringe of the Colorado River
and/or Garfield Creek shall be required to adhere to the conditions of approval for the
Floodplain Special Use Permit, conditionally approved on October 7, 1996.
The Rapids
Lots 1 - 19 acheive their acreage by extending lot lines out into
the middle of the Colorado River. This practice raises several
questions: With required setbacks to water courses, unstable river
banks, potential high groundwater in alluvial material, and
construction of ISDS in the flood fringe or 100 year flood plain; can
all of these issues be resolved in the limited lot sizes left?
There is an established wastewater treatment facility serving Apple
Tree MHP (Talbot Enterprises) immediately adjacent to this proposal.
Has the applicant made any attempt at utilizing the existing
infrastructure?
Thank -you for allowing us to comment. If you have any questions please
do not hesitate to call me at 248-7150.
Sincerely,
Dwain Watson
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
mailbox:/C%7C/ROFINTUG/...erm_3.wic.net&number=30 mailbox:/C%7C/ROFINTUG/mail/INBOX?i...437.AAA228@term_3.wic.net&number=30
Subject: (Fwd) The Rapids on the Colorado
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 06:44:07 -0700
From: dwatson@wic.net (Dwain Watson)
Reply -To: dwatson@wic.net
To: garcopin@rof.net
Forwarded Message Follows
From: Self <Single -user mode>
To: mbean@rof.net
Subject: The Rapids on the Colorado
Reply -to: dwatson@wic.net
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 06:43:29 -0700
Dear Mark:
We are unable to provide more specific information regarding The Rapids
based on the current proposal received.
Regards,
Watson
dwatson@wic.net, 09:21 AM 9/24/96, Preliminary Plan Review; 1
Comments: Authenticated sender is <dwatson@rodin.wic.net>
X-UlIL: 8436/1385.000
From: dwatson@wic.net (Dwain Watson)
To: garcopin@rof.net
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:21:19 -0700
Subject: Preliminary Plan Review; The Rapids
Reply -to: dwatson@wic.net
X -Confirm -Reading -To: dwatson@wic.net
X-pmrqc: 1
Return -receipt -to: dwatson@wic.net
Priority: normal
Dear Mark:
As we have indicated previously, workload and other factors do not
allow us to make multiple comments on Plan Reviews. Our orginal
comments will have to suffice. Sorry for any inconvience.
Regards,
Watson
Printed for garcopin@rof.net (Garfield Co Planning Dept) 1
Talbott Ent. Inc. TEL:303-984-2138
Talbott
EM IICI.I,C.
July 8, 1996
Mr. Peter Belau
ENARTECH Inc,
302 Eighth Street, Suite 325
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Jul 08,96 18:06 No.004 P.02
RE: Sewer and Water For the Rapids on The Colorado Subdivision
Dear Mr. Belau,
Talbott Enterprises, Inc. is a privately owned corporation whose
policy is to process waste water from and provide domestic water to
only its wholly owned business operation. This policy has been
established to ensure our ability to fulfill our obligations to our
tenants and the state. to protect our business and its future
operations, and to minimize unnecessary liability. Additionally,
providing services to your development would require substantial
upgrades to the waste water treatment plant and the water
treatment and storage facility. As such, Talbott Enterprises, Inc. is
not interested in supplying these amenities to The Rapids on The
Colorado Subdivision.
Sincerely,
Russell Talbott, P.E., V.P.
Talbott Enterprises, Inc.
APPLE TREE MOBILE HOME PARK
5178 COUNTY ROAD 335 • NEW CASTLE. COLORADO 81647 • 303-9842943
Geneva Mae Bailey
38400 River Frontage Road
PO Box 460
New Castle, Colorado
Sixth of July, 1996
Garfield County Planning Commission
Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
v
y 44`5
cF-j orf
RE: Notice of Preliminary Plan for RAPIDS ON THE COLORADO SUBDIVISION, (copy attached)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am sorry but I will miss the 10th of July meeting regarding the above mentioned Preliminary
Plan. I will be out of town, so please regard this letter as my objection to the proposed development.
We live directly across the river from the proposed site. This has enabled us to observe the
diverse wildlife that lives in the area. This section of the Colorado River is a winter home for the Bald
Engle. It is not unusual to witness 3 or 4 sightings a day as the Eagles mate and hunt and raise their
babies here. On Christmas morning, 1994, we saw 7 Eagles in a single tree on the proposed site.
Migrating Canada Geese also mate and nest here. Sand Cranes and Blue Heron are also seen. This seems
to be a migratory area for other large birds that we don't recognize (at one time we thought we saw a
White Pelican). At least nn.- flair of Beaver- live on thiF stretch of the river. Also substantial numbers of
Deer and some Elk cross Road 335 and the proposed site in order to reach drinking water at the river.
This is also a winter feeding area for them when snow makes food scarce for them at higher elevations.
I can understand Mr. Hilton wanting to build in this area as it is a beautiful location, however
such a development would simply have too powerful a negative impact on the wildlife here, possibly most
damaging to the Bald Eagles. Impact on local plant life should also not be taken lightly as such a
development could introduce foreign plants that threaten Native species. In addition, all of the extra traffic
such a development would create would increase hazards for motorists on Road 335 from the Deer and
Elk crossing the road.
When all is taken into account, I strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny Preliminary
Plans for the proposed development.
Sincerely Yours,
,L.
Geneva Mae Bailey
PAGE 1 OF 8
SUBJECT: THE RAPIDS, GENE HILTON JULY 1996
I WANT IT TO BE KNOWN RIGHT UP FRONT THAT I AM NOT AGAINST GROWTH,
AND 1' AM NOT AGAINST A PROFIT, HOWEVER IT HAS TO BE DONE IN A GOOD
AND RESPONSIBLE WAY
WHAT HAS HAPPEN TO THE WORDS?
COMMON SENSE
INTEGRITY
TRUTH
RESPONSIBLITY
IT IS TOO BAD THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE LAWS TO PROTECT THESE WORDS, AND
IF THERE ARE NOT LAWS IN PLACE TO PROTECT THESE WORDS, THE RAPIDS
SUBDIVISION CERTAINLY PROVES WE NEED THEM IN IN PLACE.
ANY DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION SHOULD CARRY IT'S OWN COSTS
AND INHANCE THE COMMUNITY NOT CAUSING A BURDEN TO IT. THE COST AND
RESPONSIBILITIES SHOULD BE TO THE DEVELOPER ONLY AND TO NO ONE
ELSE, CERTAINLY NOT THE TAX PAYERS IN THE COUNTY. IN THE RAPIDS
SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL, THE DEVELOPER HAS TOTALLY REMOVED HIMSELF
FROM ANY AND ALL RESPONSIBILITIES OR PROBLEMS THAT WILL BE CAUSED
BY IT, AND PUT THE BURDEN ON THE EXISTING LANDOWNERS, HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION, AND THE COUNTY. THIS IS NOT RIGHT AND SHOULD NOT BE
ALLOWED.
THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT TAKEN THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY PROBLEMS
OR BURDENS PUT ON COUNTY ROAD 335, EXISTING LAND USEAGE, ADJACENT
WATER RIGHTS (QUANTITY OR QUALITY), WILDLIFE, OR ADJACENT
LANDOWNERS. THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT TAKEN THE RESPONSIBILITIY TO LISTEN TO THE
RECOMMENDATION GIVEN TO HIM AT THE SKETCH PLAN MEETING, BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, WHERE AS IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT HE USE
LARGER MORE ATTRACTIVE LOTS (AT NO COST OF INCOME), MORE OPEN
S PACE, MORE ACCESS TO THE RIVER, AND HAVE THE SUBDIVISION FIT THE
AREA BETTER. INSTEAD, THE DEVELOPER MADE MORE LOTS BY INCREASING
THEM FROM 33 LOTS TO 40 LOTS. TO DO THIS HE HAD TO MOVE INTO THE 100
YEAR FLOOD PLANE AND HALFWAY OUT INTO THE COLORADO RIVER, WITH
LESS OPEN SPACE AND LESS ACCESS TO THE RIVER. HE SIMPLY MADE A
JOKE OUT OF THE SKETCH MEETING. ALSO WHAT WAS GOING TO BE A BUFFER
ZONE FROM THE SUBDIVISION AND WILDLIFE, IS NOW SAID TO BE USED AS A
PAGE
PARK.
IN NO WAY CAN THIS AREA BE MADE INTO A PARK. IT ISA HILL SIDE OF 40
DEGREES TO 60 DEGREES SLOPE RIGHT NEXT TO COUNTY ROAD 335. IT
SIMPLY CAN NOT BE MADE INTO A GOOD OR SAFE PARK.
WHY DID WE EVEN HAVE THE SKETCH PLAN MEETING ??
PAGE3OF8
SUBJECT: THE RAPIDS, GENE HILTON.
1. COLLINS WELL AND WATER RIGHTS.
NO WHERE IN THE DEVELOPERS REPORT IS THERE ANY MENTION OF THE
COLLINS WELL OR WATER RIGHTS, AND I AM CONCERNED AND WANT IT ON
RECORD THAT WE ARE HERE AND DO HAVE RIGHTS TOO.
WELL DATA:
PERMIT NUMBER 115109
STATIC LINE ---12 FEET
FRACTURE LINE ---45 FEET
PUMP SET AT ---100 FEET
OUTPUT--5TO7GPM.
WELL ----150 FEET
EVERY YEAR I PULL OUR WELL PUMP, TO CLEAN PUMP, FUNCTION PROBES
AND GENERAL MAINTENANCE, AND FOR THE LAST SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS
THE ABOVE DATA HAS BEEN TRUE.
WATER RIGHTS:
COLLINS PUMP, CASE NUMBER 80CW238.
WATER RIGHTS ARE FROM GARFIELD CREEK AND THE COLORADO RIVER.
1' AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECTS THAT THE SUBDIVISION WILL
HAVE ON OUR WELL. TO PUMP THAT MUCH GROUND WATER FROM THE SAME
AREA WILL LOWER THE GROUND WATER LEVEL AND TO PUT THAT MANY LEACH
FIELDS IN THE AREA, CONTAMINATION IS VERY POSSIBLE. IT CERTAINLY WILL
NOT TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WENT WRONG IF EITHER
OF THESE HAPPEN, AND THAT THE DEVELOPER AND SUBDIVISION WILL HAVE
TO CORRECT ANY CHANGES TO OUR WATER RIGHTS BECAUSE OF IT.
PAGE4OF8
SUBJECT: THE RAPIDS SUBDIVISION , GENE HILTON
1. INFRASTRUCTURE.
A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE IS GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE MORE
GARBAGE TRUCKS, MORE SERVICE TRUCKS, MORE CONSTRUCTION
VEHICLES, ROOM FOR MORE CARS, MORE POLICE, & MORE FIRE CONTROL,
COUNTY ROAD 335 FROM THE NEW CASTLE OVERPASS TO THE SILT BRIDGE
IS ALREADY HARD HIT WITH HEAVY TRAFFIC AS IT IS NOW, TO ADD A HOUSING
PROJECT OF FORTY MORE HOUSES IN THIS AREA, THE TRAFFIC LOAD WILL
HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. COUNTY ROAD 335 HAS MANY TURNS, IS NARROW
IN SEVERAL PLACES, AND NO SHOULDERS ON THE ROAD AT ALL.
WHO IS GOING TO BEAR THE COST TO GET THIS ROAD SAFE FOR THE
INCREASE OF TRAFFIC? HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE UP
MORE OF THEIR PROPERTY TO WIDEN THIS ROAD? GARFIELD COUNTY CAN
NOT KEEP COUNTY ROADS THAT ARE ALREADY HERE IN GOOD SHAPE
BECAUSE OF COSTS, AND KEEP ASKING FOR MORE TAXES TO DO IT.
THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT GIVE ANY ANSWERS TO ANY OF THESE
PROBLEMS AT ALL. NO WHERE IN THE REPORTS ON THE SUBDIVISION HAS
THE DEVELOPER SAID THAT HE WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE BURDEN THAT WILL
BE PUT ON COUNTY ROAD 335 BY THIS SUBDIVISION.
PAGE 5OF8
SUBJECT: THE RAPIDS, GENE HILTON
1. SEWER SYSTEM
BEING AN ADJACENT HOME OWNER TO THIS PROJECT, HAVING A WELL 100
FEET DOWN AND IN THE SAME WATER TABLE, WITH SOMEONE PUMPING THIS
AMOUNT OF WATER OUT AND FORTY SEPTIC TANKS BEING PUT IN THIS
CLOSE, CERTAINLY HAS GOT ITS REASON TO BE LOOKED AT.
THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN SUGGEST HAS ME VERY
CONCERNED. ANYTIME YOU HAVE FORTY SEPTIC TANKS PUT IN AN AREA THIS
SIZE YOU WILL HAVE GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION, AND WHAT I HAVE
READ IN THE DEVELOPER'S PLANS ARE THAT EACH OF THE HOMEOWNERS
WILL TAKE CARE OF THIER OWN SEPTIC TANK. EVEN IF THE SYSTEM WORKS
PERFECT THERE WILL SOME CONTAMINATION AS THIS SOIL HERE HAS A HIGH
PERCULATION RATE, AND TO HAVE FORTY DIFFERENT IDEAS OF HOW TO TAKE
CARE OF A SEPTIC TANK, YOU KNOW THERE ARE GOING TO BE PROBLEMS.
THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM IS NOW IN USE IN ALAMOSA, COLORADO AND WAS
SIGNED OFF BY ENGINEERS THERE, AND PEOPLE ARE BEING PUT IN THE
HOSPITAL RIGHT NOW DUE TO THE WATER SEWER CONTAMINATION. THIS IS A
FACT!!
PAGE 6OF8
SUBJECT: THE RAPIDS, GENE HILTON
1. DRAINAGE AND RIVER.
THE REPORTS GIVEN ON THE SUBDIVISION FOR DRAINAGE IS SAID TO BE
NATURAL DRAINAGE ?
ALL THIS SAYS IS THAT WATER WILL RUN DOWN HILL, NO PROVISIONS ARE
BEING TAKEN TO PROTECT THE RIVER AT ALL. THE COLORADO RIVER IS
ALREADY IN TROUBLE DUE TO CONTAMINATION. FARM ANIMALS HAVE TO BE
FOUR DAYS INTO THIRST TO EVEN DRINK FROM IT AND WATERING FROM THE
RIVER IS ONLY AT THE LAST RESORT. SOME RESPONSIBILITY HAS TO BE GIVEN
TO THIS PROBLEM.
PAGE7OF8
SUBJECT: THE RAPIDS, GENE HILTON
1. WILDLIFE.
I KNOW THE REPORT HAS AN ENGINEER SIGNED PAPER SAYING THIS
SUBDIVISION WILL NOT EFFECT WILDLIFE IN THIS AREA, BUT THAT SIMPLY IS
NOT TRUE. THIS SUBDIVISION WILL HAVE A GREAT IMPACT ON THE WILDLIFE
HERE. THIS ENTIRE AREA IS A MAJOR WINTERING AREA FOR ALL TYPES OF
WILDLIFE.
DEER: HUNDREDS OF DEER WINTER HERE EVER FALL- WINTER- SPRING.
ELK: HUNDREDS OF ELK WINTER HERE IN THIS AREA FALL -WINTER- SPRING.
GEESE: LITTERLYTHOUSANDS OF GEESE WINTER HERE IN THIS AREA FALL-
WINTER- SPRING.
EAGLES: WE HAVE WATCH THE EAGLE POPULATION GROW FROM TWO TO
EIGHT IN JUST THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS RIGHT ON THE SAME
AREA THAT THE SUBDIVISION IS TO BE ON.
HERON: THE HERON POPULATION HAS GROWN TO ABOUT SIX TO EIGHT PAIRS
ON THE RIVER WHERE THE SUBDIVISION IS TO BE , AND ON GARFIELD
CREEK, THEY LIVE HERE YEAR AROUND.
AGRICULTURAL LAND:
IN THE REPORT, SIGNED BY AN ENGINEER, IT WAS SAID THAT NO
AGRICULTURAL LAND WILL BE LOST ?? THIS IS NOT TRUE. PLEASE LOOK AT
ENCLOSED PICTURES.
PAGE 8OF8
SUBJECT: THE RAPIDS, GENE HILTON
1. LIFE STYLE
A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE IN THIS AREA WILL HAVE A MAJOR
IMPACT ON THE LIFE STYLE THAT IS NOW HERE. THIS DEVELOPMENT MUST
BE CONTROLLED AND BE DONE WITH SOME COMMON SENSE AND
INTEGRITY SO WE ALL CAN HAVE A DECENT FUTURE AND LIFE STYLE
HERE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ENERGY
KENN -. R. COLLINS
From: Mr. and Mrs. Gary L. Schultz
2859 335 Rd.
New Castle, CO 81647
To: The County Planning and Zoning Board
Re: The proposed "The Rapids" Development
Date: August 14, 1996
We're writing to register our opposition to the proposed development called The Rapids
on 335 road. There are several factors which concern us and have convinced us to write
in opposition.
First, 335 road, which is the only road leading to the area, is not adequate to handle the
increased traffic flow from the development. The road is barely wide enough for two
lanes. There is no shoulder in most places, and in several places, the road is bordered by
deep gullies and cliffs. There is nowhere to widen the road. Since this is a country road,
many people use the road for horse back riding, walking, or riding bicycles. Increased
traffic on this road that's too narrow, and with no shoulders to allow foot and bicycle
traffic to get out of the way will be a set up for increased accidents.
Second, development of the property will have a severe, negative impact on wildlife.
Herds of deer and elk use the property for food as well as access to the Colorado for
water, and Bald Eagles have been sighted on the property with their young. As we
develop more and more of the available habitat, we lose more and more of the wildlife.
Third, we see no financial provisions on the part of the developer for the impact on the
school system, fire protection, road improvements and so on.
Finally, although the developer has called the development "low density," it is certainly
not low density when compared to existing home sites on 335 road.
It is our opinion that none of these, the wildlife, existing residents, or county taxpayers
would benefit from this development, and we ask that this proposal would be denied or at
the very least, scaled down considerably.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Gary Schultz
Gail Schultz
7111 '113173310
00710100'5)0730
Sivol 50177131.00 1)117 00750107
514* 00/0514003 40
007YO10011711111103 04)0 0.01314500
504 01574374
Aanls NIYld 00011
13O7Y1(1011L ONY 53147 00060103
133) 7 - 104.73101 71101001
[Ar 14A 0 0 002
3311 74 31101
1300-(x •[a
10701 1* '(114500 00/70101
Ort. .3100 17'4
047 11l3tit7 1431410
as 015042114
(011700.1( 11471017
1711 1700,175 mita LT147W 477 7014
7754 '14 I Yr VI TON 10071 14400,01014
171770 11T171A .130 7 7054
S014441.41 001)707400104 LI 001714703
11711 501317 .107447 --
735703 5011011. 0X00450
537501 7041735 10004
3711 7011137
514105 40 5017070/
inns - X061
3353
T
33731
0041130 60093
27404 ONO
5)54.33 0401)
55.7.0..).
101114091 137111344
10.1701 "MON
0113031
0707056
0610011
4.017210
hi
I)M0
x
0•
V4 14010.
701.0
777N
• 77671.001/ 00.01104
371 50 03671 70130 13331 031
it 0 300 1071503 171113A 40 34401
01307't70 .1
07170'1431.3 /K 1/44
14YS1IM •1
761.391,41•4
I1174001
r•: 37604113
53010 477•7
751040/5 60110190.7751 1714111,01/91
10177111 40 .01104 3.1 60110)7*44 3003
10760/03 1730071 '37503 10,115/3 '711111.11
3106107003 17014 31711 00610107
- - 761 •1051003.5716031547 40 710:4
8I -D
000'.7' 1 )
.Se'01.'I 1
1(7'771
107
707'07, 1 ) w7u.9 y
2(1''[(1 5 Weft,LOf (..
Sett
rlt'tl.'I w
'11 277
111
771'71,1 1
(17277 r
071
777' 777 r 711'7111 1
' oat 20.'21' v \y
�:
..,• .'1 2 101•'1'1 ) [1.71.1 )
t+0'0..1.'1 ) 77+'I77 r „.•,,,. ( 1 321SS O9F\ 21['777 7
•00'277 . 771 I•a f t _.� ••c
701, /�y • 170'0417•
I lt,,t77 30 060 �///ILt � 'I MC\711'7111 )
/ 011 4 11 `A � 171'(1+v
1,15 O 7(t
Q C` '�� • // /[s rif 7)'7111 3
�MI.474
404'071.3 13373 443117
001'611'1 v
072.277
000'
231
612'31.'1 3
ttt'tesr
771'11.'1 3
307'7774
010'11..15
0'111 1
Ott
(
0.71.'1 )
('377 0
11
777'41`.
r
•1. 1
Litt`re
tCSL-.--
411 !Ls
tbi
I(['ele'l 3
17L'.77 5
707
I1:Pt'1 3
100')11 7
217
17.17
•71.7117.1 3
0lt'SlI 5
A70)
1.6071
01
111'0211 1
0117 5
rat
I
000'0011 1
afl'7111 1
040'777 5
• 407
f
U
111'11.1 1
711'07/717
5
WI) un371n7 700147.71
trolly 04-04.1143 777110
401.00611
.5.1x.16. 516„ Mist..
tarvertnOt x0604 M1 -••t
000'0111 1
107703)
10^.•.14 r•L
...7-4.79.1 4..
+... �e•74 1-17•••
-17
I -Nr Norm, 41.•
NrNtra
1024
1'954-
39.
70/'1111 1
277.0(/ 5
017
7 0049
000417'1 1
0001.11 1
3r
11
• t" ----
i--
07.'71.'1 3
.70'[(1 7
777
/11'11.1
t 0..77 •
t/1
000.777'.
The Rapids
Lots 1 - 19 acheive their acreage by extending lot lines out into
the middle of the Colorado River. This practice raises several
questions: With required setbacks to water courses, unstable river
banks, potential high groundwater in alluvial material, and
construction of ISDS in the flood fringe or 100 year flood plain; can
all of these issues be resolved in the limited lot sizes left?
There is an established wastewater treatment facility serving Apple
Tree MHP (Talbot Enterprises) immediately adjacent to this proposal.
Has the applicant made any attempt at utilizing the existing
infrastructure?
Thank -you for allowing us to comment. If you have any questions please
do not hesitate to call me at 248-7150.
Sincerely,
Dwain Watson
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
dwatson@wic.net, 09:21 ANI 9/24/96, Preliminary Plan Review; 1
Comments: Authenticated sender is <dwatson@rodin.wic.net>
X-UlDL: 843671385.000
From: dwatson@wic.net (Dwain Watson)
To: garcopin@rof.net
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:21:19 -0700
Subject: Preliminary Plan Review; The Rapids
Reply -to: dwatson@wic.net
X -Confirm -Reading -To: dwatson@wic.net
X-pmrqc: 1
Return -receipt -to: dwatson@wic.net
Priority: normal
Dear Mark:
As we have indicated previously, workload and other factors do not
allow us to make multiple comments on Plan Reviews. Our orginal
comments will have to suffice. Sorry for any inconvience.
Regards,
Watson
Printed for garcopin@rof.net (Garfield Co Planning Dept) 1