HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 08.14.1996PC 8/14/96
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Preliminary Plan review for The Rapids on the
Colorado Subdivision.
APPLICANT: The Rapids on the Colorado, LLC/Gene R.
Hilton
LOCATION: A tract of land located in portions of Sections
4 & 5, T6S, R91 W of the 6th P.M.; located
approximately one (1) mile southwest of New
Castle, north of County Road 335.
SITE DATA: 97.27 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 property is located approximately one (1) mile
southwest of New Castle north of County Road 335, consisting of approximately
97.27 acres, of which approximately 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, the majority of 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.
B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 40
single family residential lots on 80.36 acres (net) with an average lot size of 2.0 acres.
Approximately 10.15 acres of the tract would be dedicated as open space, the
majority of which is the hillside on the south side of the county road. The 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 - . ' : •. • , , • The road
improvements were never completed.
In the spring of 1987, public hearings were held to consider the revocation of the
Wood Landing PUD and reversion to the original agricultural zone district. 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 Woods Landing PUD was revoked by Resolution No.
92-053. See Resolution No. 92-053, pages /5-/6 .
The proponent has since submitted a Sketch Plan to the Planning Commission for The
Rapids, which was reviewed at its December, 1995, meeting. Essentially, the only
significant difference between the Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan submittals is that
the number of proposed lots has changed 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.
2
TEL 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
/7
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 ground water 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
/1-
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 2 Z/ .
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 Z Z- .
E. Roaring Fork School District RE -2: 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 approved 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
2-3 .
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 2-4
H. Geneva Bailey: Has provided a letter essentially objecting to the development,
generally due to environmental and wildlife concerns. See letter, page 25- .
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 and would require the issuance of
individual Special Use Permits to allow development, within the flood fringe, on these
lots. Customarily, the Board of County Commissioners reviews floodplain -related
matters and makes the decision as to whether or not to grant the SUP. See the
floodplain map, page 26
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. This analysis has been performed consistent
with County Floodplain Regulations (Section 6.00 of the Zoning Resolution) and the
necessary statements by the engineer have been made. However, no foundation
designs have been submitted to indicate that "All new construction. . . shall be
designed and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement,
be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage, and be
constructed by methods that minimize flood damage." It would be required of the
Board of County Commissioners, prior to final plat, to determine that all provisions
of Section 6.09.02, inclusive, can be met. All lots affected by the 100 -year floodplain,
as identified, shall be subject to the issuance of individual Special Use Permits.
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: Each lot has been designed in such fashion as to maximize the
placement of two (2.0) acre lots, the minimum size required by the A/R/RD and A/I
zone districts. All lots have been surveyed by a licensed, professional land surveyor
who attests to their sizes. 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.
Although this arrangement is not technically in violation of Garfield County
Subdivision or Zoning Regulations, as it is not directly prohibited, the actual,
developable size of these lots would not be the equivalent of two (2.0) acres, in some
cases much less.
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.
C. 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 analysis
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
__ z . 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 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. Rapids Wells #1 and #2 were drilled and
pump -tested as monitoring holes and calculated to have a combined production rate
of 105 gpm. 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, at time of build -out, with the applicant's engineer
concluding "there will always be a sufficient supply of water to meet demand."
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 30 " 3/ . 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 ?j 2 33
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 July 23,
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 assist in demonstrating a viable water supply. Staff
still recommends the monitoring of the static water levels to better understand the
characteristics of the wells.
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 /Y-19' , 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 will be a 40 foot radial easement, with
roadway profiles demonstrating the access road will be less than 14% grade provided
at time of Final Plat.
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 30 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."
The submitted geotechnical information is somewhat contradictory and inconclusive
in nature in assisting staff with evaluating subsurface conditions. Essentially, two
different studies have been completed and submitted for review. The first and most -
detailed 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. Pit #11 encountered water at
approximately six (6) feet and it was speculated the water was due to seepage from
the Moore Ditch. The most recent study, conducted by Hepworth-Pawlak in May,
1995, analyzed six (6) test pits, generally to a depth of eight (8) feet. Apparently, no
free water was encountered in these pits, at that time. Staff notes that no pit was
excavated in close proximity to the Colorado River, where at least 20 ISD systems
are proposed, leaving staff unable to determine the adequacy of the geotechnical
information. Staff recommends that further testing be required along the bank of the
Colorado River, consistent with the location of the proposed systems to better
determine the compatibility of conventional ISD systems, the stated method of waste
water treatment. 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.
Section 4.92 (D) requires the applicant produce "evidence as the result of soil
percolation tests and produce excavations to determine maximum seasonal ground
water level and depth to bedrock shall be provided. . adequate in number and location
to meet requirements..." It is staffs opinion that adequate information has not been
submitted for the lots within the floodplains. Staff has been informed that additional
ISD information would be submitted, but at the time of completion of this report, it
had not been submitted.
Additionally, in light of the density of the development, the potential for problems
with conventional ISD systems and the possibility of a later "phase," staff
recommends the Planning Commission consider that, as a condition of approval, the
developer provide, through initial development, dry sewer lines, connections and
attendant infrastructure, for all proposed lots, which could be utilized to connect to
a central waste water facility in the foreseeable future.
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 modifica0ons, the District essentially approves of the development. See
letter, page 3 y`
G. Open Space/Parkland: Included within the preliminary plan is a provision for open
space and private parkland, amounting to a total of 10.15 acres. The majority of this
land (9.79 acres) consists of the steep hillside, south of the county road. Staff has
conservatively calculated slope to be on the magnitude of 58%, rendering the open
space largely unusable for customary, recreational uses and completely unusable for
development purposes as the slope exceeds 40%. The remaining 0.36 acres identified
as'private parkland' largely consists of a drainage easement that would offer little in
the form of passive or active recreational amenities. In fact, approximately half of this
'parkland' consists of river -bottom, further limiting the scope of activities. Staff
recommends that, as a condition of approval, the applicant dedicate a public trail
easement across the hillside, which may provide future linkages to other trails.
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.
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 with 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 3 S
I. 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. No reference to energy efficiency
is discussed.
Recreation/Open Space: (Policies: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) The applicants are providing
very limited 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 access to the river within the
subdivision.
Transportation: (Policies: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8) The applicants were 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.
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.
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was 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.
4. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution.
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.
VL RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following
conditions:
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. /�
kt-cr6 f( L'"1 A.I k, 4rJ\ V /4:y4L fi-TNKS,
5. That all utilities hall be placed underground.
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.
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, ($8,000 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:
"Site specific, engineered building foundations and individual sewage disposal system
designs shall be subject to individual Floodplain SpecialUs R aD t licat ns and
approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit for rental/Within the
100 -year floodplains of the Colorado River and/or Garfield Creek."
"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."
"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."
t)\
-"No development shall occur within the 100 -year floodplain of the.O Storado River or
Garfield Creek without proper review and permitting by County, State or Federal
,%N
"That all lot owners shall comply with the provi.4. • s er which the well permits for
the subdivision were approved. Except fo Lot 19, no lot shall irrigate more than
10,000 square feet of land and all waste ater disposal systems shall have non-
evaporative leach fields."
"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." /
\\ I+-ptv1cO kbv
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 he Final
Plat.
,,�� o,,,-6� 4 �J S/'4.
lVa ���. 2 �%
That the plat and covenants will provide that there will be no resubdivision of the lots,
NI shall cessory Dwelling Units allowed on am lot. v G _S
13.hat all roadways shall be con tructein accorance with the design standards in t '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.
That the subdivision provide, through initial development, dry sewer lines,
connections and attendant infrastructure, for all proposed lots, which could be utilized
to connect to a central waste water facility, sometime in the future.
15. 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
16. That adequate easements for wells, waterlines and other attendant facilities and
utilities shall be provided on the Final Plat.
17. The applicant shall provide road signage in accordance with the Uniform Manual of
Traffic Control. These should be included in the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement.
18. 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.
19. That access and utility easements to the proposed water tank shall be provided prior
to review by the BOCC, 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.
20. A finalized boundary line adjustment occur before Final Plat approval for the
remaining land not being included in this subdivision.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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
0 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.
24. All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and shall be directed
LI> inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made
° to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries.
25. 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
Nes County Commissioners and a copy of the receipt be provided to the Planning
Department.
ti
2
2
26. 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.
A'ir' viRspirk, l T �
fiLA-�
Pas 4, (� f4 / okt, 4; i✓41 t�ef/Zo�A4c� gi L l�c
RECORDED AT y 0' CLOCK p.m. JUN i 5 1992
REC A 435827 MILDRED ALSDORF, COUNTY CLERK
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield )
boa 63'I NNE Su
At a Regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County,
Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood
Springs on Mondav , the 15th of June A D. 1992 , there were present:
Arnn1A r. Marklay
Marian I. Smith
Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney
Don DeFord
Mildred Alsdorf
Chuck Deschenes
, Commissioner Chairman
, Commissioner
, Commissioner
, County Attorney
, Clerk of the Board
, County Administrator
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NO, 92-053
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE REVOCATION OF A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ZONE DISTRICT DESIGNATION AND REZONING THE PROPERTY TO
AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL/RURAL DENSITY AND AGRICULTURAL/INDUSTRIAL
FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY GENE R. HILTON.
WHEREAS, on the 27th day of October, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
its Resolution No. 80-258 by which the Board of County Commissioners approved a zone change from
Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density and Agricultural/Industrial zone districts to Planned Unit
Development for the Wood Landing PUD; and
WHEREAS, on the 4th day of May, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners adopted its
Resolutions 87-48 by which the Board of County Commissioners approved an extension of the PUD
approval for Wood Landing PUD for three (3) years from the date of approval of said resolution; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.09.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended,
requires that a PUD development must begin development within one (1) year of final zone change
approval; and
WHEREAS, the Wood Landing PUD developer did not begin development within one (1) year
of final zone change approval or within three (3) years of approval of Resolution No. 87-48 and the ..
Board of County Commissioners did not approve any further extensions for the completion of the
PUD; and
WHEREAS, based on the evidence, testimony, exhibits and recommendation of the Garfield
County Planning Commission, this Board finds as follows:
4. That the 1980 approval of the Wood Landing PUD was based on circumstances and
needs of that time and that circumstances and needs have changed since that time; and
5. That the road improvements made by the County since 1980 in the area of the PUD
have only addressed the present needs of the County and those needs have changed
since 1980; and
6. That the December 16, 1991 letter from the Regulatory Offices and Personnel
Department to the applicant, did not constitute the approval of an extension of the
PUD approval; and
7. That the applicant did not begin development within one (1) year of the original
approval by Resolution No. 80-258 or within three (3) years of the approval of an
extension of approval granted in Resolution No. 87-48.
8. That other developments have been approved in the area that meet the same affordable
housing needs; and _
9. That State and Federal regulations have changed since 1980, possibly making the Wood
Landing PUD less feasible to build without making substantial modifications to the
PUD as originally proposed; and
10. That given the change in circ»mstances and regulations, any development proposed for
this land needs to be reviewed in light of the existing circumstances and regulations.
WHEREAS, the Garfield County Planning Commission did recommend approval of the zone
district amendment as proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County, Colorado, that the Wood Landing Planned Unit Development and more fully described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto, is revoked as a Planned Unit Development and the zone district revert
back to Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density and Agricultural/Industrial, as those zone districts
were in place prior to October 27, 1980.
Dated this 15th day of June , A.D. 19 92
ATTEST:
Cl-rk of the Board
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD
COUNTY, COLORADO
Chairman
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following
vote:
Arnold L. Mackley
Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney
Marian I. Smith
Aye
Aye
Aye
2524 Blichmann Ave.
Grand Junction, CO 81505
June 13, 1996
Eric D. McCafferty
Garfield County Planner
109 8th St.
Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Rapids of the Colorado Subdivision
Dear Mr. McCafferty:
LIMA/EST
COMMUNICATIONS
In response to your letter of June 5, 1996, I have reviewed the map of the proposed
Rapids Subdivision.
This project is within our New Castle exchange boundary. We do have facilities in the
area and would be able to provide service to this development. Please keep us advised as
to the final disposition of this area.
If you require additional information, please give me a call on 970-244-4916.
Sincerely,
Wm. Carson Bell
Field Engineer
WCB/cjs
STATE OF COLOFADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
June 20, 1996
Mr. Eric McCafferty
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
CXX.ik.'rY
RE: The Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision - Preliminary Plan
SW 1/4 Sec. 4, Twp. 6 S, Rng. 91 W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 45
Dear Mr. McCafferty:
Roy Romer
Governor
James S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
We have received additional information regarding the above referenced submittal. The
proposed development includes 40 residential Tots on a 97 acre tract located 2 miles
southwest of the Town of New Castle, Colorado. A central water supply system from on-site
wells drilled in the alluvium of the Colorado River is proposed as the water source for the
development. Water rights from Moore Ditch, transferred in Case No. W-3262, will provide
augmentation water for depletions from the on-site wells.
The augmentation plan decreed in Case No. W-3262 authorizes to provide water
service to 9,700 residential equivalent units on the applicant's land which includes the subject
97 acres. Depletions from a number of structures including three wells located on the subject
property are included in the plan. Our records indicate that these three wells were permitted
but they appear to have expired and we have no evidence in our files that they have been
constructed. The decree states that prior to its implementation, the applicant shail provide
the Division 5 Engineer the location and number of acres of land to be permanently removed
from irrigation, the water rights historically used for their irrigation, the particular structures
to be augmented along with their locations and sources, the number of residential equivalent
units to be supplied by the structures, the type of wastewater disposal systems, and the
number of landscape acres to be irrigated, and the resultant number of acre-feet of depletions
to be replaced.
A letter dated May 21, 1996 from Enartech Inc. to Mr. Orlyn Bell, the Division
Engineer, states that the source of water supply for the central water system will be two
wells, augmented with the applicant's water rights in the Moore Ditch. The applicant's entire
70 acres under the Moore Ditch will be removed from irrigation. Each of 40 residential lot
owners will be restricted to 10,000 square feet of lawn and garden irrigation. One acre of
Mr. Eric McCafferty Page 2
June 20, 1996
lawn and garden will be irrigated on lot 19. The total consumptive use during the irrigation
season for domestic use, the irrigation on 40 lots and on Lot 19 are estimated as 0.773 acre-
feet, 18.365 acre-feet and 2 acre-feet respectively. Wastewater disposal system will be by
(non -evaporative) Ieachfields for all 40 residences. Water Supply Design Report for the
subdivision indicates that the total maximum supply required for the subdivision is 73 gpm,
and the two existing wells have a combined sustained yield of 105 gpm. The report claims
that with a storage of 118,000 gallons of water, the wells will be capable of serving the
needs of the development.
Pursuant to Section`30-28-136(1)(h)(I), C.R.S., it is our opinion that the proposed
water supply will not cause injury to decreed water rights. Based on the analysis and
pumping tests, it appears that the water supply is adequate. Please note that the long term
adequacy of any ground water source may be subject to fluctuations due to hydrological and
climatic trends. Our records indicate that the well permits have expired. The developer must
obtain proper well permits prior to any use of these wells.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Kris
Murthy of this office or Mr. Orlyn Bell of our Division office in Glenwood Springs at 945-5665.
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPL/KM/km
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Robert Klenda, Water Commissioner
rapids.sub
GEOLOGICAL_SUP.VEY TEL No.
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and (;oology
Department of Natural Resources
1.13 Sherman Street, Koorn 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Picone (303) 866•)611
FAX 1303) 8(,(,-2461
June 28, 1996
t
Mr. Eric McCafferty, Planner
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Jun -)2 ,95 14:35 No.015 P.02
STATE OF COLORADO
GA -96-0015
-)F.PARTMENT C)F
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Rny R111111.1
r_:nv,•mnr
1:11111, S. lorhhrad
tkecuttve r/iret tar
Michael 11. 1 ung
Division Direr for
Vicki (, w. tl
Slate (.7e.I(3) .I
and t)irer kg
Re: Proposed Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision -- West of Garfield Creek and North of
C.R. 335, Garfield County
Dear Mr. McCafferty:
At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35 (1972), we have reviewed the materials
submitted for and made field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision
indicated above. The following comments summarize our findings.
(1) This entire subdivision parcel is an ancient alluvial fan which has formed out onto and
partially over an older gravel terrace of the Colorado River. The alluvial fan has been
incised on its east end by modern Garfield Creek. The origin of the alluvium on the fan is
the Wasatch Formation cliffs which are the sources of material that accumulates in several
small drainages on the south side of the county road. The site is presently an agricultural'
field and is man -modified as a result. There is some possibility that flash flooding during
heavy rainstorms could carry material out onto the alluvial fan now, but this possibility
seems poor considering the modern vegetation on the fan, lack of visible fresh deposits, and
the obstacle that the county road creates. At the distal (near the River) end of the alluvial
fan, the proposed developoment parcel is hounded by the modern floodplain of the
Colorado River and the River itself.
(2) The original 1980 geotechnical report by Lincoln DeVore, Inc. (includcd with the
submittal), does and adequate job of characterizing the potential geology -related
development problems for this site. Apparently and at that time, much higher density
residential development was planned. 'Their test -hole data (indicated on Page 11) supports
our interpretation of the area as an alluvial -fan feature that has formed on top of a terrace.
Froin the standpoint of foundation engineering and design, the fine grained materials
derived from the Wasatch may be relatively low density and underconsolidated, i.e., subject
to settlement. Also, the gravels below them may be saturated because of a seasonally
shallow ground -water table caused by irrigation in the area and infiltration of water from
the drainages. For these reasons, and because of the variability in thickness of the alluvial-
GEOLOGICAL_SURVEY TEL No.
Jun 28,96 14:35 No.015 P.03
Mr. Eric McCafferty
June 28, 1996
Page 2
fan materials, we recommend that each building site be investigated by a qualified soils and
foundation engineer.
(3) Considering what is shown on the submitted plat map which is on a topographic base,
it would appear that proposed Lots ] to 10 (inclusive) may be subject to flooding hazards
from the Colorado River. -We did not receive any studies or other documentation that
addresses this possibility. If it has not been done already, a determination of the flooding
hazard presented by the Colorado River to this parcel should be made and, if necessary, the
plat adjusted accordingly.
If the recommendations made above and those in the Lincoln-DeVore report are followed
and made conditions of approval of this subdivision proposal, then we have no geology -
related objection to your approval of it.
Sirlccrcly,
�vr .
es M. Soule
ngineering Geologist
GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE
Memo
To Eric McCafferty, Garfield County Planning Dept.
Franz King Lloyd, Road & Bridge Dept.
Date: July 31, 1996
R. Rapid Subdivision
The Road & Bridge Department is faced with numerous problems on County Road 335 adjacent this
particular property.
The width of the road is restricted by terrain and adjacent irrigation ditch that seeps under the county
road keeping the subgrade saturated in various places. This ditch will always be in place because it
serves other adjacent properties.
The width of the road has also affected the counties winter maintenance program. In that the narrow
roadway and high bank makes it a necessity to plow the snow across the full width of the road. In
doing this one time a near fatal accident occurred because of a blind hill and the narrow roadway
Another time, because of the narrow roadway, a Road & Bridge vehicle ran off the road to avoid a
collusion during winter maintenance conditions.
Since 1988 the county had piecemeal improvements to County Road 335 between the Silt and New
Castle interchange. This area has always been avoided because of the irrigation ditch and uncertainty
of the County right of way. For the most part the roadway has been improved with a 22ft to 24ft
driving surface with 2ft to 4ft shoulders. The existing condition adjacent this project is a 20ft driving
surface with no shoulder in places and a slight 1 ft shoulder on one side only.
There are County documents showing the original roadway being down along the Colorado River.
Besides the need for a roadway needing to be built to County Standards there appears to be a need
for a dedication of a County right of way.
It should also be noted that the County Road from the East or West is weight restricted to preserve the
integrity of the roadway and minimize maintenance costs due to excessive weights. With this in mind
the developer should bond for road damage insurance, or agree to make repairs should problems
occur during the construction of the project. The road has been weight restricted since 1990.
• Page 1
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
Talbott Ent. Inc. TEL:303-984-2138
Talbott
July 8, 1996
Mr. Peter Belau
ENARTECH Inc,
302 Eighth St et, SnIte 325
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
II[ •.IMC.
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
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
Eagle. 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 car.- ^air of Beaver live on th.Ii 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
VOW '11)•1133)0
00160100'6)6210
06600 8011611301100 00/00103
2110 16110614203 6
001VO100:311Nt100 1032 V 01314600
601 /116)61
AGNS NIYld 00014
031W1t1161 OMI 83616 00060103
and t - 16xn1M1 2001003
008 000 0 0 00
71730
1304 0
t600-161-001
/060. 00 4361610 00/00103
0700 Mimi 100
701 'LINK 1031111/01
W 0)61088
106700010 A30631731
KIM 1/0011/0 014 1111003 430 000
011 '11 07171 TON *41611 302160010*41
101611 10311811 143 _I 0061
100602 300 60010.4 et 001161361103
3011 1101131/ 1108410 --
6)0803 0011330. 0)00461
0)0603 31011211 02004
3011 0011338
02016 w *101110604
61331 M *410611
2101
3104
*400103! Kon
1064 062
1)10)3 010.11
• }600NONN
1061603 16911636
• 1081003 71600
01303
0901001
701'3011
1100.1.0
F2
11.2
67060
IiK
X
0 •
v
0411!0/17
pl-6
).x188
160070 711201104
341 110 0101110. 100110 13071 011
06 11 100 .1001403 11311614 40 111
01V001-30 .A
00704'11)1.2 9K 1120
t1TSri0f •1
301091101 •8
0147.200:3
r': 30673101
6)010 7102
321•n 31132
100111 2010111001101 X001 601310
00 t 30311 06201104 3.3 201370011 3003
1/120/103 1070201 •7801 16012)3 •01141
31/2108003 32116 0010103
- 701 .10618*03.1112011201 4O 0130d
81-D
000'1!.'11
11'OL✓I )
ltf'xtt N
10)
11'02♦'1 1
711'1.'1 M
02('209
110
11':11'1
800'11
for
191.010 2 •OC'U✓1
101 O12' C1 6
IMO t[
fC 1'11'1
flO'310 0
060
600'01 t'1 l •1x'617'1 )
600'•0/ 0
060 • 307')11 • 2
210'03.'1 3 161'632.1 3
111'1[1 6 /00'2[1 6
1C 10
11•'1.-1 1
0x1'2[9 6
9•t
101-11-3 13301 *431111
100'611.1 1
• 06)'x10
06C
C1t'61✓1 l
111'210 11
6•C
9 7'61.•1 3
10'1[0*
071'1.'1
•10'C11..0.
3,23'611'1 7
21.2100
011'411'1 1
969
it
13' U
�i,�' -`- _,_ r -1z s�-� 626�16�2�326-' •�271�
.I� �fi� �•-Zl� jg. ii_-_ f�fWft��f• ��r='__
itor
' f��Wl tl� SG -Iii- � ttts••at�a, __ _
.„0, � � .- `ate _�1 � - �_
C cO
'•' //��� _
100'1.'1 1
600'30) ov 6
771'0101
100' IC: r
_:3'01.'1 l
1.6369 v
[
0
• •x1'[11'1 ) -.
=JI � _. •LSG
TI'
2'trCt �- • �• T
�" �W�
% CIPS10'1 7001'1.'1 )
001'7!1 II 70• 0'1! 1 6
001 l0i 1"'•1• tft't1
61+•0"•0 0••1 012-01.•64+• Y1C
/004'617'1 3 ~^'� •^^1^••1M2.1A1A
t M 011'011'1 ) '61.20.••'••16
100 7/0.111 0 21+•1•.11 4.026•
00 19 ...21.0.•03'7N•'^N.•1.62tw N•A1m 01E113'1 7
66****•62..00.6.6.T 1 001'!90 2
100
6z
8
11'0311 1
011'030 11
700►
0'.71
8•.101
• CIC=cr-
ag .•011'1 1
t00'ttt 0
180
181'000'1 1
et Vett 0
000
1-
000'011.1 1
it
0.i1166301.r661. 00011101
2012 M 0 0 601110 2 0 9 611
O ,..00012
26/0600/ 00012606,161
LI0lM10. 000116012.106
626)011
000.81..1 1
0088*
0"LS+
33102
000'•n'I 3
000111'1 1
000'0111 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to evaluate traffic impacts on Garfield County Road 335 (Colorado River
Road) associated with The Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision. Access to The Rapids Subdivision is via
County Road 335; two access roads from the County Road into the Subdivision are proposed. These
access roads are located on County Road 335 approximately 1.5 miles west of Apple Tree Mobile Home
Park (see Vicinity Map). Traffic impacts on County Road 335 were analyzed west of The Rapids
Subdivision, east of The Rapids Subdivision near Garfield Creek, and east of Apple Tree Park. Traffic
analysis included the following:
• An analysis of existing peak hour traffic
• Calculation of peak hour traffic to be generated by The Rapids Subdivision
• Determination of traffic capacity for County Road 335
• Analysis of sight distance at proposed roadway intersections for The Rapids Subdivision.
Peak Hour Traffic calculations and Sight Distance calculations are summarized in Attachment A.
EXISTING TRAFFIC
Traffic count data for County Road 335 obtained from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department is
summarized in Attachment B. Hourly traffic counts were taken on County Road 335 east of Apple Tree
Park on November 28 and December 12, 1990. The maximum hourly traffic counted was 175 ven:clos
per hour (VPH). The total daily traffic counted in November of 1990 was 1,500 vehicles per day (VPD).
The maximum daily traffic counted was 2,701 vehicles in October of 1994 (during hunting season). For
purposes of this analysis, the design Peak Hour Traffic was calculated based upon the maximum hourly
traffic count from 1990 (175 VPH) adjusted to the maximum daily traffic count from 1994 (2.701 VPD).
The results of this analysis indicate a Peak Hour Traffic Count of 315 VPH (175 x 2701/1500) for existing
traffic on County Road 335 east of Apple Tree Park. Similar calculations indicate a Peak Hour Traffic
Count of 96 VPH on County Road 335 at Garfield Creek Road and 55 VPH on County Road 335 at East
Divide Creek Road (west of The Rapids). Calculations for existing Peak Hour Traffic are summarized in
Attachment A.
GENERATED TRAFFIC
Peak hour traffic generated by The Rapids Subdivision was calculated based upon the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (Attachment C). Calculations indicate a peak hour
traffic count of 40 vehicles per hour (VPH) generated by the 40 -lot subdivision. It was assumed that 70
percent of the traffic would travel east on County Road 335 and that 30 percent of the traffic would travel
west on County Road 335.
ROADWAY CAPACITY
The traffic capacity of County Road 335 was determined using the methodology outlined in the Highway
Capacity Manual for rural, two-lane highways (Attachment D). Capacity analysis worksheets for County
Road 335 east of Apple Tree Park, for County Road 335 near Garfield Creek Road and for County Road
335 west of The Rapids Subdivision are in Attachment E. The method for calculating roadway capacity
includes the following parameters:
• Width of Roadway
Effects of Narrow Lanes
• Effects of Restricted Shoulder Width
• Type of Terrain
• Directional Distribution of Traffic
• Roadway Grade
• Roadway Curves (no passing zones)
• Roadway intersections (no passing zones)
• Truck, Bus and RV Traffic
A field investigation of County Road 335 from the New Castle Bridge to the Silt Bridge was conducted to
determine the roadway capacity parameters for each of the three analyzed roadway segments. The
"worst-case" conditions for each roadway segment were used in the analysis as outlined below:
• The narrow^ ,t section of roadway, including the paved lanes and unpaved shoulders, was
used in the analysis.
• "Mountainous Terrain" was assumed.
• The maximum amount of "curviness" for the roadway was assumed for the analysis.
The results of the County Road 335 capacity analysis indicate roadway capacities of 1,300 VPH east of
Apple Tree Park, 1,000 VPH near Garfield Creek. and 1,000 VPH west of The Rapids Subdivision.
INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE
Sight distances along County Road 335 were analyzed at the two proposed intersections of Whitewater
Drive and Sunset Drive with County Road 335. Sight distances were analyzed from a vehicle leaving the
Subdivision onto County Road 335, and from a vehicle on County Road 335 toward a vehicle leaving the
subdivision.
Sight distance calculations were based upon the Colorado Department of Transportation Highway Access
Code Design Standards (Attachment F). The results of the calculations are summarized in Attachment F.
There is sufficient sight distance available to and from County Road 335 at both of the proposed
intersections. However. at the Whitewater Drive (East) access, sight distance is limited to 350 feet west of
this intersection. This is sufficient for traffic speeds of 35 mph on County Road 335. While the posted
speed limit is 25 mph, it is recommended that the existing slope on the south side of County Road 335 be
laid back to increase the sight distance at this location to provide an additional margin of safety.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of the Peak Hour Traffic Analysis including traffic from The Rapids Subdivision are
summarized below:
SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CO. RD. 335 EAST OF APPLE TREE PARK
315 VPH Existing Peak Hour Traffic
28 VPH Traffic Generated by The Rapids
343 VPH Future Peak Hour Traffic
1,300 VPH Capacity
CO. RD. 335 NEAR GARFIELD CREEK
96 VPH Existing Peak Hour Traffic
28 VPH Traffic Generated by The Rapids
124 VPH Future Peak Hour Traffic
1,000 VPH Capacity
CO. RD. 335 WEST OF THE RAPIDS
55 VPH Existing Peak Hour Traffic
12 VPH Traffic Generated by The Rapids
67 VPH Future Peak Hour Traffic
1,000 VPH Capacity
This analysis indicates that County Road 335 has sufficient capacity for future peak hour traffic. including
traffic generated by The Rapids Subdivision. The critical roadway segment for County Road 335 in terms
of traffic capacity is located at and immediately east of the entrance into Apple Tree Park. Existing peak
hour traffic is 24% of the roadway capacity at this location. Future peak hour traffic (i.e., including traffic
from The Rapids Subdivision) will be 26% of the roadway capacity at this location.
2
9
MAY -20-96 MON 10:10 AM SHELTON DRILLING CO FAX NO. 9709273801
WELL CONSTRUCTION AND TEST REPORT
STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
1.1
i WELL PERMIT NUMBER MH -27684-A
2 Owner Name(s) : Gene Hilton
Mailing Address : % 802 Grand Ave. Ste # 325
City, St. Zip : Glenwood Spnngs, Co. 81601
Phone (970) 945-2236
t -OK OKrlOIE OtiLY
APPROVAL rf GWS31-91.03
WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED: SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec. 4 Twp. 06S Range 91W
DISTANCES FROM SEC. LINES:
731 ft. from South Sec. line. and 1015 ft. from
LOT BLOCK
SUBDIVISION :
STREET ADDRESS AT WELL LOCATION :
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION
DATE COMPLETED 04/01/96
West Sec. line. OR
FILING(UNIT)
ft
DRILLING METHOD Air Rotary
TOTAL DEPTH 82 ft. DEPTH COMPLETED
82 ft.
GEOLOGIC LOG :
8. HOLE DIAM. tiro
FROM (ftl
Mailinn Aricerss • P 0 F3ox 1059
Name / Title (Please Type or Print)
1 Wayne Shelton / President
Batt CO 8181
Signat
7
.lam vl au^
Date
05/20/96
Depth Type of Material Color,
(Size, and Type)
9.0 0
27
000-010 Dirt, Topsoil, Small Rocks
I
6.5 II 27
82
010-082 r Wasatch Formation
7. PLAIN CASING
rOD
(in)
Kind
Wail Size
From (ft) To (ft)
7.0
Steel
0.240
-1 27
5.5
PVC
0.252
22 I 52
._
I
PERF. CASING : Screen Slot Size :
5.5
PVC
.250
52
82
I
WATER LOCATED : 50 - 55
REMARKS :
8. Fitter Pack
Material:
Size :
Interval:
9. Packer
Type :
Depth :
Placement
Formation
30
10. GROUTING RECORD :
/ I
�jL(r 1 I\ I T J
R 1 o f W r, Q.
at
Merol
Amount
ens
Dity
111101/al111101/alleel
Pincement
cement
3 sks
16 gal
' 7-27
poured
11. DISINFECTION : Type : HTH Amt. Used : 2 oz.
12. WELL TEST DATA : [ j Check Box If Test Data is Submitted On Supplemental Form.
TESTING METHOD : Air Compressor
Static Level : 13 ft. Date/Time Measured : 04/Q1/96 Production Rate : 20 910m -
Pumping Level : Total ft. Daterrime Measured : 04/01/96 Test Length : 2 hrs.
Remarks :
1 3 • , neve rend the GYemer Rum, lumen and know the contents Moteot, and 7 that they aie true to my O 4 Gpe. (Pursuant b .Se on 24-4.104 (13)(a) CRS. the making die statements. statemerconstitutesJ Oe1ury in the second owner and re punmwGw ac a caws 1 misdemeanor.)
r•—nm-o B (`Tr\cs • CF.k-,K.w, rm,:iii.,,, ("i,m os.,...,, . in7n, nn -7 Ante^
Mailinn Aricerss • P 0 F3ox 1059
Name / Title (Please Type or Print)
1 Wayne Shelton / President
Batt CO 8181
Signat
7
.lam vl au^
Date
05/20/96
Well Name:
THE RAPIDS ON THE COLORADO
WELL PUMP TEST RESULTS
Rapids Well No. 1
Test Conducted By: Aqua -Tec Systems, Inc.
Date:
4/9/96 -
PUMP TEST
TIME ELAPSED
OF DAY TIME
DEPTH TO FLOW
WATER RATE
Location:
Well Depth:
Depth of Pump:
County Road 335
80 feet
78 feet
RECOVERY
TIME ELAPSED DEPTH TO
OF DAY TIME WATER
11:30 AM 0
0.5
11:31 AM 1
11:32 AM 2
11:33 AM 3
11:34 AM 4
11:35 AM 5
11:36 AM 6
11:37 AM 7
11:38 AM 8
11:39 AM 9
11:40 AM 10
11:45 AM 15
11:50 AM 20
11:55 AM 25
12:00 PM 30
12:10 PM 40
12:20 PM 50
12:30 PM 60
12:45 PM 75/1::15
1:00 PM 90/1:30
1:15 PM 105/1:45
1:30 PM 120/2:00
2:00 PM 150/2:30
2:30 PM 180/3:00
3:00 PM 210/3:30
3:30 PM 240/4:00
4:30 PM 300/5:00
5:30 PM 360/6:00
6:30 PM 420/7:00
7:30 PM 480/8:00
8:30 PM 540/9:00
11:30 PM 720/12:00
2:30 AM 900/15:00
5:30 AM 1080/18:00
8:30 AM 1260/21:00
11:30 AM 1440/24:00
15'-8"
23'-5"
26'-3"
29'-7"
60 GPM
60 GPM
60 GPM
31'-4"
60 GPM
31'-8"
32'-1"
32'-8" 60 GPM
33'-3" 60 GPM
33'-5" 60 GPM
33'-6" 60 GPM
33'-9" 60 GPM
33'-11" 60 GPM
34'-0" 60 GPM
34'-2" 59.2 GPM
34'-4" 59.2 GPM
34'-5" 59.2 GPM
34'-5" 59.2 GPM
34'-5" 59.2 GPM
34'-6" 59.2 GPM
34'-7" 59.2 GPM
34'-8" 59.2 GPM
34'-8" 59.2 GPM
34'-8" 59.2 GPM
34'-8" 59.2 GPM
34'-8" 59.2 GPM
34'-8" 59.2 GPM
34'-9" 59.2 GPM
34'-10" 59.2 GPM
34'-11" 59.2 GPM
35'-0" 59.2 GPM
35'-0" 59.2 GPM
_3(-
11:30 AM 0 35'-0"
0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
15
20
25
30
40
50
60
75/1:15
90/1:30
105/1:45
120/2:00
11:31 AM
11:32 AM
11:33 AM
11:34 AM
11:35 AM
11:36 AM
11:37 AM
11:38 AM
11:39 AM
11:40 AM
11:45 AM
11:50 AM
11:55 AM
12:00 PM
12:10 PM
12:20 PM
12:30 PM
12:45 PM
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
23'-10"
20'-8"
19'-1"
18'-3"
17'-6"
17'-2"
17'-0"
16'-10"
16'-8"
16'-7"
16'-6"
16'-5 1/2"
16'-5"
16'-4"
16'-3"
16'-4"
16'-3"
16'-1"
15'-11"
15'-10"
15'-9 1/2"
MAY -20-96 MON 10:11 AM SHELTON DRILLING CO
FAX NO. 9709273801
P. 2
WELL CONSTRUCTION AND TEST REPORT
STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
4
WELL PERMIT NUMBER MH -27684-B
Owner Name(s) : Gene Hilton
Mailing Address : 802 Grand Ave. Ste # 325
City, St. Zip : Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Phone (970) 945-2236
APPROVAL # GWS31-91-03
WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED: SW 114 SW 1/4 Sec. 4 Twp. 6 Range 91W
DISTANCES FROM SEC. LINES:
560 ft. from South Sec. line. and 654 ft. from West Sec. line. OR
SUBDIVISION : LOT BLOCK FILING(UNIT)
STREET ADDRESS AT WELL LOCATION :
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION
DATE COMPLETED 04/12/96
ft. DRILLING METHOD Air Rotary
TOTAL DEPTH 82 ft. DEPTH COMPLETED
82 ft.
S. GEOLOGIC LOG :
6. HOLE DIAM. (int
FROM (ft1
TO 1ft)
Depth il Type of Matenal (Size, Color, and Type)
9.0 0
29
000-010
Clays, Rocks
6.5 29
82
010-015
Rocks, Gravels
015-082
Wasatch Formation
7. PLAIN CASING
OD (in)
lend
Wall Size
From (ft) To (ft)
7.0
Steel
0.240
-1 29
5.5
PVC
0.250
22
52
PERF. CASING : Screen Slot Size :
5.5
PVC
.250
52
82
WATER LOCATED : 52 - 56
REMARKS :
8. Fitter Pack
Material:
Size :
Interval :
9. Packer Placement
Type : Formation
Depth : 30
10. GROUTING RECORD :
ry�r
Matertat
Amount
Densly
Interval
P4acanwnt
U I (O '
C \ )A
cement
3 sks
16 gal
9-29
poured
I
11. DISINFECTION : Type : HTH Amt. Used : 2 oz.
12. WELL TEST DATA : [ j Check Box If Test Data is Submitted On Supplemental Form.
TESTING METHOD : Air Compressor
Static Level : 18 ft. Date/Time Measured : 04/12/96 Production Rate : 20 913m -
Pumping Level : Total ft. Date/Time Measured : 04/12/98 Test Length : 2 hrs.
Remarks :
13. nave read the statemertn macre neren and know the rumen thereof, and that they are true f» my wroveeoge. (Pursuant n Secaon 2a4-104 (13)(a) CRS. me marrow d taw =samaras conseunes
penury in the second degree and a dunranabfe as a case 1 rreWemeendr.)
CONTRACTOR : Shelton Drilling Corp.
Mailing Address • P 0 8nx 1059 I3a5atf Cs :16
1 Name / Title (Please Type or Print)
Wayne Shelton / President
S
Phone : (970) 927-4182
ir. No_ 1095
Date 05/20/96
Well Name:
Test Conducted By:
Date:
THE RAPIDS ON THE COLORADO
WELL PUMP TEST RESULTS
Rapids Well No. 2
Aqua -Tec Systems, Inc.
4/15/96
PUMP TEST
TIME ELAPSED DEPTH TO FLOW
OF DAY TIME WATER RATE
10:15 AM 0
0.5
10:16 AM 1
10:17 AM 2
10:18 AM 3
10:19 AM 4
10:20 AM 5
10:21 AM 6
10:22 AM 7
10:23 AM 8
10:24 AM 9
10:25 AM 10
10:30 AM 15
10:35 AM 20
10:40 AM 25
10:45 AM 30
10:55 AM 40
11:05 AM 50
11:15 AM 60
11:30 AM 75/1:15
11:45 AM 90/1:30
12:00 PM 105/1:45
12:15 PM 120/2:00
12:45 PM 150/2:30
1:15 PM 180/3:00
1:45 PM 210/3:30
2:15 PM 240/4:00
3:15 PM 300/5:00
4:15 PM 360/6:00
5:15 PM 420/7:00
6:15 PM 480/8:00
7:15 PM 540/9:00
10:15 PM 720/12:00
1:15 AM 900/15:00
4:15 AM 1080/18:00
7:15 AM 1260/21:00
10:15 AM 1440/24:00
16'-9"
30'-7"
37'-0"
42'-8"
46'-11"
49'-11"
52'-1"
53'-10"
55,-7"
56'-4"
57'-6"
62'-4"
65'-7"
66'-10"
67'-11"
69'-0"
69'-2"
70'-3"
70'-4"
70'-11"
71'-11"
73'-5"
75'-7"
68'-8"
71'-10"
73'-11"
75'-11"
76'-4"
76'-2"
75'-11"
74'-9"
74'-1"
73'-7"
73'-1"
72'-9"
74'-8"
64 GPM
60 GPM
58 GPM
56 GPM
54.5 GPM
54.5 GPM
54.5 GPM
53 GPM
52 GPM
51 GPM
51 GPM
50 GPM
48.6 GPM
48.6 GPM
48 GPM
48 GPM
48 GPM
48 GPM
47 GPM
47 GPM
47 GPM
46 GPM
46 GPM
46 GPM
46 GPM
46 GPM
46 GPM
46 GPM
46 GPM
46 GPM
46 GPM
Location:
Well Depth:
Depth of Pump:
County Road 335
83 feet
79 feet
RECOVERY
TIME
OF DAY
11:10 AM
11:11 AM
11:12 AM
11:13 AM
11:14 AM
11:15 AM
11:16 AM
11:17 AM
11:18 AM
11:19 AM
11:20 AM
11:25 AM
11:30 AM
11:35 AM
11:40 AM
11:50 AM
12:00 PM
12:10 PM
12:25 PM
12:40 PM
12:55 PM
1:10 PM
1:40 PM
ELAPSED DEPTH TO
TIME WATER
_33_
55
56
57
58
59
60
61/1:01
62/1:02
63/1:03
64/1:04
65/1:05
70/1:10
75/1:15
80/1:20
85/1:25
95/1:35
105/1:45
115/1:55
130/2:10
145/2:25
160/2:40
175/2:55
205/3:25
74'-11"
50'-6"
36'-3"
29'-2„
24'-0"
22'-1"
21'-4„
20'-11"
20'-3"
19'-6"
18'-10"
17'-6"
17'-4"
17'-3"
17'-2"
17'-1 1/2"
17'-1"
17'-1"
17'-1"
17'-1"
17'-1/2"
17'-1/2"
17'-0"
Burning Mountains
Fire Protection District
Box236
Silt, CO 81652
Board
Ross Talbott - Chairman
Joe Montover
Norm Brown
Tom Voight
Gordon Witzke
Don Zordel - Chief
Stu Cerise - Assist. Chief
July 10, 1996
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: The Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision
After reviewing the utility plan, there are two changes that should be made. Both concern the fire -
hydrants in the culdesacs. The hydrant in the East culdesac should be moved out to the corner between
lots 16 & 17. The hydrant in the West culdesac should be moved out to between lots 4 & 5. The reason
for this is that if there is a fire in a culdesac we would like to pick up the hydrant before we reach the
fire.
All mains and other hydrants are within requirements. Water flow and pressures are all right as designed.
Thank you,
Donald L. Zordel, hief
Burning Mtns., FPD
4. Provide an analysis of agricultural impacts.
There will be no significant impacts on other agricultural properties because The
Rapids property is isolated by natural. physical barriers; the Colorado River to the
north and west. Garfield Creek to the east. and the high, steep slope across County
Road 335 to the south. In addition, most of the properties in the vicinity of The Rapids
are non-agricultural. Of the 19 adjacent property owners within 200 feet of The Rapids
(listed in Section VIII of the Preliminary Plan submittal), only 2 properties are
primarily agricultural. Most of the adjacent properties are 2-4 acre residential or
commercial parcels.
The only negative potential impact on agricultural properties would be conflicts with
agricultural vehicles on County Road 335. The amount of traffic generated by The
Rapids development is discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Impacts due to stray
dogs from the development is not considered to be a potential problem due to the
physical separation of the development from agricultural properties and due to the strict
dog control requirements in the Protective Covenants.
Tlir nrimar_y.,impact on agricultural properties will be due to the reduction in irrigation
diversions from the Moore Ditch. which has been used historically to irrigate The
Rapids property. The Moore Ditch is a senior irrigation water right on Garfield Creek.
which is an over -appropriated stream. A reduction in diversions from the Moore Ditch
as a result of The Rapids development will make additional water available for other
irrigation ditches that divert from Garfield Creek. Some of this water must be
bypassed to augment water use from the wells, but only the consumptive use portion of
the water must be augmented and only when there is a water right call on the Colorado
River. The net result is a significant amount of additional water (up to 1.5 cfs)
available for diversion from Garfield Creek during the irrigation season.