The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 CorrespondenceLOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP DAVID H. McCONAUCHY JAMES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQUIST-HEATH LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW IOI I GRAND AVENUE P. O. DRAWER 2O3O CLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8I602 Telephone: (97 0) 945 -226 I Facsimile: (97 0) 9 45 -7 33 6 lel@lklawfirm.com DENVER OFFICE:* WAZEE EXCHANGE BUILDING I9OO WAZEE STREET, STE. 203 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Olfice) f'[ii^]il:Hffig- . ^^ . F aaa. April 14,2004 TERESAL.HoCK APR152004 ED*ARD B' olszEwst' GA*F,ELD couNTy BU ILDING & PLANMruA FACSIMILE Steve Rippy, Town Administrator Town ofNew Castle P.O. Box 90 New Castle, CO 81647 SUSAN W. LAATSCH NICOLE D. GARRIMONE RECEIVEI) LEL:bsl Enclosure cc: Mark Bean, ilenc. Gene Hilton, w/enc. Roger Smades, P.E., w/out enc. Davis Farrar Western Slope Consulting 165 Basalt Mountain Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Re:The Rapids on the Colorado Site Application Dear Steve and Davis: As promised in my letter ofApril 13, 2004, enclosed is the engineer's letter confirming there is additional land at the site, and the proposed plant is capable of expansion to serve additional users. If you have any further questions, or desire additional information, please feel free to contact Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. 1fu- Lry"te)Leavenworth | :VWflior6\Rrpids-l407VIt6r\Rippy-Fur-2.wpd ttB l1 2004 2:llPttt LOYAL E, LEAVENWOR.TH SANDER N. K^R} DAVID H McCONAUCHY JA,MES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQUIST-HBATH LEAVT[l!1/ORTi] & KARP LEAVENWORTE & KABP, P.C. ATTORI{EYS AT LAW IOI I CRAND AVENUE P. O. DRAWERzO3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81602 Telephonc: (970) 945-226 I Facsimile: (970) 945-?336 lel@lklawfirrncom February 11,2004 NO 3BO t, t/ I DE}WER OFFICP:' WAZEE EXCTIANGE BUILDINC I9OO WA.AE STR-EET, STE. 203 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile; (303) 82-{-3997 s(Plcase direa all conespondance to our Glenwood Springs Olfice) SUSAN W, LAATSCH NICOLED. CARRIMONE AI.INIA S.ITENBERC MTCHAEI. }. SAVr'YEE TERESA L. HOCK EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Building & Planning Departrnent 108 Erh'Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81501 [i1 f'a6simile (384-3470) Re: Site Lo_qation Application of Rapids Dgvelopment Corporation Dear Mark: Based on a meeting on February 5,2AA4 with you, Gene Hilton, and rnyseld I am writing to request that the hearing currently scheduled for February l7,2OO4 before the Board of County Commissioners regardirrg the Rapids Developmont Corporation wa,stewater teafinent site application corrsideration be rescheduled for the first County Commissioner's meeting in MarcL At our meeting, you advised us that you would recommend disapproval of the site appiication because the size of the plant is inconsistent with densities provided in the Nsw Castle Three Mile Plau- You stated that the density contained in the Tovrn's plan is one unit p€r acre. Finally, you indicated that your recommendation to the Board ofCounty Commissioners would be different ifthe site application was consistent with the Town's proposed density of one unit per acre, and the proposed plaat m the site application was sized appropriately. For the foregoing reasons, we request that the mafter be rescheduled to the first County Commissioner's meeting in March so that we can submit an amendment to rhe site application consistent rvith our discussion on behalf of the applicant. We waive the requirement thai County act on the site application within 60 days and agree to a delay in the State of Colorado processing the applioation until it can be ammded and rwiewed by the County at thE Commlssioner's meeting in March, If for any reason my understanding is incorrect, please let me lsrow at onco. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C" LEL:bslcc: Dwain Watson, via fax (970/Z4g-7LgB) ,ifi0t LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP DAVID H. McCONAUCHY JAMES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQUIST-HEATH SUSAN W. LAATSCH NICOLE D, GARRIMONE ANNA S. ITENBERG MICHAEL J. SAWYER TERESA L. HOCK EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW IOII GRANDAVENUE P. O. DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8I602 Telephone: (97 0) 945-226t Facsimile: (97 0) 945-7336 lel@lklawfirm.com February I1,2004 DENVER OFFICE:* W AZEE EXCHANGE BUILDING I 9OO WAZEE STREET, STE. 203 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Office) Via Facsimile (384-3470)Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Buildine & Planning Department 108 8'h Suite 201 Clenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Dear Mark: Based on a meeting on February 5,2004 with you, Gene Hilton, and myself, I am writing to request that the hearing currently scheduled for February \J,2004 before the Board of County Con-rmissioners regarding the Rapids Development Corporation wastewater treatment siteapplication consideration be rescheduled for the first County Commissioner's meeting in March. At our meeting, you advised us that you would recomnend disapproval of the site application because the size of the plant is inconsistent with densities providei in the New Castle Three Mile Plan. You stated that the density contained in the Townis plan is one unit per acre.Finally, you indicated that your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners would be different if the site application was consistent with the Town's proposed iensity of one unit per acre, and the proposed plant in the site application was sized appropriately. F-or the foregoing reasons, we request that the matter be rescheduied to the first County Commissioner's nteeting in March so that we can subn'rit an amendment to the site application consistent with our discussion on behalf of the applicant. We waive the requirement th;i County act on the site application within 60 days and agree to a delay in the State oiColorado processin! the application until it can be amended and reviewed by the County at the Commissionei,s meetin! in March. If for any reason my understanding is incorrect, please let me know at once. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. LEL:bsl cc: Dwain Watson, via fax (9701248-7I98) l:Poq\Clictrls\Rapids- | {07\Lcxer$Bcari- Lwpd 231 No. 7th Strect / P.O.Boz7o- / Stlt' CO 81652 Phone: 9.70,-A?6-2963 / Far: 97O-876'2937 February 9,2004 Garfield County Building and Planning Attn: Mr. Mark Bean, Director 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mark: Thank you for discussing with me the project known as."The Rapids", a proposed subdivision within Garfield County. I understand that the project is platted for thiny- three (33) units currently, and thatihe applicant, Mr. Gene Hilton, wishes to increase the density. Mr. Gene Hilton and Mr. Russell Talbott approached the Town regarding potential attachment to the Town's wastewater colleiiion and treatment system, recently extended by the Re-2 School District to the coal Ridge High School, a mile and a half east of Silt, uiong State Highway 6. Mr. Hilton explained that the sewer line could be aligned along the Lower Cactus Vattey Ditch, south of Highway 6, until a point just south of the high school property, a distance of 3.5 miles. He claimed that there were even grants available for the Town to apply for in assisting with this type of construction of a regional wastewater system. lUr. Hltto, also stated that the developments are within five (5) miles from the Silt Town limits. Finally, Mr. Hilton claimed that the Apple Tree Mobile Home park could also be attached to the sewer line, and the two projects could pay the Town up-front for that capacity within oul system that Stillwater PUD had not yet fulfilled' After reading Mr. Hilton's report on the contents of this meeting, there are some items that Mr. Hilton misinterpret"d. th" Town staff informed Mr. Hilton and Mr. Talbott that the cost of an out-of-town sewer tap is $10,500 (triple the normal tap fee of $3,500, not $3,700), and no mention was made about tap fees increasing by 6%o each year' Staff advised Mr. Hilton and Mr. Talbott that theiurrent rate for in-town wastewater service is $3g.22per month, and escalates at a rate of 67o on January l, 2004 and on January 1' 2OO5,urd th"n 3%o each year thereafter. Out-of-town wastewater service is double the in-town rate, not triPle. Staff mentioned that there was a cost recovery to the School Distnct for the pipe that the District is installing (1.5 miles, not 3.5 miles), and that the cost recovery was based on the amount of capa-city that each proposed development would use, in tetms of the impact Town ol Silt of the development vefsus the size of the pipe' It is unclear where Mr' Hilton arrived at the $35/foot times 3.5 miles, for a total of $^:Z:,+00, since no figure was ever discussed' Mr. Hilton stated that the best location for installation of a sewer line would be the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch Easement, south of State Highway 6' Mr' Hilton states that the ditch company would not allow sewer lines in the ditch easement, but the Town has no knowledge that the ditch could forbid this alignment. And, while this may be the best location for Mr. Hilton, it appears from the Town's perspective that relatively few parcels could tap on, and therefore would not be a cost efficient venture for the Town' meaning that the Town would be responsible for a lot of sewer line with relatively few users to f,.ip puy the monthly maintlnance bill. This alignment could present a messy maintenance situation for the Town in the ,un-Jff months, as well' Mr' Hilton indicated that he had no desire to maintain 3.5 miles of collection main, and Silt citizens should not be unduly bur,Jeiiecl eiil-icr. Additionaily, the Town of Silt would not iikely apply for grants to install collection lines that *ouiO benefit residential units' as the chance for receiving such a grant would be extremely small in light of the current economy' Both Mr. Hilton's parcel and the Apple Tree Park are in excess of five (5) miles from the Town of Silt boundaries, in most developed locations,- and little less than five (5) miles from the Stillwater PUD eastem edge, alihough no utilities are in that location and are not proposed in that location for some time. It would appear that New Castle and these i"r"top-"nts could more easily form a symbiotic relationship' Philosophically, the Town of Silt supports a regional wastewater treatment system' and the Town appreciatesthe County', "fiort, in liiriting density in County subdivisions that may affect oirr",. to*., infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and interchanges. Wastewater SyStemS are extremely expensive, need round-the-clock maintenance and require a certified operatof. The Town of Silt would encourage further communication wiitr ttre developer ind the County regarding this issue' Thank you for this opportunity for the Town of Silt to comment on this project' Should you have any questi;n., pl"are do not hesitate to call Monday through Friday' from 8 a.m. to 5 P.m. SinceleiY, ,710y&e241"Y-W'L'L Janet G. Steinbach CommunitY DeveloPment Director Board of Trustees; Richard J' Aluise, Town Administrator; file 02-26.2004 03:5lpm Fton-Town oi l{ow Castlo 00'r s70984271 5 T-5r4 P 001/004 F-3sl Town of New Castle P,O, Box 9O New Gastle, GO 81il7 (970) 984-2371Phone (970) 984-2716 Fax FAX ozt26l03 Mark Bean, CountY Planner Steve RippY Town Administrator Date: To; From: RE: Rapids Development Corporation (RDC) Located in Garfield CountY Attached is a signed copy recommending Disapproval of the Wastewater Site Approval App lication concerning tlie Rapi ds Development. 03:52pm i t I ,i I 0 2-2 6-Z 004 !Jo t aDqd Frsm'Town ol Ngv Cartle gi098427l 6 T-5r4 P 004/004 F-391 Signatura of tss:[.lsil.EEus _vr- M!n18tfitnt AgEncY a. C, ^PPLICATION FOK STTE APPROVA_L-}'OR CONSTRUCTION OF: .t NEw DoliEiiiCwriii*nren TREATMENT PLANr tlit|efaellitywtlthclocltEdono?rdltrc(nllo0rhG.IhltBo*ntdorilrJlrrgcdbyrtcdcralo'illte|r8cn+,!(ttd;il;il; ;;i "i liil'eprr'*i';-;;ii' "gtncv't t'*t"* rnil'cc0m|'rPBdrrion' Rcccm mtndltlon o f govcrnmentrl rurhoritie'l Ptc0* rddtc$ tha fpllowing isrurs in your t'c^mmdtllhllor dcEi\iotr ArE lhe propo:crl tbciliticr uunsilrurl] sidr lJIc coflrurchcrxi's phrl rnd llly olh€r plari:' pol'cicr' ro&or rcgttationl it" *ft" t*' rntlur'trng tn( l0 i Fxcllity Phn or loti \\,nrcr eurliry Mrnrgco.or rd,irl;:;'#;' ii.-"iqr"r,,)'r tGu i*c aoy frrrrhtr commcntr or qu(trroni' Pl'rtc 'hil lr0l) 6r2-]J00. Rccotnmcnd Rcsommcn'J P-$g Aonr!'el DisDDrcYal Cotnmcnl C.luilt' N/1--,iirir@ I EGrtily rhut L rn flfirltlAf with l[ p .equirchcnB of thc 'RcSulrtlonr ron th( silt APPlicltioo Proc(s!"' Dnrl bitr c pottcd lhctitrintcsord'cgcwith'hcrcerrlcllor+. Antnglneerl"St;;;';tl;tcirutabyttrcrtgulrtirns'hu[ccnprtgrrcdrnrl ir ilclotcd' o"* t t,Utzt j*f,AU/A -s*,,ixr,i:T#- WQCD-h (Rcviscd 2/or ) FaBc I of'l hld t0:01:Z :eurg 692/9277 r4a6 lddt1 o^e5 :ol lelJe3 q^tsO ;urog T,,J af lte,r-Q-afiL 0e-26-2004 0B:El pm I 1o g a6e3 H FoBr 2 of 4 lddrg aeq5 ;oa Jelqj sr^Eo :uou From-Iown oi i,iorv Cast la gI098427t 5 APPLICATION FON SITE AP?ROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF: A NEw I,oMEsTIc WASTDWATER TREATMeNT rI.I,xr whsl is rhc dirtaoce dowrcrrctm tom rhc dirchargr ro rhc tl(arust orha poinr of divqrsion? ll Miler_- _ Nsme of User; Citv of Rinc_ Addrcss oIUs!r: ?oZldlroad rvq Whr( clliry hu rhs rrrponribility tor opcrrting thc proporcd loclliry? Thc Rrolrh on rhc Cqhrulo llomaoqcq,, _ whooHlfthclenduPo't{hi.hocfrcilirywit}trtconrrruglcd? Esdmrrcd glojoct ccr: tr617-?fi) _ who is finlocirlly rerpoodbtt ror the consarucilo[ rnd opcrllion of fic ficilrry? Rtillls Divdolmrrt co,oo?rrion Nrrner ond lddrcrrcr of lll municiprlitict ond *rtcr rrd./or roniorror dirlrrirs wilhiu J milcs dowrotr.sm orrhE pr$tro!<d plrlcwDter trslratcnt faciliry rilc. IIONE (Arlech r 6cPtrrtc ahca prp.r il nlcdr8/y) l2'lrthcfrcilityinrl0o.Jr'r,toodPhino,o&c'notg,!llr*l765-2 lf to, vhlt prccaurionr uc bcing lllcn? Hes thc fhod pllin tsgl drsigrur?d by rhc Cotordo W{cr Conrswltion Boord. Dcprrrmonr ofNtrrrul Rrtou.ca o, o$ar rga6y7 qplorrdo lryrtsr Cortrtvrtiolt Bolrd(,tg-ffi If [D. whrt ir thrt doignrtion? _ Plcsr' idcnri!, roy rdditional foctor thol m;thl hctp l,,c wercr Qurliry coarol Divisioa maJ<s sn iofcrmcd dacision m you, rpplicrtiDn for rit opprord- rionr for ISDS (erraar a rcpcrrr rhat prpr if rccurry) wQCD-3r (R*irrd 2/0t) hjrl io:0!:z :3ur[ t00e/92/z :€gPO T-514 P 003/004 F-39t ia th.opplir.nrroo@ iJo a agsd IddtH er+S :41 .!ar'pf slr.pc :tuo4 02-25-2004 03:!1ps Frcm-Tgsn cf Nev C:srts 07n0a/?71 a COLOP-A-DO DEPA&IMEN'I Ut P u tsu L rlt-Ar- r rr rutu ur r lUrrer Qurllty Conlrol Divlrlon ,1300 Cherry Crcck Ddvc SoulL Dtnvsl, Colondo 80i!,4Fl53fi T-5!4 ? AA2/AA4 F-391 ATPLTCATION FOR SITE AppBOvAL rOR CO,ilSTRUCTICN OE A NEW DOfoiESTiC WAST€WATE,R TREATMENT PLAT{T APPLICANT: Rrnirlr Descioonr$ni Co,-sarrrirrn (Rllct PHoNE: Ra!lLrtU{!_ A, l. a 6. r O:Bor r0 lilr CO llllt iild '0:0,:3 i3lu,_i ?ogc I of4 i'0031tue :tqrc ADDRI,SS: lt02 W.rr ArrDDhoo llrNa Ci?t', STATE, zr9: Li$IE!4a. Cclcnrdo- 80!201{!! Conrullirrg Enginccr ilifiilr r'lflri,rfE IaE _ _ Phonr: _(3_g!Llf}!.!!!___ AdCrsr: j{99^lue!! Cdh! Alcnuc, P0 Bor 151300 Ciiv. Sr5li- Zi6: Leke*eC. CnlaEdo. l0?13 SumEr'-r' ofirio-m.ti6d ?errrdfuEie? +sr!!B!ter , rErrnprtf t.nl: frEporcd tacrtian (l,cgal Dcrcdptioo): llt, --, i/t, SEcsroir a ?c*ns6ip 65_ Rangc: ILLL Co$!y: _.lSriliELl ?1rye and cep*iry of u-+r::r3ar &riliry prcposed M$or ProcE6i$ Urcd lEggElljiEBfl9lLg,ilq!!,r (SBR.|. Atoeh r mep of t|* arer, which i+clu4cs rle following:(a) S-mitc rottius: rrl ravlgc rrqrmcnr plans, lifr rrrionr, ead domesric rlrcr Ecppty inrrt?r.(b) l'milc ndiut: hrhiobk Luildiagr, lslriro or pubtic ond pnvrrc pouble wrrcr wiils, lnd rn rpproximerc iadicaiion of ,.hc ropognp!:y, '. - Mrpf, trc includcd in Apprndir D of rhir rctron. Elllucat disposel; SufosG diichilEe ro wercrcoumc (nrnrt) Co!*^ado Rivcr EvrFol!tion Otilcr iii6r); Stlrcwoltrqu.lityclo$ifiortiooofrracivangwrErcourrs(r)i AoIif!Cold, Rccrclaonir-WntErSrpply.AEr;csttutr Propoocc Elllucn! Liml!$iotrs dcvcloncd in conlunslion wirh rhc wolgr euoliry conrrol Diririon: EOD1 -mB/l sS --__---- ngl Fcel Colifonc .-- /100 lrrl Totrl Rcsiduel Chlorilc ...-.......-_ mg, lmmnie _ mgid Odrcr Wi!! c SEte tr, f'rd$r! grtnr4oon bc rourlrl tg fintnEc ony porrion ofrht pmject? No lllfrni zoni$8 &f siie aaa? AEricrlrurluIEEidcnlii!./Rutrl fLfflrv f ARXD) _ _ __ Zonrng within r I.milc ndius of rirc? AI. ARRD^CG. OS (SEdorr|nr MDr in_anDcndix M whlt ir u! dasunce dormflrcrm from rhc dischrrgc r rhc ncarar donlelric wrrcr $urFry inukc? -_}@5 ,-'l , lC, IJar,e of $r14!p llur of Srlr _ _ Addrcs of Srrpplyl wQeD-l! (Rcvircd tr/O1) Hydnulic: 60-000 grU&r Prscnt PE; 0 Dqign PE; _ jlfi=;[@ _ LErrl,on of Fxiliay: OrSuiE: r tS lbs, BOD/drv ?i D6r^€5$c: J00 % lndugirt Town oJ Silt 200\ February 27,2004 231 No. 7ilr 96o., / p.O. Box ZO / Sltt, CO 81682Phone: 9zo-Bzo_2g5,a / rax, 6zo-_6 ia_zssz Colorado Department of public Hearth and EnvironmentAttn: Mr. Dwain Watson 222 S.6th Street, Room 232 Grand Junction, CO gl50l Dear Mr. Watson: Garfleld county Building and planning Department, as weri as the appricant, haveinformed the Townof Sirt that the prolect kro*n as ,,The Rapids,,, a proposedsubdivision within Garfield county, is platted ror trrlrty-ttiree (33) unirs currently. Thesetwo entities also explained to the Townof Silt that the'applicant has requested increaseddensity. Mr' Gene Hilton and Mr. Russell ralbott approached the Town regarding porentialattachment to the Town's wastewater colleiiion and treatment system, recently extendeclbv the Re-2 Schoor District ro rhe coar Ridge mgrr sJrool, ;;il;";;; ;;iilrrt or S,t,along state Highway 6. Mr. Hilton explainld that the ufign-"rt of the sewer line couldbe along the Lower^cactus valley Ditch west of his parci and south of Highway 6, untilapointjustsouthofthehighschoolproper-ty,adistanceof3.5miles. HeclaimedthattheTown could apply for grants that assist with-thrs type of const.uction of a regionalwastewater system' Mr. Hilton also stated that the developments are within five (5) mrlesfrom the Silt Town.li-'J: Finally, Mr. Hilton claimecl thai the sewer line could also servethe Apple Tree Mobire Home park, rocated just to the east of ,.The Rapids,,project. Headded that the two projects could pay the Town up-front fo. that capacity within ours)'stem that Stillwarer pLID had not yet fulfilled. Mr' Hilton sLrbmitted a report to Gadield County, with his interpretations of staff,scomments on the proposal, following the meeting. After reading Mr. Hilton,s reporr onthe contents of this meeting, I discoired that MrI Hitton misinterpretecl some itemswithin the discussion' The Town staff informed Mr. Hilton and Mr. Talbott that the costof an out-of-town sewertap is $10,500 (tnple the normal tap f.ee of $3,500, not g3,700),and staff did not state that tap f-ees would increase by 6i, each year. Staff advised M'.Hilton and Mr' Talbott that tire current rate for in-town wastewater service is $39.22 permonth' and escalates at a rate of 6vo onJanuary 1,2oo4una on January L,2o05,and then3vo each yenr thereafier. out-of-town wastewater service is double the in-town rate, nottriple. stal'f mentioned that there is i.l cost recovery to the school Drstrict fbr the sewer main thatthe District is installing (1.5 miles, not 3.5 miles), based on the amount of capacity thareach proposed development would use, in tems of the imfact of the development versLrs - the size of the pipe. It is unclear where Mr. Hilton arrived at the $35/foot times 3.5 miles,for a toral of $323,400. Staff discussed no specific figure. Mr' Hilton stated that he believed that the best location for installation of a sewer mainwould be the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch Easement, south of State Highway6. Mr.Hilton states that the ditch company would not allow sewer lines in ttre oitctr easement,but the Town has no knowledge that the ditch could forbid this alignment. And, whilethis may be the best location for Mr. Hilton, it appears from the Town,s perspective thatrelativeiy few parcels could tap on, and therefore would not be a cost efficient venture fbrthe Town' The Town would be responsible for an extensive length of sewer line withrelatively few users to help pay the monthly maintenance bill. This alignment couldpresent a messy maintenance situation for the Town in the run-off months, as well. Mr.Hilton indicated that he had no desire to maintain 3.5 mires of collection main, and staffstated to Mr. Hilton that the Town citizens should not be unduly burdened either. The Town of Silt would not likely go to the time ancl expense to apply for grants to installcollection lines that would benefit iesidential units, as the chance ior r...iuing such agrant would be extremely- small in light of the current economy, and arguably the grantwoLrld only benefit o-ut-of-tow, pu..ils. Both Mr. Hilton's parcel and the Apple TreePark are in excess of five (5) miles trom the Town of silt boundanes, in moiidevelopedlocattons, and little less than flve (5) miles from the stillwarer puD eastem edge,although no utilities are in that location and are not proposed in that location fbr sometime' It would appear that New castle and these oevetopments could more easily form asymbiotic relationship. The Town Board of Trustees has stated publicly that they are nota govemment in support of suburban sprawl, in that the extension of service lines toservice Garfield County residential subdivisions would necessarily benefit the Town ofSilt. Philosophically, the Town of silt supports a regional wastewater treatment system, andthe Town appreciates the county's efiorts in limiting density in county subdivisions thatmay aff'ect other Town infrastructure, such as roads,"b.lag"r'anai;#;;; wastewater systems are extremely expensive, need round--the-clock maintenance andrequire a certified operator. The Town, in builcling the new wastewater treatment plant,has planned fbr its own measured growth for the iext fifieen ro twenry years. Enclosed is the CDPF{E ref'erral fbrm regarding application fbr..Srte Approval forconstruction of a New Domestic wastewater Treiiment prant,,, comprete with theTown's recommendation for disapproval. The fbrm incorrectly states that the City ofRitle is the next domestic water iniake for domestic water off the colorado River.ActLrally' the Town of Silt is the next clomestic water intake off the Colorado, just five (5)miles downstream from the location of the proposed wastewater plant. Thank you for this opportunity tor the Town of siit to comment on this project. Shouldyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Monday through Fnclay, from g er.m. to 5 p.m. Sincerely, -..-\/,4tL{\LKT1< Janet G. Steinbach ,rtbtJ"- Community Development Director Enclosures cC: Board of rrustees; Richard J. Aluise, Town Administrator; Mark Bean, Director ofBuilding and Planning, Garfield County; file - -) lv1Al'(.29,2004 3:40PMl LEAVINl{r0RIF & KARP LEAVEI\WORTH & KAtr{P, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LA\v - N0.283 ?, 1i2 With cc to; Rapid Development CoqporatiouFax: (303)T9g-t750 From: Lee Leavenworth X ORTGINAL SENT BY U.S. MAIL DENVEROFFICE:T WAZEE EXCHANGE BUILDING tg},wAZEE STREET, STE. 203 DENVER, coLOnADo 80202 Telephonc: (303) 825-399j Fecsimile: (303 ) 825-3997 '.(Please direct ell eonc.tptdence to ott Glenwood Springs Olfrce) With cc to: Janet Steinbach, Town of SiltFax 8?6-2937 - ORICINAL NOT SENT LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTT{ IOI I GRAI{D AVENUE S^NDER,N. K^RP P. O, DRAWERzO3ODAVIDH.McCONAUGHY GLENWOODspRINcS,COIORADOSI602 JAMES S. NeU Terephonc (976)945-226r NICOI.ED. GARRIMONEffill^:trXffit MNR!e?uu" TERESA L. HocK rrrr ' ^..r tNlY ED*ARD B' oLszEwsKI Btt$kb?i'f,it*t*o To: Fax: Mark Bean 3E4-3470 FACSIMILE TRAI.ISII{ITTAL SEEET Date: March 29,2004 With cc to: Darrid Farrar, Town of New Fan: CastIe 984-27t6 Nrunber of pages ro be transmitted: -Z (including cover page) Docr:nent Description: Letter re: site Location Applioation of Rapids Development Corporation REITiIARKS: NoTE: If you encotmter any difficrrlfy-in receiving the total number ofpages indicatedabovs PLEASE CALL (97o)g4s-226r A-s sooNAS possllilE, Brenda Operator THIS FACSTMILE TRANsMrssroN Is srn.rcrLy CoMIDENTTAL AI'rD rs TNTENDED oNLy FoR TEEINDTVIDUALORENTTTYNAI{f,DABovB rnvounavnne-CnnrprnlsrAcsrMILETRA!{sMrssroNIN ERROR' PLEASE Norrrr rHIs OFI'ICE IMMEDIATETiiS [rruRN THE TRA]rsMtssIo]i ro usAT fiIE ABOVE ADDR.ESS. THANK YOU. l[(AOiFuUrriALrcIFAdllc.-y&G LE H [/4R,29.20()4 3:40pi\4 LOYAI E. LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP DAVID H. McCONAUGIIy JAMES S. NEU ruLrE C. BERQUTST-HEATH susANw. L-d4,rscH NICOLE D. GARzuMONE A}.INA S. ITENBERG MICHABLJ, SAWYER TERESA L HOCK EDWA.RDB. OISZEWSKI Mark Bean, Director Re: Dcar Mark: LEAVI[jl,{ORTI & KARP LEAVTTYWORTE & I(ARP, P.C. ATTORI{EYS AT LAW IOII GRANDAVENUE P. O. DRAWER2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (970) 9 4S-n5 I Facsimilc; (970) 945-73 3 6 lel@Iktaufimrcom March 29,2004 NO, 283 P, 2/T DEN\4BR OFFICE:T WAZEE EXAIA}.IGE BUILDING 1900 wAzEE STREET, STE. 203 DElryE& coLoRADo 80202 Telcphone: (303) 8Zj-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 '(Please direcl all conupondence to our Glenwd Springs Ofice) \{tA FAX (38+3470)Garfield Cormty Bu:ldrng & planning Departuneot 108 8d', Suite 201 Gleriwood Springs, CO 81601 As you lnow, lrPid" Dwelopmant Corporatiou fRapids') submitted a site applicationdated Decernber 2003 for a proposed wastewater trearme,nt facilfu io be located at the Rapids onthe Colorado Subdivision- As a result ofcomments we received aom the Towns ofNew castle andSilt' as well as discussions with your offi.co, the site application has beon amended and resubmitted.The form of the amendmerrt consisted of the orijna appucarion with a new section entitled"Addendr:ur No- 2" which is dated February 17,2d04. eiiendum lrio. 2 aso in"orporrt"s somechanges that were md: ,: the site application following its original submittal, as well as addirionalchanges' Please be adrrised that Addendum No- z contots orr.r tt e text of the December 2003submrttal:1 all respects. In other words, ifthere is an inconsistmcy between Addendum No. 2 anda portion ofthe original text, Addeaducr No.2 dated February 17 ,2o}4coatols and supercedes thetext. Hopefully this clarifies auy issues regarding the format of the amcnded applieatireation.Ifyouhave arry questions, feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, LEA\aENWORTH & KARP, P.C. LEL:bsl cc: Rapid Development Coqporation, via fax David Fanzr, Tovrn of New Casfle, via fax JanEt Steinbach, Tona of Silt, via fax ^ff, lrw6lE*r9id! t.dtads6nqd tr viaWe are sending you the following items: Copies Description Agency/Firm: Attention: P}rone #: These are transmitted: tr for approvalE for review and commentE for signature Remarks: MARTIN / MARTIN trONSULTING ENGINEERS Planning Dept. - Courthouse plaza 108 8'h Street, #213 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Mark Bean - Planning Director LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: February 25,2004 Project No.: 16454.C.01 Project Title: Rapids on the Colorado tr Overnighttr CourierB Mail nnq tr originals EI Reproductionsn oisk tr signed & sealedn reviewed! after loan to us E for your use E for your recordE as requested Mark, This revised Site Application is hereby submitted for your review and comment, including an addendum andall attachments' Please l'eel free to cail with any qr".iio.r, or concerns at (303) 431-6100.Best Regards, Signed: copy: GISMADES\Rapids\Wp\trans\Co planning 2_25_04.doc REVISED Sit. T- Revised 02/03 12499 West Colfax r p.O. Box 151500 Civil Department Fax; 303-431-4OZg . r Lakewood, Colorado 80215 e Telephone: Structural Department Fax: 303-43 l-6g66 . 303-43 1-6 1 00 . www.martinmartin.com Marketing Department F ax: 303-456-9923 FAX Number of Fages: 1Z,(including this coyer sheet) Date: 3/4/rt TO:(g€ bluanu,ar-il FROM: FAX #: Cornrnents: - Tstt ea--l,42- Garfield county Building & planning Department 108 gth Stueet, Suite 20{ Glenwood Springs, CO g1601 (e70) e4s_8212 Fax # (970) 384-3470 - '7?i 'r'/rail'^7q{t*ryer'?7,-,Uf '-'/A )5c v4--a J ) --)4/-'r; PLANNING STAFF MEMORANDUM STEVE RIPPY - NEW CASTLE TOWN ADMINISTRATOR & NEW CASTLE TOWN COUNCIL DAVIS FARRAR - WESTERN SLOPE CONSULTING SUBJECT:COMMENTS ON SITE LOCATION APPLICATION AND ENGTNEERING REPORT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - THE RAPIDS ON THE COLORADO 212612004 JEFF SIMONSON, DAVID MCCONAUGHY, MARK BEAN DATE: The Town of New Castle received a site location application and engineering report referral dated December 2003 from Martin/Martin, Inc., consulting engineers. The site application review process requires referral of the application to cities or towns if the proposed facility is to be located within three miles of the municipal boundaries in an unincorporated area of the County. The proposed development, "Rapids on the Colorado" is located in the Southwest l/4 of Section 4 and the Southeast ll4 of Section 5, Township 6 South, Range 91 West, of the 6th PM in Garfield County, Colorado approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the New Castle municipal boundary. The applicants are proposing to rezone 97.269 acres of property cunently zoned A/R/RD (AgriculturaVResidential/Rural Density) to Planned Unit Development (PllD) to allow development of 194 single-family residential dwelling units. This density requires construction of a wastewater treatment facility that is proposed for a design flow of 0.060 million gallons per day (MGD). The developers are proposing to form a special district to operate both the water and proposed wastewater treatment facility for the project. The wastewater treatment plant proposed service area and the treatment facility are intended to be expandable to accommodate future development of a 64-acre parcel located southeast of the proposed PIID. The site application is silent with regard to proposed densities on this adjacent 64-acre parcel. It is assumed that the adjacent property will be developed at densities similar to those proposed for Rapids on the Colorado. This project is located approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the Appletree Mobile Home Park wastewater treatment plant and approximately 2.5 miles downstream from the Town of New Castle wastewater treatment facility. The report notes that Town of New Castle personnel indicated that "New Castle will not serve any consumers that are outside of the planned a service area, nor will New Castle make any future enlargements to the existing service area. New Castle is not willing to entertain any discussions regarding connection ofoutside users." Therefore, the engineers have concluded, "no further analysis of this consolidation alternative is warranted." A similar finding was made with regard to a connection to the Appletree Mobile Home Park wastewater treatment plant. Other existing wastewater treatment plant connection alternatives considered include the Town of Silt and the proposed Garfield High School just east of the Town of Silt. P rooo s ed site lo catio n. Relationshio to the New Castle Comorehensive Plan. The New Castle comprehensive plan identifies the subject property as CDLR (Cluster Low Density Residential: I dwelling unit/acre density rate; uses: clusters of 5-10 with/open space, parks, open space or irrigated pasture around). The purpose ofthis designation is "to provide for suburban type development while maintaining open space for preservation of natural area views, wildlife habitat, pastures or the like." The comprehensive plan specifies, "County Road 335 between the River Bend Subdivision and Garfield Creek needs widened for safer traffic flow, with widened right-of-way where necessary." New Castle envisions the development of the subject property with cluster development that retains open spaces, irrigated fields and wildlife habitat. The plan recognizes the importance of agricultural lands and open spaces that are to be retained by use of "clustering". This concept would involve lots that are smaller than otherwise allowed by standard zoning that are clustered or arranged at the edges of larger expanses of land to preserve "the present open use whether for public or private ownership." This design allows for efficient development of roads and utilities with shorter distances needed to provide more attractive and desirable neighborhoods. The site application for The Rapids on the Colorado proposes a density twice that identified in the New Castle Comprehensive Plan. The sketch plan included in the site application is not based upon a clustering concept described in the comprehensive plan. a Relationshio to the Garfield Countv Comorehensive plan. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan proposes a maximum density of one dwelling unitper two acres and shows the project within the Town of New Castle sphere of influence and 3-Mile Area Boundary. The existing 1997 County approval for 1 dwellingunitl2acres conforms to the County comprehensive plan maximum density. The County plan also recognizes the ,,urban area of influence" around the Town of New Castle that specifiei densities of I dwellin g urut/2 acres designed in a cluster configuration. The County comprehensive plan strongly discourages proliferation of private water and sewersystems. The proposed project includes a single development private water and sewer system that may include an additional 64 acres adjacent to the project. ihe utility system is proposed tobe operated by a special distnct. This proposal constituies an additional proliferation of a privateutility system and creation of a separate governmental entity for the sole purpose of operating theutility. Identified Need. The site application does not include a detailed discussion of an identified public need for theproposed wastewater treatment facility. It appears the need for this system is driven by theapplicant's desire for 194 dwelling units. This density precludes utilization of individual septicsystems' The application states that communications were made with the owner of the Appleiree Mobile Home Park about possible consolidation with the existing packaged treatment fu.ihty utthat site. Apparently, the Appletree Mobile Home Park owner was not receptive to this concept. The developer's interest in increased density and an inability to connect to the existing packaged treatment facility at Appletree Mobile Home Park should not and do not constitute an identifiedpublic need. Proiect Related Impacts. Traffic. The proposed 194-unit development will generate close to 2,000 vehicle trips per day onCounty Road 335. This volume will substantially increase traffic impacts on the county road thatis designed for rural traffic volumes. The increase in traffic will alsosignificantly impact the I 70interchange at New Castle. The New Castle comprehensive plan idintifies the need for roadimprovements on County Road 335 that include incieased width of pavement and widened right-of-way to accommodate the traffic. The site application is silent on this issue. Density, The proposed 194-unit project is four times the density anticipated by the Garfield CountyComprehensive Plan and twice the density anticipated Uy ifre New Castle- Comprehensive plan. This density is not consistent with the long-range comprehensive planning for this area. Conclusions and Recommendation. The proposed 194 unit Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision is not consistent with the long-range comprehensive planning for the New Castle 3-mile planning area, the New CastleComprehensive Plan "cluster low density residential" classifiiation and the Garfield Countv comprehensive plan specified density of I dwelling unit/2 acres. The proposed wastewater treatment plant site application does not identify a demonstrated need for the facility beyond the financial interests of the developer. The site application includes some investigation of consolidation of wastewater treatment works, but the application does not exhaust all available options beyond initial contacts and general cost calculations for consolidation of the proposed wastewater treatment plant with the Town of Silt and Appletree Mobile Home park. The proposed facility represents continued proliferation of a private wastewater treatment system and a special district. The impact of the proposed density on County Road 335 constitutes an adverse impact to this rural access road that has inadequate pavement width and width of right-of-way. The traffrc volumes will also add to traffic congestion that already exists at the I 70 interciange in New Castle. Staff recommends denial of the proposed wastewater site application for the Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision. 4 LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP DAVID H. McCONAUGHY JAMES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQUIST.HEATH SUSAN W. LAATSCH NICOLE D. GARRIMONE ANNA S.ITENBERG MICHAEL J. SAWYER TERESA L. HOCK EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW IOI I GRAND AVENUE P. O. DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8I602 Telephone: (97 0) 9 45 -226 I Facsimile: (97 0) 945-7336 lel@lklawfirm.com April 20,2004 DENVER OFFICE:* W AZEE EXCHANGE BUILDING IgOO WAZEE STREET, STE.203 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood SPrings OfJice) Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8'h' Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mark: I am writing to confirm that the meeting for the Board of County Commissioners on The Rapids on the Coloiado site application has been continued to May 3, 2004. During the interim, the appllcant will work with the Town of New Castle to see if the Town's concerns can be addressed. If we make progress, we will keep you posted. Also, although there is certainly confusion as to when the 60-day review period will expire, on behalf of the applicant I hereby waive any claim that the 60-day period will expire prior to the May 3, 2004 Commissioner meeting (and appropriate period in which the County can formulate its comments in writing). If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. LEL:bsl '1r^\t" '"'O [:""r*'nn Development Corporation lrO004\Clienrs\Rapids- I 40lldlssBcan-4.wpd APR,13,1004 2:44PM TIAVEN!|OR]I1 & KARP LEAYENWORTIT & KARP, P.C. ATTORII{EYS AT LAW N0, 606 p t/h LOYAL E. LEAVEIIWORTH I01I GRAND AVBNUE DENVER OFFICE:r SANDERN. KARP P. O. DRAWER2O3O WAEE D(CI{ANGEBUILDING DAVIDI{. MCCONAUCHY GLBNWOOD SPRINGS, COLoturDO 81602 r9O0 WAZEE SIRgSr, SIE.203 JAMES S. NEU Telcphone: (970)945-2261 DEN\ER. COLORADO 80202 ruLIEc' BERQUIS*HEAT', '*il8ilf##:':"u if,*t;lifiiif,-#; sUsANw. I4+TscH -.1I{S .(ptease dbea all co*espondence NICOLE D. GARRIMONE .{ 1r*( I \ l) "- @ o,, Glenwod Springs Ofice)ffiit*ffitr* BI,t'"- aAi ffiY^i#;lffiEwsKr ApR 1B tu". BlEiffi**rrrrA,,SHEEr Date: April 13,2004 David Farrar 963-7172 Roger Smades, P.E. (303) 431-402E Number of pages to be transmitted: -!_ (including cover page) To: Fax: With co to: Fa:r: 'il/ith cc to: Fax: From: Steve Rippy 984-2716 Mark Bean 384-3470 Geoe Hilton (303) 7e8-17s0 Lee Leavenworth With cc to: Fax: To: Fax: Docuruent Descriptiou REMARKS: Letter re: Site Location Application of Rapids Development Corporation NOTE:If yorr cncounter any difficuby in receiving the total number of pages indicated aboye, PLEASE CALL (97o)94s-2261 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Operaror X ORIGINAL SENT BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL NOT SENT TFIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION IS STRICTLY CONFIDENTI.AL AI{D IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE II{DryIDUALORENTITYNAMf,DABOYI.IFYOUflAVERf,CEIVEDTflISfACSIMILETRANSIUISSI0N IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY TEIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY AND RETURN THE TRA.NSMISSION TO US AT TEE ABOVE ADDRESS. TIIANK YOU. IMtrAc,iaufttilltM+rF6B.sftls.loFd*l,FC Brenda APR. 13.2004 2:44PlV LEAViN\{ORTH & l(ARP LOYALE LEA\E}iWORTTI SAI.JDERN. KARP DAVIDI+. McCONTIUGIIY JAMES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQI.]IST.HEATH SUSAN $T. I.{ATSGT NICOLED. GARRIMONE A}TNA S. ITENBERQ MICIiAEL J. SAWYER TERESA L. HOCI( EDWARDB. OLSZEWSKI Stw+ Rippy, Toutrl Admiuisetor Town ofNew Castle P.O. Bo(90 New Castle, CO 81647 LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORIYEYS AT LAW lOII GRANDAVENUE P. O. DRAWER 2O3O GITMI|OOD SPRNGS, CPLORADO EI6O2 Telephone: (97 0) I 45 -226 I Facsimile: (n 0, I 45 -7 336 Id@klau&ra.com April 13,2004 lTA FACStrIIILE N0,606 P, 2/5 DEIWER OFFICE:' WiZ,EE EXCHANGEBUILDTNG I9OO \i/AZEE STREET, STE.2O3 DEI.TVER, COLORADO E0202 Tclcphone: (303) 825'3995 Facsimile: (303) 825+997 "(Pleasc direct all arrespondeacc to our Glcnwood Springs Ollice) Davis Farrar Western Slope Consulting 165 Basalt Mounuin Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Re: Ihc Raoids on the Colorado Site Application Dear Stove and Davis: At 1rcu requesE the coruultlng elgineer for The Rapids on the Colorado Wastewater Treatment Facilify Site Application has analyzed the costof extending service for The Rapids Development to &e ToumofNewCastle'steatrnentplaut. Enolosedisalotteranallzingthosocosts. Asyoucanses,thecost of an exteusion to New Castle is approximarely $2,2 million, wheress a facility can be built at The Rapids for $.66 millioa. We did not afilyze the cost ofgoiug to the intersection (to connect to the Riverside PIID line te be constructed) because the breakeven point (given the cost of a Iine in the Counry road vgrsus a rivor crossiug) is approximately .4 of a mile, and the additional distance to ttre intersectiou is well over a milo. In other words, it is cheaper to go under the rivor than continue qp to the intersection. The site application review is tentatively scheduled before the Board of CountyCommissioners for Monday, April f9, 2004. We would very much like to tetainthat schedule. Could you please send a letter to the Coutty at )our earliest conveuience? I have also asked the engiteer to confirm that thsre is additioual land at the site, and the proposed plant is capable of expansiorq to sewe additional users. That letter will be forthcoming shortly. If you have any further questions, or desire additional information, please feel free to coutagt me. Verymrlyyours, LEAVEN-WORTH & KARP, P,C. LEL:bsl Enchsure cc: Mark Bean, w/enc. Gene Hiltoq #snc. NNl6@pl@lmtsNhsJfrct.td worth MARTIN / MARTIN cot{lut.Tl H 6 ENS| r{eERls eprAPR, 13, 20041 2:a5PMl AP ri. 12. lou+ I ; i4PM t'' LEAVi[]ll0RTH & KARP MAil IN i MA[[r'r N0,606 Iltu. ryy6 P -O2P, 3i'r. I Mr. Lec Leevcnryqr[ Atroillcy Lcattowonh & KarP' P'C.' 10lI G€fid*t en$c P.0. D[i]ru2030 Glcnrvood SgriogP, Coloredo 81602 Rc: ThqB.aryi& sthc ColoraAo q/wTf ., Dgo!&-Lcavfitucdh: fsruqprcstad by Genc Hilt(n' is thc opinion of cots fot thc 'rriou: scarltios for sc*zgc ullltoCnt for the rborre rcfcrcrred ProPci. Conspuctiaga s?wrgc lit rt t[e wcsttad of t]: RrPi& dcvelqocat aldpurryrot thc 3cvagE to Ncw Ostlc's".tn*.itar-i*bai"g mcLundtrd tvcrrly orlc 021) trp ftcs is $2'200'765 (sce encioead sLcst). 't! nL ee*artca so$ for thc RaPids to connccr ro tbc Silrlrieb Schoot line lb:t yrll g9-to lhc Sih 1rilffi; ;"b.dd on tbc i*r.ry +t ed&rdurn, iucludiag 31p fecs l5 52,604,500- MAX{fh{nrAnfIN'r lrtcst oprnion of costs a constructiqr a WllrTF for the Rapids at ihe {tuelop,mant is tstirntcd to bc 1661,392 t showa in $rc ddmdrm' As shown abovg ir is mxc ccpoornicrl fq' the R+i& to const'u4 rhcir olE wrset"sier rcatmcntplurr SincaclY' fi,Jate Ra8irB- Soe&s P.E- hirrciPal httacpucot lRlISoF J lt i 1.tt tr3" cc|fil ^Yf,irE . ,'O-tor t a l ioE . L^'!3Earl' EoEalC lot tt ' f a''':! r -' I gO I AprAPR. 13.2004:: 2:4iPM LEAVEN!|0RTH & KARP [A (n( D /iRP-03 Gompariaon of UuasEWaterTrcatrrentAlbraatl-ves For 1Zl Units AtThe Rapidt on the Colorado Subdivirion T,6p Foes 03700 Per Tap X 3 Outside Torrn Limirs X 121 (Jnits River Croasing rt25 FmtX P0OlFoot Pomp Stit;on duo To LIne Under River Pipeline Cost 3.75 Miles X 5,280 X SSS, foot Dua to Weter tssues Cost Recorrry Sctrool 3.50 Mites X 5,2m X $it6 / Foot x tf2 Genorator Baclr-l,lp to Po\yor Pump Station ln Emorgencies cost of Easoments tlot corrsidered Duc to High c6st of Altgrnetiue Cpst of Tepe t Line Extenrion.Fmm Rar:ar io lrlory Catte Tap Fees $5,000 PerTap Ouhitte Tof,n Limibx 121 Unirc S Locara 88SB F€3t of Lin6 in CR 335 X $67 Ft Lines (Duplicato) Locered on fte Rapidr SuMivision 4.Bdt X $32 River Cmssing 40O Fe6r X $OSOrFoor Lft Station and Controls Eleclrical Bnilding Over ltVWfF Fecilities Gqnofiator Bacl(-Ug to PouEr Purg Slation ln Enrergence lrrErsfate,T0 Bore Enginecrjng CosS of Waeb Watef ,TrEatment Facil-ttlr at Repids H-ea$fldrks sequeng;ng Bactr Rsaclor Seguancing llirEh Roader Basin U ltrayiolet D isinfoc{ion Sludce Holcting Stendby Gsnerator OufallStructure BlowerEandrBullding Buildirp; Coverirro p lant Sita.Work, ' ' Yard Piping Elactrioal 1 lnstrumsntation Ouffell Linc CQntingsncicc 3 aro+soo - s 1,343,100 E!r,000 100,000 699.000 323,400 60,m0 3 a&?clt 605.m0 596,166 153,000 140.t[o 150,(XrO 16,O00 75,000 50,0@ 290,(80 123,(nO 3 Bcr.3e2 -- 28.0m 138,(xx) 126,0m 2G.mO 3Em0 35,000 6,Om 24.ltx) 120,m 18.000 19,0m 3A,O(X) 4.5(p 47,192 11 ,,- .t tii: "];, , ,. r, t/VlrtlTFComparisonr NC Silt RDC !r,, '. '. k PR.13,200 2 4r?\-. l-EAvil\w0F-- & (ARf-ktl \ftt\ f N0,606 P,5i5P-04 . !.) t LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOYALE. LEAVENWORTH 1OI1 GRANDAVENUE SANDER N. KARP P. O. DRAWER 2O3O DAVID H. McCoNAUGHY GLENwooD SPRINGS, CoLoRADo 81602 JAMES S. NEU Telephone: (970) 945-2261 ruLIE c BERQuIsr-H'^[na*t Sm[#'"gJfxff"" SUSAN W. LAATSCH ll.r,lnlti.smYil' ^PR 1 u 'ooo^*, 1s.2004 MICHAEL J. SAWYER -.r, r-\ C.OUN\ r- ;"tri#"3l$'*'*' 3,}t'15"k3? i'lt''stuc DENVER OFFICE:* W AZEE EXCHANGE BUILDING IgOO WAZEE STREET, STE. 203 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood SPrings Office) Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8'h' Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Dear Mark: At your request, enclosed are five copies of the supplemental documents for the Rapids Development Corporation site application for a proposed wastewater treatment facility to be located at the Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me' Very trulY Yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. LeavenworthLEL:ejg cc: Rapid Development Corporation, via fax l: 0004\ClicorsRrpids_ I 407[ctlcrs\BcaD_] ]pd SEP, 9, 200t I :5BPM .t I'YAL E. I^EA\'EI{trORIII SA}IDERN.KARP DAVIDIL McCONAUGIIY JA]UES S,NEU STISAI{W. LAATSCE NICOLED.GARRIMONE A\II{AS- TTENBERG MICHAELJ. SAWYER CASSIAR FUR]"[AN LEAVENWORTH & KARP LEAYEDIWORTE & KARP, P.(: ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 L4'iE ST?€BT, surrE 200 P. O-DR.ASrER2030 GLENWOOD SPRJNGS, COLORADO 8 1 602 Tclcphoue (Y70) 945-D6l Facsimils (91 0) 945 -7 33 6 lel@Jklaurfirnclm Septernber 9,2005 DEI\I\IER OFFICE:* 7OO WASEINGTON ST. SlE 702 DEN\{ER" COLORADO 80203 Telephoue: (303) 825-3995 Fgcsiroile O03) CZ5-399'1 1 (Please dirqt all conespndene to ot Glemtood S?rings afrce) Vis f,'2ssimile (303/691-7 7 0A) ard tr'irst Class MsiI N0,002 P, ?/14 Mr. KentKuster Colorado Deparment of Public Health ud Enviromreart Water Qudity Coutol Divisioo 4300 Cherry CreekDrivg S. Donver, CO 80245-1530 Re: Rapids on tha Colorado Dear Mr, Kuste,r This letter is inte,nded as folIow-up to ourtelephone call of a fery days ago concernbg yottr letter to Gene llilton, President of Rapids Dovelopment Corporation, rolating to the sits location app[cation aud e,ngineering re,port submiued for the Rapids oa the Colorado. As we discussed, orr client seems to be oaught in fte proverbial *Cztch-2?" sitration- In a nutshelt GarEeld Cor:nty will oot let us flle to ruone the Rapids properl,y for 1 21 r:nits until yoru deparfuent has ryproved the site location applicatioq however, your department will uot approval tlat apptication rmtil Garfield C-ounty has rezoned dre property to allow for the development of 121 mi6 on approximately lZt acres. RuIe 22.3(1)(a) as cited in your lettor requires that the Divi.sion" in evaluatiag the suitability of aproposed site looation for domestic wastewater teatment works, consider the local loag-ralge oompreheosive plans for the area as they affect water qrulify. gre seqomize that tbo suront plat for the property compnses 33 units and corryorts with tho Garfield Cormty zoningregulations and its Compreheusive Plan. However, you must uodentand that &e Compreheosive Plan does not zone propefty, but provides for rezo.i.g in the futr:re. Section 4.08.01 of the ffield Co,rnt5r lsning Resolution pmvides that a :PUD is established by rezoning ao area in an existiag zoue distict to PUD, pursuant to tbe povisions of this zouing Resolution . , . ."' That is what Rapids Developrnent is attumptiag to do srith the submission of its qplioation for a l2l urdt PIJD. In addition" soction 4,04 of the Garfisld Zoning Resolution allows an alrplicant to apply for an amendment to the Comprehensive Pla4 if necessary- I;\r6\OqE\&{rd.llo,\l.@tgPHE I,!ld 9 2005 l:5BPlVl LEAVEN!\iORTH & KARP N0 002 P 3/14 LEAVENWORIE & KARP, P.C. Pags2 September 9,2005 Further, Garfield Cormty deferredto the Town ofNew Castle and itscomprohensiveplan, since the proposed prroject is within the Tourn's flree mile planning arfr"as set forth in C-R-S. $31- l2-rcs. The staffreport cites Crarfield Co,mty Policy 10.1 which provides that "Coryreheosive PlanZofingResolutionrevisions, ZoneDistrictAmeodmeofsmdindividualprojeaswithindefiDed Urban Areas of bfluence, will be consistent with local mrmicipal land use policies," Based on that provision, give,r that the Town of New Castle is withitr the Urban Areas of Influence, aod afrer prolonged negotiations, R pids Development and the Town entered into a MemorandumofUnderstanding, sating, ett,orlg otherthinp, thatthe Town supports theproposed 121 unit PUD in tilEt it is in subsartial conrplianoe with its Comprcheosive Plan. In addition, that Memoranduu. provides that the Town consen6 to ttre Rapids' site location application, md reoomme,nds to the Garfield Couuty Board of Cor:aty Commissioners that it recommend approval of tlat 4plication- It is also clear fromthat Me,morandr:m tbat the proposed facility is sufficieirt in size to serrre not only the Rapids on the Colorado, but adjacent propedy as well, should the need arise. A copy of that Memroraadnm ofUndorstanding is enolosed for your revierw. Both fre Town ofNew Cast1e aud Gartreld Cormty have done exactly what was required of them.: they approved the proposed PtiD and the site looation plan based on their relation to the provisious oftheir respective Coarprehosive Plans, not upou zoning, You also mentioned to me that pu had received a rumber of objections from neighboring properties concaniug the ooustrr:ction ofthe proposed facitfy. I would point out to you that both the Garfield Cotuty Code and the Colorado statutes require that a public notice of any hearing involviag this developmeot must be provided, stating the date and time of such hearing so tlat any interested palry r.ay voice his or hen objections. As apracticd.mzlte4it seems 16 usthatthis requiremeot6fls26ningpriortothe Division's approval of a site location applicatiou must be a relatively non, policy. We are awate of a uumber of subdivisions in Garfield County, such as Blue Cr6ek Ranoh and Rock Gardens at No Nmo, Colorado, that had approval Aom your Division prior to approval of rezoarag and/or amendment to the Comty Coryrehensive Plaa. In light of the above, we request that you reconsider the decision as contained in yoru leter to Mr. Ililton of Septeneber 1., 2005. In the altarative, please acoept this letter as a request for a hoariag in aocordance with C.R.S. $25-8-401. llmoJqhdR{riillao7q.toEDPBeLrAd SEP, 9 200t 1:59PVl TEAVEN\{/ORIl.1 & KARP IJAI{ENWORTE & KARP, P.C, Page 3 Septonrbe,r 9, 2005 Thank you in advaace for yor:r consideration ofthe mafters set forth in this lettor. P1eass do not hesitate to ooutaotme if you have any guestions or if youwould like to discuss this in greatn detail. Very ruly yours, LEA\IENV/ORTI{ & LEL: Enclosure co: Gene Hilton Don DeFord (dcopy of Keot Kuster letter) N0 002 P 4/14 /rt- Il1letElo$Irpr'lrrrqnl.i@{'E.L!"4 4a,utZ , u llloyalF..La SEP. 9.200t 1:59PIVI')'TEAVEN\l/ORTH & KARP }UETUoRANDIM or UnrorenstExpntc N0,002 P, 5/14 Tts IvtEx\.IoRAlrDUrvr ot UNDERSTAITDINCT, made this /Szraut of 2005, by aud among the Tount on Nrw CASTLB a mrmicipal coiporation \f,ith its prircipl office zt 450 West N,4aiu Steet, New Castlg Colorado 816l7 (hereinafter the "Towrr), TIg RAI,IDS Dsrm-om,chrr CoRPoRATIoN, and TIr RAIIDS ON rrm CoroB,ADo HorvleolvNeRs Assocrenon (the "HOA"), both Colorado corporations haring tE principal office md plaoe of business *2102 West Ampahoe Drive, Litleton, Colorado tOi 20-300t (tereimner colleotively'Bapids-). WtEnEes, Rapids ouars certain real property situate in the Cortuty of Czrfiel4 Colorado, consisting of approximately ninety-seven (97) acres, as well as the tight to acquire an adjoiuing parc,el corsistLng of approximately tweoty-forrr (24) acres; and WERBAS, in Septembet of L997, ffie1d Cotruty approved Rapids' plat for a subdivision comprised of tbirty-three (33) single fmily residential lots to be known as Ihe Rapids ou the Colorado (hereinafter the '?rojecf,'), vhich plaf is recorded in the office of the Clerk and Rrcorder of Garfield County, Colorado as Receptiou No. 513353; ard WkEAs! in accordancc with sueh approval Raipids complebd the public improvem,en6 for frp contenplared snbdivisioq iacludiag roads, water, naDral gas, telephone, elecfoicity, fre protection od draiuage, with sewer service to be provided by individual seil,er disposal sjrsteus; and WmtrAs, R+ids now desfups to file aa applicatiou for a PUD with Crarfield County in order to replat tle Project propefly togothcr with &e dioining parcel consisting of approximately twenty-fov Q4) acres, or a total of one hundred tweuty-one (t2I) acres, 4 z PUD comprised of one hrmdrcd tweutyoue (121) singte fanily residential mits; aod WIIIBREAS, b order to obtain the approval of Garfield Cor:u$ for a PUD, thp subdivisiou must be seruiced by a oe;rtral uraste watertneatment system; and WHEREAS, Rspids has prcpared md submiued to the Garfield County Board of County Qsmrnissioners (hereinafter the BOCC") a sie application daled December, 2003 for such a ce,ntral waste water aeamlent service facility (lrereiaafter the "Taciliqt'') for the Projea pusuant to CRS $25-&5A2, et seq.; arfi SEq. 9 2005 1:59PMl LEAVEN\r\l0RIH & KARP N0.002 P, 6/ 14 Mroorandum of llnderslanding by andamoug Toum ofNcur Ca*Ie, The Rapids Dovolopment Corporation and Tho REpids on the Colorado Homeou,aers Associatjon Pzlga2 lVffiEAs" the sitE apptication for the Facility appro\ral was sent to the Town in its capacity as a refemal agenry with e seryer sJstem within tkee (3) mr'les of the Projecq and WEREAs, the Toirn exprercd coaceras about fhe site applioation dasity as origioally submited: and WIcnBls, Rapids amended i6 applioation to the BOCC by amendment dated Marcb29"2004; and WrIF.REAs, the Project is wiftin the Towo's three (3) mile plauiag area as set forft in C.RS. $31-12-105; and WEREAs, Rapids sedrs the coopaatioa of thE Torrm ia is slte application to the Colorado Depeheut of llealth aud Environmmt (hereinafrer the "CDPffi) and a recommeudation &om the Toun to the BOCC that they recommend to tlre CDPFIE thst the application be approve$ and WmEAso the partios desire to eoter into this Me,morandum of Unde,tstanding to r€flect oertain agreem€nts ed ulestandiDgs amotrg fheur- Notu, tmrronn, in ooosideratiou of the munnl covenarts and pomises cootained herein, and for other good and valuabte consideraioq the partis bereto agree as follows: 1. $ubjea to the provisions of this Me.morandrm of Undersanding the Torno shall conseut to and recomrneod to the BOCC that it recommend approral of the site applicatioa for the fasility. 2. Rapids agrees that the proposal to be sub,ruitted to Garfield Cousty for the replattiug of its entire one huudred tweffy-oae (121) acro parcel as rdcrred to abow as a PIID shall aot cortaia more &a one hundred Frenty<oe (121) single family residemial units, ard uses fs kails, op€m. spac!, roads, ponds, utiiity easemwts, water sforage tanl$, wase water testment facility, pipetines, irrigation diEhes, lines md frcilities, water u/eUq reffeational facilities, coromunity facilities and other rses zppro'ved by the HOA Aom time to time, and shall conforrr mbstzntially to the skEtch plan map attached hereto as Exhibit *A- The Torrs €rees that many elemerrs of srrch proposed PTJD, including clu$ering; dedicaiou of open ryacq preserrring the hillside as open spacs and the like Neu, Caffle-Rapids Ageement 4.1 1.2005-E$lN.C..doc SEq, 9 2005 1:59PlVl LEAVENl{i0RTH & KARP ' ---N0, 002-P. 1/14-- Menorandrm of Understanding by and anoq Tora ofNew Castlg The Repids Development Corporaion and The Fupids on tLe Colorado Homco\rnss Association PagB 3 are coosistent wittt its Comprehe,nsive PIaq althougb rct in sfrict compliance with suclt Plan as to density. The TouB. srrpports the PIID beoause of iE substautial compliance with its Comprchemsive Plan as nsted above, the provision for a public kail with river ac:cess, aud the provision of a waste water teatmeirt facility with proposed use as provided hercna:prwided howavo, that any such sryport is contingent upon ooupliance byRapids withthe provisiom of this paragaph firl, fbrther, so long as the PUD proposal is consistentwith fte foltowiog couditions: a- Rapids specifically agrees that it shall, as generally depicted on Exhrbit A atrached heleto, dedicate to pub)ic use a dcfixod tail @e o'Trail"), not less thaa forrr access points ('Access Points') betweeu the Trail qrd a fifteen- foot wide river tar'l ('River Ttaif? to and atong the water line of fre Colorado River" as it oay seasonaliy fluctuate, for fishing ad sth€tr non-commercial and non huathg recreatioul prnposes &ning a time period commeocing thirty (30) minrtes before srrnrise and ending thirty (30) ninrses after sunse! aod sball provide nine (9) public parking spaces wieio &e Project for such prqpos:es. Mairteuance and repair of the Trail Acoess Trail, River Trail and the public parking area shall be 8re responsibility of tre IIOA A is specifically agreed trat th€ Trail sbalt be located a miainl@ of tm (10) fu fiom the rear lot lines of tbe resideatial tots in fte Project Fcnces, uot higfuer thau fiw (5) feet, ruay be constucted by tbe HOA and/or lot owners along the lot lires abutting the Tlail. Fences not in excess offour (4) feet ia height Eay be constmcted orrside individual lot lines $tithin fte dedicated opea space to protect landscape features, p/ro\ddd ftat srch fences in the open space do not uureasooably impede public access. The Trail shall be Dot less than six (O feat wide, shall be initially composed of fo,rrr (4) inch cornpanted road basq and may be modified by the HOA to provide a hardened surftcc to eDoourage use by the eldedy andthose who are confined to a viheelchair. Tbe foregoing Trail, Fishing Trail aad Access Poinr sball be sbowo on the final plat wi& appropriae plat notes. b- tu part of the PUD approvaf Rapids specifically agrees that the opea space tact (*Open Spaoe Tfaofl) looated sorrlt of County Road 335 and west of Corurty Road 312 shall remain as opcn space in perpetuity. The Toum andRapids acloowledge that ttre followiog uses ehall be allowed on &e oper space tact: Neqr Cutle.Rapi& A$eement 4.1 I J00sjirslN.C-RevAdoc StP, 9 2005 2:00PM LEAVENlll0RTFl & KARP N0 0 0 2 P, 8/ 14 Memcrandus. of Undersmding by and anrcng Torrrm of Ncryv Castle, The Rapids Deve{opmeot Corpcrarion and The Rapids on tbe Colorado Eomesu/f,ers Association Page4 (1) Irases, agr€ements, reservefions! easemeots and r(ghts of uray of recd, (2) Adffional vate( well(s) and water storage facilities aad equipment for Rapids, iucludiug access, t*ilities aod WJ262 underground water augueutatiou plan pipelioe aod associated couhlsatrd equipmeor (3) E:tistingaccessroads Nothing irerein sharl be dee,med to affest &e riglts of third parties who have easemeots orresewed rigts conoeming the open space tsact The foregoitrgOpen Space Tract shall be shown on the final pla with appropriate platnotes. c, The parties ager that all road impact fees in excess of those aheady expended ry Rapids sba[ unless otherurise diregted by the BOCC, be applied to additional improvcoaerrts to County Road 335- It is further agreed that REpids shall popose to the BOCC that the balance of ttre Road Impct Fees to be paid by Rapids sbali be utilized frr improve,nents to Cts 335 bas€d upon reoomeodations to be made jointly by engineers representing tre Rapids, the Town and Garfreld County. The Earties speqifically achowledgs that Rapids has previously expeuded the sum of Ooe Huodred Eigheen Thousand Two l{undred SixDollars (5118205.00) as impact fees, prior to adjusment for inflatiot, for fhe 33 approved odsting lots, which flmds were used.to reconstilst md pave aonehalf mf,e section of C8.335 a{iaceat to The Rapids on the Colorado suMivision, zndthe* no fiaffic impact fees shallbe duefor33 oftheproposed 121 lots d The parties aclnowldge fut the waste water treatuent ftcility site provided within the Pmject is sufificieot tt stzv to accomrnodate uasterrtater Eeatment for approximately ooe hundred (100) acres of privately orryaed laod adjacent to the hoject and Apple Tree Mobile Home Fark Aay orpansion of the proposed Facilig is dependmt upon approval of an ailrplication to expand the facility by the Colorado Depatment of Public Health and Environment based upon variors factors, including but not linited to comments from adjace,ut Nw C*tte-Rapids Ageemert 4. t 1.2005J'rnslN.C.-dos SEP. 9 2005 2:00PM TEAVEN!{ORTH & KARP N0, 002 P 9/14 Memoran&:m of Understaading lqy aod among Torin of New Cgdle The Rapids Development Ccnporrion aod The R4ids on the Colorado Ilomeoumers Associatioa Pagc 5 uulticipalities, residem8 and &e recmmeedatioD by the Board of Coudy Cominissione$ of Garfield County, Colorado. In the eventsuch ao oqansion is approved by the State of Colorado, a service con8act to provide $astE uater teatuem to properties locaned sorrth of the Colorado River arrd outside tbe Project wor[d requirc suoh pnopeaties proposed to be served to provide: (1) Uabilit/ insurance for porerrtial darnages carsed by oftite polluta$ iEtoduaed hto the plant system- (2) An agreenent to hold Rapids harmless for all costs or liability resubing Eom damagss associated with &silities or services for wasre water tcaftment origlnating fron properties not owued or acquired by Rapids. (3) cash paymeub shall be made in advance for aII ee<pansion expeoses to be inqmed by Rryids, i6 succEsson or assigus, includiag but not Iimited to engineeriqg and legal fees, administrative costs. uitity modificationE modifications to the adsti4g plaut necesitatod by the expansioq and eryeoses of any kind or Drfire associated with ths expansion It is specifically acknowledgd that the cxpenses of orpausion to prorride seryice to properties outside the Projeot shall include any and all ovemms by srbconfoaotors or consr:Itm; (4) M agreemeDt tbatprovides tlat mainteoance,rcgnit aod replacment of all collector lines, Iateral liles and assoeiated facilities udthitr adidqcrrt properties or within Apple Tree Mobile Home Pak shail be the sole responsibili$ of the adgaceut prope-rty ownerc or of Apple Tree Mobile llome Parlc, unless otherwise agreed by Rapids iu the senrice contacq (s) TaP fees aad services charges for wasteuater teatuent pmvided to properties orrtside the hoject (Apple Tree, Mountain Shadours asd a{acent properties) shell be at rates acceptable to both parties Notwithstandfurg anythiog contained herein to the ooEtrary, no connection to the Facility by aay thtd party shall be pemiued without the urriten consent of the Town, prwided however, that such corsent shalt not be ureasonably wittrheld if ftre proposed land use is consisteot wi& &e Now CastloRapids Agreemem 4. I 1r005_SiDalN.C.,doc SEP. 9,2005 2:00P|{LEAVEN\{ORTH & KARP Menorandrur of Uoderstauding by ard amoug Torrm of Nou' Castle The Rapitls Developmcat Corporation and The Rapids on fre Colorado Homcou'lrcrs Associatiotr Pago 6 Connpreheasive Plan for the Town 4. No:rICE All notioqs required or appnopri*e rmder this Aefeement shall be in uritiry asd shall be hand &livered o, se# by certified mail, rEtrln receipt rc+rcste4 postage prepai{ to tbe addresses of the parties hereia set fortlr- AII noticc so giraen shall be considered effective severty-turo (72) hous affer de,posit in the Urited Stales Mait with the proper address as sst for& below. Either party by notice so giveo may charge the address to which firure notices shall be sent Notice to theTown:Toum ofNewCastle 450 West Main Street New Castlq Colorado 81647 The Rapids Dwelopmerr Corporation 2 102 We$ Arapa'.hoe Drive Littleton, Colorado 80 120-3008 The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Notice to Rapids: NoticetotheHOA Assm.. zl12W*tArapahoe Drhre Littleton, Colorado 80 120-3008 5. Fmer. AogBEI'aNr. This Agreernent supersedes and cootrols all prior unitteu and oral agrscm.en8, and representations of the parties, and is the total integrated agreemeut aooug the parties- 6. MODIFICATIoITTS This .tgreemeot shall uot be unended or modified, except by zubseqr:ent written agreement oftbc parties. 7. nvrrnrnslerroN. This Agrce,merrt shall be oonsfrued in acc,ordanoe with the law of the State of Colorado. 8. TErummOu. If ttre Rapids has not obtained fiual approval Aom Garfield County of the replatting of the proposed one hundred twenty-one (121) acres parcel into at least I21 residential lots as a PUD within two (2) years from the date of this Memorandum of Understanding then this Me,morandus of Understanding shall terminate and its provisioos be rendered null andvoid- Nsw CosdeRapids AgrEemer 4.1 1r005-FinalN.C..doc N0, 002 P, 1Ai 14 SEP., 9 2005 2:0lPlvl TEAVEN\{/ORTll & KARP Mezroraadum of Understandi4g by and anong Toruo ofNew Castle. Thc Rspids Developrnmt Corporation and The lkpids on the Coiomdo Homeorraers Associafion Page 7 IN WfIltESs WHmBoF, ttre parties hereto bave er(ecuted this Memorandum of Uadersanding ou the day and yoar firsc above vritten- Touh.IoFNEwCesrrr, N0 0 0 2 P. 11/14 Nau CastloRapids AEeeruent 4 I I 20055imlN.C..doc SEP, 9,2005 2:0lPMl LEAVEN\VORTH & KARP N0 002 P 12/14 ffiuE rffiH !!lirlr ui iiiEq'Ei{iE$['lEffifiE ur{ \= o, gF Eds\ hElan lf E*H Eq^ B IEI EHxN k) EIx E\Etr! Hl" 6l lli lll ihiri ii iil'l!il! I ''l{it'li flI L te ,l>, lo ThC RAPIDS ON T'€ COLORADO Planned Unlt tlEveloPmem SKETCH PLAN MOIINTAIII EROA6 EI\GIFIEERING. INc.Elrru#*llilDo.t!il146-h-id@nsrrghdEH , I I I I I\ fff t: sep'SEP, 9 20!5t 2r01PMl LEAVEN\lioRTl] & KARP €m Chcnycrtehor- S'taborabry SeMces Divislon ;J.L1.-i;ffi'd.brtc+r sgo fl-9--ryP116"nret, CoUraOo 6023S6328uEllvsr r vul'r-r (30G) 6s2-s890 N0 0 0 2 a trttt-O2t, l)/ + ihone rOa) 6m'2m0 TDD $c (303) €tr1-7700 ioo"rl irrOt"ndsle, Glorsdo hrPYrww$/€dPhGilataco'ts Sepumber 1,2005 STATE OF COLCRADO Blll ow6ns. GOvamor Eorgr". x' gnncvenu, Exoculvs oitador Dedic8ledloPrdegllngarrdirnpovingthBhGallhanogwirmm!]rtetlttcpcoPleolColorado Mr. GeneR Hiltoq Presideut RaDids DweloPment CorPoration zt62 west AraPahoe Drive Littlotou, CO 80 120'3008 Dear Mr. Hilton: The colorado Department of r\rblic H%ttlr and, Enviroom.ent s/at€r Qushty Contol Division @ivision) f* *oa,ro"Ja preliminaryiii"* Jtlt" site location application and engineering repon submitred fbr il;-R"pidtg"-i9"rot a" ,roj?{ in Garfield Counry' During discussions held with Gartreld ptanning stafftbe Dtufi;; lei#d that the curretrt zotriDg of this Property is for 33 residences with septic systems. rt i. ao.. not march the request oa the site applioation form for a vrastewater tt at*ent facility to serve l2i units' The Division haS reviewed the site application is aocordance wifh Regulation No' 22 and detcrmined thd th" 6;*tV t ^ *, n mfiJ the requirements in Rcgulation No' 22 Section 22.3(a)o). The cor:uty is requested, to review -6 ssmment tryon thc relationship of the treatrnetrt works to local lorg.range oompJ*'ive Plao for oL area as it affects u,arcr qrrality. without zoning the prope'ty for r21 *iG tn" rclationship of the treatrnent works to the local lorg-rurge comprehensive plan cannol be derrmined' The site applioation zubmittal is dependcnt upon thc culndnation of the planning Prccess including rhe zoning of the ProperLy e5ror to *u-i,t"r to tho Division' A discussion with the C:arfield Cowrty pii*rir' riit&otiidicares tlat the local piaming Prcces-s has not been completed to om"intty-rJ-roo" this property, ,s P.th" preferrea lPproach fol si.te applications' The Divisioo "*r,Jpro*., " tit" &pfiotion withor:rthe plan'ting Foces: being competed' Fiow and fieatmctrt p'tant loaAug are directly relate{ t9 the service area and population piojorio*. ffres. fiffis shoullbe develoied withthe ProPedy zoBmg in mind' The Division is placing tbis sirc apPlicadon on hold and requesting &c applicant uke this site application back to the-Crarfield Piannirrg Coqmigsion-andLet the-property re-zoncd for the increased densig. once the Division hi received evide,lrce-Thar thl Gariield county Planning c-ommissiou has re-zoned the p*potty r"t tl" i"*^ed density tne oiy^i1!9n will continue its rpviarv of the rirr'Ipifi*,i"i ?io" L"re questioas please call me at (303) 692-3574' ffinsEt 9 20.05c 2:02P[/ TEAVEN\{I0RIH & KARP HI{+ N0,002--P, 14/14'oL Sincerely, . b+ t/")f KentKuster Water Qualrty Control Division @: lvlark Kadnuclq Diseict Engineer, WQCD Tom Schaffer, Regional Office Supervisor, WeCD Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Director LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDERN. KARP DAVID H. MCCONAUGHY JAMES S. NEU SUSAN W. LAATSCH NICOLE D. GARRIMONE ANNA S. ITENBERG MICHAEL J. SAWYER CASSIA R. FURMAN LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 141H STREET, SUITE 2OO P. O. DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (97 0) 9 45 -2261 Facsimile: (97 0) 9 45 -7 336 lel@lklawfirm.com September 14,2005 {r;d (6c5 DENVER OFFICE:* 7OO WASHINGTON ST. STE 702 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Office) Don DeFord, Esq. Garfield County Attorney's Office 108 Eighth Street, Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re:The Rapids on the Colorado Dear Don: Last week I sent you a copy of a letter that our client received from Kent Kuster at the CDpFIE Water Quality Control Division, along with a copy of my letter to Mr. Kuster in response' I believe that it is clear from that letter what the problem is vis-a-vis the WQCD and the Counfy. The purpose of this letter is to request that the County support ourposition with the CDPHE in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Rapids and the Town of New Castle, in which the Town voices its support of the site location plan and urges the County to do likewise. As you know, the County deferred to New Castle as to substantial compliance with its Comprehensive Plan, since the Rapids was within the three-mile radius of the Town. I would also point out to you that Mr. Kuster informed me that Garfield County is the only county in Colorado with a requirement that the site location plan be approved prior to rezoning. We would ask that you bring the situation involving The Rapids on the Colorado as well as the general matter of the County's requirement of site location plan approval prior to rezoning to the Commissioners' attention to see if the Board is willing to support our position.. Thanks in advance for your help. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. LEL: cc: Mr. Gene Hilton l:\2m5\Clio6kpids-I40ro4$s\D€Ford-l wpd Loya S]ATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor Douglas H. Benevento, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www.cdphe.state.co. us September 1, 2005 Mr. Cene R. IIilton, President Rapids Development Corporation 2102 West Arapahoe Drive Littleton, CO 80i20-3008 Dear Mr. Hilton: Colorado Department of Public Health andEnvironment T'rX*rI't.,"* ..* ,_ j SEP 0 6 tlui 8ffi,l,1?,ffiu^l; The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division (Division) has conducted a preliminary review of the site location application and engineering report submitted for the Rapids on the Colorado project in Garfield County. During discussions held with Garfield planning staff the Division learned that the current zoning of this property is for 33 residences with septic systems. This does not match the request on the site application form for a wastewater treatment facility to serve l2l units. The Division has reviewed the site application in accordance with Regulation No. 22 and determined that the County has not fulfilled the requirements in Regulation No. 22 Section 22.3(a)(b). The County is requested to review and comment upon the relationship of the treatment works to local long-range comprehensive plan for the area as it affects water quality. Without zoning the property for 121 units the relationship of the treatment works to the local long-range cornprehensive plan cannct be detennined. The site application submittal is dependent upon the culmination of the planning process including the zoning of the property prior to submittal to the Division. A discussion with the Garfield County Planning Director indicates that the local planning process has not been completed to officially re-zone this property, as is the preferred approach for site applications. The Division cannot process a site application without the planning process being iompeted. Flow and treatment plant loading are directly related to the service area and population projections. These figures should be developed with the property zoning in mild. The Division is placing this site application on hold and requesting the applicant take this site application back to the Garfield Planning Commission and get the property re-zoned for the increased density. Once the Division has received evidence that the Garfield County planning Commission has re-zoned the property for the increased density the Division will continue its review of the site application. If you have questions please call me at (303) 692-3574. Re: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I ./.l LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW IOI I GRAND AVENUE P. O. DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8I602 Telephone: (97 0) 945 -226 I Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 lel@lklawfirm.com DENVER OFFICE:r WAZEE EXCHANGE BUILDING IgOO WAZEE STREET, STE. 203 DENVER, COLOMDO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood SPrings OlJice) LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP DAVID H. McCONAUCHY JAMES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQUIST.HEATH SUSAN W. LAATSCH NICOLED. GARRIMONN Ma[:Ch29,2OO4 ANNA S.ITENBERG MICHAELJ. SAWYER TERESA L. HOCK EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8'h'Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 vIA FAX (384-3470) Dear Mark: As you know, Rapids Development Corporation ('R.apids") submitted a site application dated December zOOi foia proposed wastewater treatment facility to be located at the Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision. As a result of comments we received from the Towns ofNew Castle and Silt, as well as discussions with your office, the site application has been amended and resubmitted' The form of the amendment consisted of the original application with a new section entitled .,Addendum No. 2" which is dated February 17,2004. Addendum No. 2 also incorporates some changes that were made to the site application following its original submittal, as well as additional chanles. please be advised that Addendum No. 2 controls over the text of the December 2003 submittal in all respects. In other words, if there is an inconsistency between Addendum No. 2 and a portion of the original text, AddendumNo.2 dated Febru ary 17 ,2004 controls and supercedes the text. Hopefulty this clarifies any issues regarding the format of the amended application. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, LEL:bsl Rapid Development Corporation, via fax David Farrar, Town of New Castle, via fax Janet Steinbach, Town of Silt, via fax IUml\Oi6ri\Rlpidr-tsll3r6t\Bcd-2.wd LEAVENWORTH I I t I I t I t I I I t / I I T t I I ddendum Number 2-I ates AIl Prior lr i I ADDENDUM TO SITE LOCATION APPLICATION ANID ENGINEERING REPORT The Rapids on the colorado - Garfield countyr colorado Original February 412004 ft:ie1iu: Yl:,piln3'i*;tJ P" colotado Departrneat of ilirl f."i""?;;il;;\7ater euality controlDivision, are anached as E&ibita. Section III. - Financial The Rapids DevelopmeoT6rporation will provide evidence of Eoancial ability or a Letter of credit upoo apprcval of the wlfrF site application by the County "na ori* sufficient design inform"tiot at d bids are available that a Enancial instirution could be ,."rorr"dfy1.ttal' tt at the facility could be colnstructed for the amolurt provided in the I*tter of Credit. Section IV.- Ownefship of the Wastewater Treaune$t Iiacility The Rapids D"r"top*it6ffiti* *ill o na opt6t tn" WWTF: The operation and ownership of the facility could eventu"ff, iL;;J over to a Regional Sanitation District or other appropriate district' section v. - wocD Policy Regardiqg setback of,Facili$' Ftom Residences Thel00.footSetback,,elocationoftheWwTFsite.Thefacilitiesare planned to be enclosea"iliJiJ.Lr, "r,a ,n. orur.r, residence-s will be greater than 100 feet away' costs for the It should be noted that an existine buildins, on Lot 1, located near the proposed wwTF site, will be removed' Section V[. - Emetgency Stqrage Basin The design ortu" rw-ffirT", noi y"t u.gun. st"t" of cororado Desip criteria 5.l4.to and 5.l4.ll will be considered and complied with upon commencement of design. The cost fo:r an emergency storage basin is included in the concrete cost estimate' i#;;"'ffiHffii.,j,|i;iil;:;ffi;oii,-* noi.a by Dwain watson orthe wQCD, using 100 galrons per person per day yields 350 GPD per tap' The density of the proposed pUD is limited by paragraph 4.0'7.06 of the Garfield county zonngRegulations which states: -building is included in the estimate' Information provided by Gene R' Hilton o*ag@ota"ry and the locatioo of the wastewater treatrnent facility ii attached as BhibiilE' --t). WWTF Addcndtm 2.4.20M Rcv' 2'17'doc 2l19l04 l. I I I Ti The proposed Rapids on the Colorado PUD will contain approximately 121.488 acres and could, according to the fi-dr"gof"rionr,'b. approved for up to 242 residential units' Mr. Aluise advised Messrs. Hilton and ralbott that the RE-2 School Distict was extending the water and sewer lines from Silt to the new coal Ridge High schooi uut that the town limits did not extend to the new school' Gene R Hilton asked if rhe Rapids was within five miles of the town limits of silt and rown AdminisEator' Public works Director and community Deveropm*r-pir*or alr confirmed that it was not._ S-ubsequent reviews of the ..Stillwater,, annexation by Silt shows that tt. 'stitt*ut.t' uo*auti"t in st"tio* 12 and 13 are within five miles' A letter from lanet G. s"i,iu""n, -c"**'"l'v Pffinment'.y.':t'li}:I",Y":l:'l:fy::""i ::"'ill1'1."S"; :"*?*:TJrui L iiiffi ?l;";#;# ;; ii"i': . r+ .',arrlrl 4nncrr ,t rt N"* *tle atd these devilopments could more easilv form a symbiotic relationshiP." Tap fee costs provided in Ms. Steinbach,s letter are reflected in the section )il. estimate. In addition, the distance for the RE-2 sewer tin" Jierired to reflect tn, art"r.. from the school to the Town boundary as opposed to the distance from the school to the WWTF S:hf.l' Jne line is being installed arong the access road r#il;';",h" :9:9-s*:*t-::: l^l"tf^*:*":"r'"#:""f#?.*u *" be bored under il:lr:r"T iil"rll'r""i,"r""i;""" and US o to tr,e scnool site located on the north side of uS 6. Gene R Hilton proposed extending a line fro-m Apple Tree alon-g- the south bank of the colorado River to the west end of The Rapids, crossing the river to tt " io*.r Cactus ialley ditch diversion, following the ditch to its intersection with the ri"" [G extended to the new high school, a distance of 3'75 miles' oThesiltstaffadvisedHiltonandTalbouthattheschooldistrictwaspayingfgJtheexlensionofthewater and sewer lines ftom Silt to the school *a tf'ut there was a "cos!-;ei9very" provision in the extension ;;;;;."quirinf - ullocationo_f.the cost of installing the line to any future user, . ,it"p fee within the boundaries of-Silt costs 9f*^ ., ",. O oO fee outside the boundaries of Silt costs ($3'500 X 3) o Monthly r.*", "t"r-gJ. yG rt" Uo*d.i.rif Sitr rosts $39.?2: +g Yll efca* . t"tontUly sewer charles outside the boundaries of Silt costs ($39'22 X 2) and wtu escatare armuauv' oTheTownStaffwereapproachedregarding.r,'p"'suir''y"f'"g"tt"tt,rl11'^:1l.llf:f:JI:}:::1' i:: j",H:'ffiffi ;iJ,i,fi;":"ff;;;i; r;; "fi*e" ia n ,t["' noted that the rown had never ."""*"g.a se[ing of taps outside the Town limits' r The attached letter from the communiay o"r.rop*""t PT"tPt in Silt notes a concern of maintaining a sewer line that crosses private property *i;"*l[i; an inigation ditch during times when the ditch is wet . ill]ffjrtyto,o,n. Town of Silt summarizes their position- as: "It would appear that Ne prior to the meeting *itnGTo*n s-tarf, cene illril,on met with the legal counsel for the ditch company that owns the Lower cactus valley Ditch. He *u, uarir"a tuuiG" ro*n of Silt-owned an interest in the ditch and that the easements/rights of way for the ditch wourd no1-p.,r-ii ronstruction of a sewer rine in the ditch easemenvright of way without the land owners consents' ree; meiwittr Rick Aluise (Silt Town Administrator), Gary pace (Public Worf,r'pir".tor) and l*rt Si"i"Uu"UiCo**u*ty Developrnent Director) on January 30' 2004' WTIfTF Addendw 2.4.20M Rw' 2'17'doc at9lM I I I t2l 1.0 tzl tzl 1.6 t94 tzl 2.0 242 t I Theissueofeasementsandrights-of-wayalongtheLowerCactusValleyDitchwereconsideredinthemeetingwith ;;dil i"*" staff. The following problems were noted: . Silt owns part interest iritle Lower Cu"*, Vuff"y Ditch and associated irrisation ditch easements but the existingeasem..t----_tbeusedforSewerl.nes.thoutapDrovalofallpropertvowners. o The Rapids or Apple Tr". "un lot "ii-d-"r* the easemenl Any property owner along the proposed alignment """ia rt'"i ,t "prop6r.d **o lG txtension by refusing to give/sell an easement' nnect to the Silt WWTF sYstem: /^ -1-:l^ T^ SE,SOO Per Tap X 3 (Outside Town Limits) X 121 Units $1,270,500 85,000 100,000 465,696 138,600 60,000 Unknown S2JI9J95 o Tap Fees o River Crossing o Pump Station 425 Feetx $200 Per Foot Required Due to Placement of Line U$e11U1ni1er: ;;:ff;" rtrn Schoor I :iyil"'I:'?:: I::: i::::3:::i"Y,:':'"')H:: iffi'ilj,i;..r;l 1.50 Mles x s,280 X $35 /Footwater Issues X % Rapids .' Generator Back-UP To Power Pump Station In Emergencies r Cost of Easements Not Considerei Further Due to High Cost of Altemative Total cost of wastew; - Tteatment L'nes and raps To connect to s'lt w1ilTF Section XII. - APPIe Tree The meeting with the roil--or sitt staff members was attended by Russell ralbott of ralbott Enterprises' the owner of Apple Tree. The ,""r.'pi"p*ed by. Hilton i"iri"riv .pp.aredio have potential for providing a feasible way for providing wastewater o""rrir"r{,t to Apile frr"- "Ho*Jrrriit. .o.rt 9f taps and monthly service charges would cost Apple Tree over Two fuii'fi* Ooff*, ir,"tuaiog'""*ii"tuii"t f-ol:hari;C cost of lines with The Rapids' A new mechanical plant at Apple Tree would cost "pp"ro*i*ui"iy.one-half of thE amount for tap fees and a line to Silt's wwrF. Appte rree ;Ii;;;;J"-;;;;;i'iils system at less cost than that of a new plant" Acres To Be Served Density Per Acre Single FamilY Residential Units waste water Treatment Facilitv elP?giE -Ilz-n".ia.o,ir, ,*oitr x 3.5 / unit x r00 GPD iiA n"tia*tiat Units X 3'5 / Unit X r00 GPD iii n.tia*tial Units X 3'5 / Unit X 100 GPD 1. Headworks 2. Sequencing Batch Reactor -3' Sequencing Batch Reactor Basin 4. UltravioletDisinfection 5' Sludge Holding 6. StandbY Generator 7. Outfall Structure 8. Blowers and Building 9. Building Covering Plant 10. SiteWork 11. Yard PiPing 12. Electrical / Instrumentation 13. Outfall Line 14. Contingencies at 8% TOTAL COST WWTF Addcndum 2'4'2004 Rcv' 2'17'doc .085 MGD 0.085 MGDs 30,000 138,000 135,000 26,000 42,000 35,000 6,000 26,000 140,000 18,000 18,000 35,000 4,500 s2-280 $-l05JE0 3 .068MGD 0.070 MGD $ 28,000 138,000 126,000 26,000 38,000 35,000 6,000 24,400 120,000 18,000 18,000 32,000 4,500 48-112 $_663-012 .043 MGD 0.04s MGD s 25,000 138,000 I19,000 22,000 30,000 30,000 6,000 20,000 I10,000 18,000 18,000 30,000 4,500 45.640 $_6l6-u0 2l19lM TheanalysisindicatedthatAppleTreewouldbenefitfromupgradingtheirexistingsystem. l['j li l 1,, li. l[$ 1,n' I l' l, Ii l, I I 3.ThebuildingenvelopefortheWWTF.hasbeencertifiedbyPet.er.Belau.Enartech.anengineerlicensedin the State of colorado, u, b"'rq out,'dt d--ib-nce Appendix "I" of the site Location APPlication. copy wC;, CDPHE ptt* to the submission of the signed copies' Mr. watson,s preliminary comments were noted in a telephone.conversation with Jeremy Montrose on January 23' iOO+. e "opy of th" notes of the discussion is attached as Exhibit E' Information contained in Sections I through Section XII respond to the preliminary comments by Mr' watson as well as ro update trre site io"",ion eppticltion ior recent preriminary Efliuent Limitations provided by the State of Colorado, cost data and recent responses' 1. The treatrnent works will be designed to comply with the lleJ.cuatitv requirements of the Preliminary Effiuent Limits as ;a;ii;hed L; fre colora;;'#p;rtment of pubri; He;lth ,nd Environment (Attached as Exhibit "A"). Lot l. The Rapids on the colorado' cquntltmorado" in order to test the soils and establish foundffin rc-"om-"ndutio*f"t **tt""tt"" "f tht wvrrr' (Reference Appendix "L") prepared the Site Location Application and Engineering Repgrt 'f#irt), in accordance with tiri desien criteria orovided by the event the propo."d f.rility is located in the unincorporated area of a county, the Code of Regulation. r"qu"rg il aCi rctiZ:iZ42)O)' t6' County provide the following: (b) county if rhe proposed facility is located in the unincorporated area of a counqt' The county' through its commissioni o', its iesignee, * i"i,,it"a tu reuiew^and. comment upon the relationship of the treatment works to the local long-range comprehensive plan for the areag!!31[fu91!g 1. water qualitY' 2.proposedsitelocationalternativesincludingthelocationwithrespecttothettoodplain'and 3. 'capactty to serve the planned developmenl in the Site APPlication The ApPlicants as follows: 4. Martin / Martin Consultins Eneineer$ has. "na *iU design the waste water treatment List of Exhibits . Exhibit A - Preliminary Effluent Limits - CDHE r Exhibit B - Topographic tutap of WWTF Site and Flood Plain r Exhibit C - Town of Silt Letter a oExhibitE-l-etterMartin/MartinConsultingEngineersRecordofWith o Exhibit F - Legal DescriPtion Telecon Dwain Watson CDHE WWTF Addendum 2.4.2004 Rev' 2'I7'doc 2lt9lo4 I I I I. l, , t I li I l[i li,i I lL, I I I @iDgli , ti' STATE OF COLOI\ADO Bill Owens, Govemor Oorgl"i H. g"nevento, ExecuWe Director DedicatedtoprotectingandimprovingthehealthandenvironmentolthepeopleolColorado €00 Cherry Creek Dr. S-'Laboratory SeMces Division ;'#;A;1"H;i-oi+d-r sao I oo !::1,PI:: Phone (303) 692'2000 6lnr"t, Colorado 80230-6928 Phone (303) 6sz'zuw -"i'iii" [ift-1 osi:noo (303) 6s2'30s0 iocai"o inarcitdale, Colorado http/lwww.cdPhe.state'co' us January L2,2004 tl lr lr lr l. , l' li' 1,, li I, lr lr.u li, I I I I l IT lr Gene Hilton ft. i^plas Development Corporation ZtO2 West AraPaboe Drive Littleton, CO 80120-3008 Re: Preliminary Effluent Limits- TheRaPi{i onthe Coiorado WWTF Garfield CouutY Dear Mr: ttilton: I The cororado Departuent of pubric Hearth and Envirorunert,'lvater euality contol Division' has completed yo,r request for prelimir[fi "rill1q"tt Gir*) for the proposed The Rapids on the colorado wastewater treatnent i*i't -omuro. yo'r current proposal is for a wwrF with a hydraulic u"rt* ..*"ity or o.ooo *iirtn gallons per day (MGD)' This proposed facility would discharge into the colorado Rivsl in the sw 1/4' Section 4' T65' R91w; latitude lgJ il,04,North, toogitod" lolo .34' 1].u west; approximately 2 miles west of New Castle, CO. This portion-of the Coiotudo River is identified as steam segment coLCLCgr, *ni.u [.irr rt, Lower c;i;;;d; Riro g** Lowel colorado River sub basrq Stream Segment 01. This streem ,.P;;iit "otpotta of the'Mainstem of Colorado River from the ,oofl,r.o.,'t tth,h; Rorrir! f*t ni"' to immediately below the conlluence with parachute creek.,, -Thi* io"otin"",i"n, *. iouna in the aittil"otions and Nume.ric standards ?;-i;** Colorado River Basin' Ef'ue,nt rimits for specific constituents are based on the type of permit a facility will require after consrrrction. The il"|;;, ;il;;il.d" ffifo, with ii proposed hvdraulic design capacitv "itoio iracp, r"yu, covered by a general pemit. ThepreliminaryeffluentlimitationsweredevelopedfoiTheRapidsontheColoradowwTF based on efftuent U*iffi;Hshed i" A; i"g"ti'io* for Zfllulyt Ltmitations for a WWTF consisting of a mechanical wastewater teatuent process' as well as the water quality-based effluent limits necessary for protectio;;ic;rfu quality of the colorado $'o' A PEI^S evaluation is attached to doc,ment,uJr"ai"gr *a i..iritns that were used to derive the PEIs in Table 1. JAN t e ziiq...- Deoartment ti.ftotu andEnvironment ofPublic I l' lr lr lr lr lr l: t:: Note that limitations for ammonia were determined to not be necessary for this facility. Total Arnmonia morritorirrgit, *;JrAta i" tU" permit as an indicator of plant operations' If you have any questions regarr{ilg this matter, please contact me at (303) 692-3524' SincerelY, Lynnkimble, P.E.lrr* ^-- Quahry Protection SectionPermits Unit" Water Water QualitY Contol DiYision cc: TomB.ennett, VIQCD Dwain Watson, WQCD RogerH. Smaaes, i , u*irr:r/Iafiin, 12499'West colfax, Lakewood, co 80215 BODs (meA) , -ss €q1l3Y'".g3-se) eOO. (% remroval) 6Tund Gr.use (mgA) eS-qO fti"i- I I ir lr lr l: TbeR WWTF Preii Effluent Limits PEL-Garfield Table 1 Assessmeut Sqmm PRETJMINARY Errr'uBltt Lnrrrs Tm Cor'onano Rnrcn Tm RA?ps prvmoPMENT ConronnuoN WWTF r' rntroduction re colorado River near The Rapids The preliminary eflluent iimits (PEIs) evaluation..:t * Development c"rp*",i"" was. tewater fi"aro"nt racility (wrvrF) was developed forthe colorado Deparbnent orp,ruu" n"^rtu *a r*ir"r** tcpprmi wtto Qourity conrot Division (wQCD)' The evaluation wiJ "onoor,.a ,o r..rrii"i. irro*".-of pEIs for The Rapids Development d"rp"r"iio" WWTF forpollutants for:nd to be of concern Figire 1 on the following page contains a map of the study area evaluated as part of this PEL' The Rapids Deveropment corporation w-wTF w,r discharge to the coloradoRiver. The Rapids Developme,nt a;ffi;;;;ilil "'o.* residential dJveropmeut west of the Town of New Castlen,medTheiapids onthe cotoraJo. emechanicalwwrr*ithadesignflow of 0'060MGD will serve this develoPnent' Tbe ratio of the low flow of the colorado River to The Rapirls Dtr-doJPent corporation w''fy'TF design flow is 11,247|1. p-.:"o.:.:.1,U. r*e. now in thJcolorudo River, nearbyupsteam and downstream faciu*ties would have rt-r. tf -y t-ract on the assimilative capacities available to The Rapids orr"top_liic;;;r.,i""w\rm.'eo.t1u., thusindicate that *ii*ilutire capacities are verylarge. Information used in this assessment includes data gathered from The Rapids Devel0pment corporatioo, tu.ffico, q1u1. Environmental prote.,i* eg.ocy @pA)athe u.s. Geologicar Survey (USGS), il,h; U.S. Censu' B*'"o TIGER ft4uppi"-i St*it1' The data used in the assessment consist of thebest info*u,ioo available ut tu, iiii of-preparation of this PELs anallais' o River Sub-basin' Steam Segment Of : fufai"stem of Colotid: IY:ifrom^theoco:rfluence#,il#*ril; F;rk Rt"er to immediatelybelow the conlluence ' with Parachute Creek' WBID - Stream Segment C"iaW.t*Aqtatic Life Class 1 aG la Existing Primary Contact RecreationClassifications Page 1 of14 I I t Figure A-1 Study Area I I Town ofNew wwTF, CO-0040479 Interstate uscs 09085100,12 miles uPste"m Station 000047 ; TheRapids DeveloPme,:rt Corooratiou WWTF\:- Talbott Enterprises, Inc. WWTF I li l, I I LEGEND - f sunf,y W !!i I itary Area Source: US Census Tigerffi L;k;iFond/ocean gq! ry+lional Park ., - gf,rgg ffi oq,er- Farr Mapping Serryice - fxps.gssvay fit School - Cotnecior cCountY EE Stream .o.o .o.E ,1.0 ,1.5 ,2.0ni scate t:56489.ffio* *averaLle-true scale depBnds on monlr{Jr r-Eserue'u' II. Water QualitY The Rapids Deveropment corporation wwrF wil discharge to the waleriodr Identification (WBD) stream ,rfi; COlCt COl, which means the Lower Colorado River Basrn' Lower colorado River Sub-basin, steam Segment 01. This segment is composed of the'Main5fsrtr sf Colorado River from the conlluence *irl tU" noaring Fork River to immediately below the confluence with parachute creek.,, steam segment corclcor is crassified for cold water eqr"u. ur, c1u., iiil;1#;r,tdprimary contact Recreation, Agriculmre, and water supply. Numeric standards are developed on a basin-specific basis and are adopted for particular steam segments byth. w;a;ality'c-onror commission. Tci simplifythe listing ofthe segment-specific standards, mary ofthe aquatic rife standards are contained in atable at the begiruring of each chapter of the regulations. ru. standards in Tabre 2 have been assigned to steam segment coLCLCol in accordaoce with the crassificatiow and Numeric standaids for Lower cororado River Basin, Page2 of 14 Riverbend Subdivision wwTT, I I t I lri ll, li l l, l. I The Rapids Deveropment cory. wwrF preliminary Effluent Limits PEL-Gadeld county effective January 20,2004. Because this wwrF has not yet been constmcted, this soon to be effective version ortire classifications and Standards document is being foliowed. I standards for metars are generally shown in the regulations as Table value standards (fvs), and these oftenmustbe derived from equations that depex,d onthereceiving streamhardness or species of fish prese,nt. tue Ctassification and Numeric st-arrdr documents for each basin include a specification for appropriate hardness values to be used. specificarly, the regulations state that: The hardness values used in catculating the appropriate metal standard should be based ; rhJ;* 95 % confi dence limit of tf,e mean hardness value at the periodic low flow' criteria as determined from a regression analysis of site-specific data' where insufficient rirr*p*inc data exists to define the mean hardness value at the periodic. low flow .riirrir, t.Presentative regional data shall be used to perform the regressionI I Page3 of14 li., I I I The Rapids p.r.itp** C"'p' WqruF' Pttl"'- - ' 'i' -l ^ ';n'. an' 'ate' a site-specificmethod should analysis. where a regression analysis is not appropnl be used. HardnessdatafortheColoradoRiverneartheproposedp:l,:lj:*::"ofTheRapids Development corpoiation wwrF were insufficient to conduct a regression analysis based on the. low flow. Therefore, the WQCD', 'rtt'i"ti* approach to calculating hardness was used' which involves computing a mean hardness' The mean hardness was computedto be193 mg^ based on sarnpling data from wQCD water Quality Station 00004? l;.; ;,i" Coto,uao ii"? op't'*-o.f tire Rapids Deveiopment Corporation wwr'. rni, rr*ai.rr;;,* and the r"r,n"r* contained in the Tvs *.rr used to calculate the in- streamwaterqualitystandardsformetals,withtheresultsshowuinTable3. r.Itsli:, The Rapids Development Corp wwrr TVS-Based Metals Water Qu"Iq Sf -^-:-^r i- +r^a rrnrn'qrtn T)e.narbnent of public Health T"l;tT,i[]f:li: ffil"JrHH'., i;i.io"a in the coroiaao Deparraent orPublic Hearth *a Po'li Q.ue0nc*dn*)I3'828)l G.Z A 52 Qn(t"tdnot) -7 X | 5)l Nunrric standare Ptdd, M! Nurncric sandards provided, fornrulg not lEzCrr(hart cslt.zlos) ]^tslsft tt"tt *>t.,t") iiil(tti-0"*>t'+ol ilroc*a,*lH.roolc- ,toSa tuCuta*tf5'E743) [rosroorugrytsrl - Nunrric standqds providcd' fornuls not Nunsic tt t d.tq tr*ido4 form'lm ,tr.zzOOn$tostl _f age 4 of 14 I I t I . WWTF PreliminarY Effluent LimitsI l,Ambient Water QualitY The wecD evaluatilanrbient water quality based on a variety of statistical methods as prescribed in Section :r.s(zxa)(ii *J jistzlOftpi of the Colorado Department of Pubtic Health and Enyironment wrr")' gr-rtri c*ioi'bi^*xsion Reguration No- i I . Ambient water quality is evaluated in this pEIJ anaiysis for use in deterrrining assimilative capacities and in completing antidegradation reviews for pollutants of concern' To conduct an assessment of the ambient water quahty upsteam ..{ Tlr: Rapids Deveiopment corporatio" wwrF; data were gathered tom wqco water qualify station 000047 located approximat"ty l J", upstream ao* ,u" proposed ficility. Data were available for a period of record from october 1gg5 througb DecembEr iggg. A summary of these data is presanted in Table .4. Page 5 of 14 a ahionf 'Wnfer Ou Table 4 alitv for the Colorado River Noles 50 1.9 1:1 15 8.2 20 Ternt (oC) 13 11 7 DO (mgn) ^AI /qr\ 48 9.2 il 47 8.2 8:4 8.6 8.3 6.5-9 F"caiEo form (#/100 rnl)44 23 93 20 I 1 120 205 193 NAHardness (mgA CaCO3)16 0 0 0.021 NA 2 n's. frec fugn)3.6 20000 Cd Dis (ueA) 0 0.42 16 2 Cu Dis (ueA)49 0 27 .)o 29 300 ne. Ois t"en)9 51 120 726 562 1000 0.073 5.1 2n900U 6.0 9.0 74 8.9 50 tr,l:r.Dis (ugn)0 NA 2 HeJrec (ugA)20 0 0 U 0 0 1.0 0.34 4.6 2 Se. Dis (uen)48 0 0 0 0 0.23 2 a* Pis fuen))t+ 9.9 206 2 zn. Pis fuen)49 0 IL 92 120 87 2s0 Sulfat" (mgn)49 43 0 0.10 0.039 NA 2 NitatetNirite (og/l)49 U 0 0 0.0080 NA 2 NHr Tot (mgll)49 0 0.010 0.0062 0.02 trH" tlnionlzed (mgfl)26 0.0030 0.0050 s9 30 NA 2 rss 1mg4--l2(rl 0 N* f , fu calorlatcd rrrn is rhc gconrric nran. Noa that fc sunrrrrization purpccs' tE valuc ol onc ms uscs wr= Notc 2: wha orrpr. *uuL-bd* dctcctim tarcts, t*atuc of zcro was uscd in accsdrncc wittl tbc co wQcDl stan&rd approac'h fo surrrrrrization and am8rytg PwP6 l.' li ' li li- li , lir l, , li. lffii lld li ' li , l. I WWTF Preliminary Effluent Limits I ITt. Water QuantitY The colorado Reguiations specify the use of low flow conditions when establishing water quality based effluent u*rtutio"r, specificalythe acute and chronic row flows. The acutelow flow, referred to as 1E3, represents,t " oo"-auy lowflow recurring in a three-year interval' The chronic low flow' 30E3, represents tU. iO-a.y ur.rrg. low flow recgrring in a three-year interval' Low Flow Analvsis To determine the loi flows available to The Rapids Development Corporation W-WTF, USGS gage station 090g5100 (colorado River below Glenwood Springs, co) was used. Tbis gage station provides u.oor"*u,ire anarysis ofthe row flows available to The Rapids Development corporation wwrF because additional ,t .u*, add flow to the cororado River below the location of the gage station. A conservative anarysis is adequate for thil ryaA because the process required to add the additional flows to reflect thl act.al 10w flow available to the facility would be resource intensive and would not change the outcome of this analysis' Daily flows from the usGS Gage Station 0g0g5100 (colorado Riverbelow Glenwood springs, co) were obtained ana the annual tgg *a 30E3 low flows were calculated using u.s. Environrrental Protection aggncy qerA) DELow software. The output from DFLoW provides calculaled acute ;;il;. i;iY fl$. foi each month' ; .l '. 'i ' Flow data from octob er.l,\gglthrough september 30,2002;were available from the gage stalion. The gage station and time frasres were deemed the most accruate and represe,:rtative of cr:rrent flows *a i.i" therefore used in this anallais' ' Based on the row flow anarysis described previously, the upstream row flows available to The Rapids Development Coforation WWTF were calculated and are presented in Table 5' Druing the months of April, June, and A,gust, the acute low flow carculated byDFLOW exceeded the chronic low ftow. lo .rrora*e witU frQ'Cp standard procedures, the acute low flow was thus *i .qr"f to the cb,ronic low flow for these months' I l, I I I ', Page 6 of 14 l, I l I I I I I l, I TheRapidsDevelopmeDtCory.urwTFPreliminaryEffluentLimitsPEl-GalfieldComty fV. Technical AnalYsis In_stream background data and low flows evaruated in Sections II and III are ultimately used to detennine the assimilative capacity ofthe colorado River near The Rapids Development colporation wwTF for poiiutants of concern. For all parameters excep] amrnonia, it is the WQCD's approach to conduct a technical analysis of stream assimilation capacity using the lowest of the monthly low flows (refened to as the annual low flowj as calculatel h..ftr low flow analysis. For ammonia' it is the standard procedure of the wecD to deterrnine assimilative capacities for each month using the monttrly to* no*s carculated in the low flow anarysis, as the regulations arlow the use of seasonal no*t *t'"o establishing assimi infi ve cap acities' The wQCD's standard analysis consists of steady-state, mass-balance calculations for most pollutants and modeling for pollutants such as ammonia. The mass-balance equation is used by the *QCD to calcutate trr.--oi** allowable concentration ofpollutants in the eflluent, and accounts for the upstream concentration of a porlutant at the existing quality, critical low flow (minimal dilution), effluent flow and the water quality standard. The mass-balance equation is expressed as: Mz=ry Where; Qj - Upsteam low n1w (tfl or 30E3)' .6r..:ei.iugt daily effluent flow (design capacity) :i n:'.-rr^.'mc.traqrr.' flow (O, + O) li I, The upstrenm backgror:nd porlutant.concentations used in the mass-balance equation will varybased on the regulatory definition of existing ambient water quality. For most pollutants, existing quality is determined to be thlfJ; i.i*"tife.-For metals in the toial recovr*bl. form, existing quality is determined to be ;;d;;;;;r,ii.. Foi patrrogens such as fecar coriform, existing quality is determined to be the geometric mean' For non-conservative para,eters and ammonia, the mass-balance equation is not as applicable and thus other approaches are considered where appropriate- Note that conservative pollutants are polrutants that are modered as if mass is conserved and there is no degradation, wh*eas non- conservative pollutants degade and sometimes are created within areceiving steam depending on stream conditions. e *oi" detailed discussion of the technical analysis for these param'eters is provided in the Pages that follow ffiSwereidentifiedbytheWQCDaspo11utantsofconcenrforthisfaci1ity: Dr:Po*ottt"am flow (Aj Q-) ff, : t.,#; b.;ks.riia n. u'it91 c11c entatiT: " -q :Tgi yhry ,, = A;;*j;;;; aflowable e{f-luent Pollutant conc:::11": ffi: = ffi## ii"*"orr in-stream pollutant concentation (water quality standards) . BODs. TSS o Percent removal Page 7 of 14 I I t I I I l, . Oil and Grease .pH oDO . Fecal Coliform o Total Residual Chlorine . Arnmonia. There are no in-stream water quality standards for BODs' TSS' percent removal' and oil and grease for the the colorado Rir.r. i*r, assimilative capacities were not detennined for these parameters in this soction and an antidegradatioa review for these parameters was not conducted in section v. The evaruation of appricable rimitations for these porlutants can be found in Section vI, Regulatory Analysis. During assessment of the fac*ity, nearby fac,ities, qnd receiving steam water quarity, no additional pararneters were rarntified as pottot*t, of .oo."*. It should be noted that cyanide and metals are not evaluat.a * p.rt ofpEls i.r"1op*"ntbecause it is the wQCD',s approachto ensure contol of cyanide and metals throug! a pretreatnent progralB' if necessary' rather than through wastewater treatment at the applicant's facility' During assessment of the facility, nearby facilities, and receiving stream water quality, no additional pararneters were identified as pollutants of conlem' ''i r: rne napias oevetopmeqt 9lrp.o.laiibn wiFi The Rapids Development Corporation W'WTF wi11be1o..t"diotf,iffi,ti*4Fw;Latitude39"33'04''North,longitudel0.7"34, 1.1,' West; approximately 2 miles*"" ofN"* Castlg CO' in Garfield County' The proposed design capacity of the f*ilril i, o.ooo MG;-(O Ogg .fri. frastewater reatuent is proposed to be accomprished using a mechanicar.wastewater teatnent process. The tecbnical anallses that follow include ..r.r.-"i'r;i,h" assimilative capacity based on this design capacity' Nearbv Sources An assessment of nearby facilities based on EpA,s permit compliance Slntema- @cS) database fo,nd 63 discharg.r, io ,u, 'c-nrta co*ty -*". Several faciliies conducted construction-related operations 1..g., Ju; *a graret.t r"; o, "o**.tion dewatering) and thus hadno porutants of co'cern in .orn rron *iu"m, n.piar"o.velopment corporation wwrF. other facilities were located more than twenty mil* to* ru, Rapids Development corporation wwrF and thus were li li 1,, l, l, I not considered. T{Ii:*,of NewcastlewwrF(co-00404?e)iS'1di*91':i"^}-:^:"ffi Tlfl' ffi#ffi,"J,)TJ,1il;**xf :i *idf,s oeveropment corporation wwrF. rhis ffi u.t a aesign caPacitY of o'20 MGD' ir1fi ;ffi;::il';I"ffi tcoo:t*l't,qr:1,-Yg1::""3:":'#ffi i:.H:' ffi::x#:l:ti::"#i::,iHJ,h {:t i:6id, D evelopme,rt corporation w wrF. rhis \#iffi; a aesign capacitY of 0.15 MGD' [ffifff-?ff-;J.^ffi i.ioc{tgo :::^:"*'#1?Yl' H:in"*:il# ffi ;; #;;F-ii" R.;id' D evelopmenic orp oration wIff rF' rhis frffi U.. a aesign capacity of 0'0247 MGD' Page 8 of t4 I I lr Ii ' T lr The ids Deve . WWTF Effluent Limits PEL-Garfield o Town of Siitwwrp (coc5g4046), which discharges to the cororado River approximately 6.5 miles downstenm. The arnbient water qualitybackgro*nd concentations used in the rnass-balance equation account for porlutants of concern "oot iu,rt.-a by these upstream sources, and thus it was not necessary to model the upstream dir.h;;;; toseqgi with The Rapids Development Corporation W'WTF when determining ttre availible aslimilative capacities in the colorado River. Due to the distance taveled, the significant dilution of the receiving steam, and. the relatively small contibutioos by the facilities of concern, modeling downsteam r"r]uti., in conjunction with rhe Rapids Development Corporation WWTF was not necessary' Basedonavaiiableinformation,thereisnoindicationthatnon.point:9*.:,.wereasignificant ;;::;?;;1#; of concem. Thus, non-point sources were not considered in this assessment' pH: The pH of a strearn measures the intensity of the acidity or arkaliniq olthe stream. when pH falis outside of the neutral rangd, it can be irarmful to aquatic life. To determine assimilative capacities of a steam;;;;H, urI 9rir.ti"g capacity of 9" receiving strearn and its interaction with the discharge contributions would need to-be assessed in a complex evaluation' A:r evaluatiou of pH data avail4ble for the Colorado River near-the proposed ]he Ranids Development corpJiution .w-wrE fo,*a tlut.tu" 15s percentile value *as werl above the minimum in_stream water quality standard *a u, sf prr..*it. value was welr below the marimum in- sbeam water quality standard; Because onry limited data are availabre and because a:rrbient water quality data indicat. tu"t no firrther.oo,rJr *r needed to meet in-streem pH standards, a complex evaluation of the *ti*if",i"e capacity for pH is not warranted for this facility' u The availability of dissorved oxygen in receiving streams is critical for aquatic life. Decomposition "f;;;ri; "ratter and nititr-cation within receiving stearns are generally the causes of tbe depletion of DO from receiving waters' For a non_conservative pararneter like DO, a simple mass balance cannot be used to determine assimilative capacity. Instead, ba.t grcr*aoo, stream florw, 5-daybiochemical oxygen dernand and a*monia f"uair,g''rt "; -ai*"or]oos, temperature, 'od estimates of effiuent DO may be incorporated into?odels such * turit..-t.r+he$s bo model or STRxAITdDo to simulate the impact of WWTF discharges' . An evaluation of Do data available for the cororado River near the proposed rhe Rapids Deveropment corporationwwm founaGui,ur l5spercentilevaluewasweu abovetheminimum in-steam w"* fi;li*y J*arra. Br.uorc onlylimited d.ata are availabie andbecause ambientwater quality aata inaicaie-that no fi[ther controls are needed to- mget in-stenm standards for DO' modelingwas not conducted as part ofthis evaluation anduo firrther discussion ofDo is provided' chroriner The mass-balance equationwas used to determine the assimilative capacity for to"l:' There are no po|oa sources diicharging total residual chlorine witldu one mile of rhe Rapids Development corporation wwrF. ilr.I*..morine is rapidly oxidized, in-steam levels ofresidual T l, I I t. I I I Page 9 of 14 li \ .' li i 1',, li,. I I l . WWTF Preliminary Effluent Limits PEL-Garfield chiorine are detected only for a short distance below a source' assumed to be zero. Ambient chlorine was therefore I'Usingthemass-balanceequation.providedinthebeginningofSectionrV,theacuteandchroniclow flows set out in section I[, th" chl0rine background concentation of zero as discussed above, and the in-sheam stanauas foi chlorine shown ii Section II, assimilative capacities for chl0rine were calculated. Tue aatlirs;*d rh. r.rurtirrg .ui*lations of the a110wab1e disctrarge concenkation, M2, Na set forthbeiow' Fecal coliform: There are no point sources discharging fecal coliform within one mile of rhe Rapids Deveropm*-c"rp*",i"" wwrF. Thus, iecal coliform assimilative capacities were evaluated seParatelY. It is the standard approach of the wegD to perform a mass-balance iheck to determine if fecal coliform standards al, .*r.ra"a wqbti."d*i specifies that checks are conducted using only the chronic 10w flow as sgJ out in s*;; [. usini the mass-balance. equation provided r" tg begi:rning of Section W, the-b1SkT"Y*;;t*ttutiilgontained in Section II' and the in-stream: standards forfecal;if;r- shc,wnin S""t*tr, ih":Iii-{* fecal colifounwere conducted' The data used and th" ,"ffi "iifrr"o"* ;a; ;i;ble dis'ctiargi concentrati oo., M2, are set forth below' lr lr lr lr l: l: l:l M t ft/100 ml) M 3 ft/100 ml) M 2 ft/100 ml)Parameter Q t kfs)Qz Gfs)Qt Gfs) 1046.093 20 200 2,024,716 Fecal Coliform 1046 0.093 Ammonia: Ammonia is present T th, aqueous :lY?*.Tt in uotu ionized and r:n-ionized forms' It is the ,n_ionized;;;bfi1, t.*iJ-a which is addressed by water qualiry standards' The proportionoftotalryoT-"presentlo-"'-iooi'edforminthereceivingsteamisafunctionofthe combined upstream aud effluent ammonia concentations, and the pH and temperature ofthe effIuent and receiving streem, combined' The colorado Ammonia Model (cAIvD is a software program designed to project the downsteam effects of ,mmoni"-Jtt. ammonia *;i*il.,ir, "upu.if,rs availaLle to each discharger based on upsteam water o,.Ut, '"U tmi'qait*:: l:^Lt:t]:: data for the CAIr'I' an in-stream water quality study must be conducted of the upsteam receiving water conditions, particululy the pH and lorr.tpo"ai"g temperature, over a period of at least one year' There were no data available for the colorado River nearThe Rapids Development corporation WWTF rSat could te used as adequate6;i; for theCAIv1 therefore' the WQCD standard proceduqp is to rely on default values Ib;'th" allowable chronic concentations of in-steam total Page 10 of 14 t.. \ ffiprovidedinlheC^o_loradoTotalMaximumDailyLoadandWasteloadAlIocation Guidanceand the cois iu*mary of Rationale Generar permitfor Domesticwastavater Treatment Faeirities that Discharge to Receiving waters with a chronil Low Flow: Design Flow Ratio of 1 00: 1 0r Greater. Note that acute value. ,r. oot provided in these sources and thus are not evaluated * putt of this assessment ' usingthe mass_balance equationprovided inthebeginning of Sectionrv, the acute and chroniclow flows set out in Section III, the ammonia existing quatity concenhation shown in section II, and the in_steam stanaaras-iouna-in the cororado Totir Maxtmum Daily Load andwasteload Allocation cruidanceand the iiii s"*mary of Rationare Generar permitfor Dgy?ti" wastanater Treatment Facilities that Discharge to Receivin[ ioo"r, with a.chronic Loi Frow: Design Flow Ratio of 100:1 or Greaterfor Mg, assimilative'raputitits fol:h:Pt total ammonia were calculated' The data used aud the resulting calculation. oitu. allowable discharge concentrati on, M2,are contained in Table 6. l,Table 6 AmmoniaAssimilativeCapacitiesforthOColoradoRiver at The Rapids Development Corpo[ati-on Wril/TF <^aA nt.r.fiart lo oo?- of<l'I)e; 'Tl' sltln at v.vv lrrvY lv.v,. -r T "fu.I2 -- Parameter ,,' ..'a, kt Q.z kfs)Q.,s",(c{s1'Mi i046:093 0.0080 0.70 :' 7;784lfflr, fot (mgfl) Ian 1046 0.093 0.093 1046.093 0.0080 0.60 6,6s9 lul--fq-.X*gA) f"u 1046 1046.093 0.0080 0.40 4,409lUf" fot (mgfl Mar 1046 0.093 1109.093 0.0080 0.40 4,675rlrrf- fot (msn) APr 1109 0.093 tftf, tot (mg[) May 1870 0.093 1870.093 0.0080 0.30 5,872 t597.093 0.0080 0.30 5,015lU" r"'t tqYtl t-7s9',1 0.093 0.093 1467.093 0.0080 0.30 4,606 N[Ir, Tot (mefl Jul t467 1250.093 0.0080 0.30 3,925 NHr, Tot (mefl Aug 7250 0.093 1250.093 0.0080 0.30 3,925ffi,Tot (*4 Je 1250 0.093 0.0080 0.30 4,2j0 NH3ilot (mgD Oct 1347 0.093 1347.O93 10s0.093 0.0080 0.30 3,297 I.[Hr, Tot (mgA) Nov 1050 0.093 1050.093 0.008c 0.50 1555 I.II{3, Tot (mgfl Dec 1050 0.093 Based on the analysis, the ass.imilative capacity of the receiving water is large enouglr to auocate a toiJ r*.ooi..ftlu.ot concentration of 30 mgA' V. Antidegradation Review As set out in The Basic standards and Methodorogies of surface water, Section 31.8(2)(b), an antidegradation analysis is required ,*..p, irr."r* iho. tt e receiving water is designated as "Llse protectei.,, Not. Urri Use Piotected" liaters are waters '1hat the Commission has deterrrined doI I Page 11 of14 I I It t l,' t I I l: I I The Rapids Development colp. wwTF'Pleliminaly Effluent Limits PEL-GaItreld cowlty not warrant the special protection provided by the outstanding waters designation or the antidegradation review process,, as set out in Section 31.g(2)(b). Th" antidegradation section of the regulation became effective in December 2000, and therefore antidegradation considerations are appiicable to this PEIs analYsis' According to the crassifications and Numeric standards for Lower colorado River Basin, steam segmeot coLCLC0t is undesignated. Thus, an autidegrudutioo review may be conducted for this sesnent if new or increased impacts are fo,nd to occur. However, the ratio of the flow of the colorado River,o ru" Rapids Development corporation wwTF design flow is ll'247:l at low flows. Section3l.ttrlt.lspecifiesttraithedischargeofpollutantsshouldnotbeconsideredtoresult in significant o"gruautioo oitt " reviewable waters if thi flo* rate is greater than 100:1 dilution at 10w flow. Thus, .;di;;" 31.g(3)(c) of the regulations is met and no further antidegradation evaluation is necessary. YI. Regulatory AnalYsis Note that the TSS limitations shown above varybased onthe type ofwasteyatlTeatue,ntprocesses used at the facility. The Regulations for ifiluent Limitatiins waive tbe g5 percent rernoval requirerre,nts for TSS *U.r. *Lte stabilizatioi-ponds, both aerated and non-aerated, are used as the princlpal process for teating domestic wastes' section 62.4(r)of the Regz lations for Efituent Limitatiop .l|o indicates that n,meric limitations for fecal coriform shaltie altermined. rh; State has developed tbe Procedurefor selection of Fecal ' cotiformlimitatiotu permit conditionsthat specifies a 3b-day average limit of 6,000 colonies per 1OO ml 2nd a 7-d;;r;age limit of 12,000 colonies per 100 ml when the ratio of the receiving ##fr;;;;;ilflo*L grrut.,thantento one. TheProcedurefor Selecrion ofFecal coliform Page 12 of 14 li . I l l' ,' I; Ii lt,, li,., Ti , I l,. til li. l. li, lr I l, I The Rapids Development corp. wwTF Preliminaly Effluent Limits PEL-Gadeld comty Limitations permit Conditions also specifies that the 7-day average limitmustbe calculated as two times the 30-daY average limit. YII. Preliminary Effluent Limits The potential pElr reflected in Tabie 8 include the consideration of the following: o Assimilative capacities as discussed in the technical analysis contained in Section [v . Eflluent limits irescribed by the regulations based on the regulatory analysis provided in Section VI . A determination ofwhichpEl.s ultimately applywillbe depe,ndent ondecisionsmadebyTheRapids D evelopment CorPoration WWTF' Note that limitations for ammonia were not necessary for this facility because the assimilative capacity of the ,r"Jriig water, as discussed in section rv, is large enough to establish total ammonia effluent concJntrations at 30 mgA. Because treated sanitary sewage effluent is not expected to have a total ammonia concentratlon greater than 30 mgA, no additional allocatiors were aeierminea as PeTWQCD Procedure' Yfff. References procedurefor selection of Fecal colform Limitations Permit conditions, CDPIIE, WQCD, April 7,L976. Colorado Totqt Maximum Daity Load and Wasteload Allocation Ctaidance, CDPtfi, WQCD, November 1991. crassifications and Numeric standards for Lower cororado River Basin, Regulation No. 37, CDPIIE, WQCC, Effective January 20,2004' The Bcsic Standards ond Meihodotogies for Surface Water, Regulation 3/, CDPIIE, WQCC' Effective October 30, 2001. Page 13 of 14 I t The Rapids Deveropment corp. wwfir preliminary Effluent Limits pEl-Gartreld county cDps summary of Rationare Generar permitfor Domestic wastmtater Treatment Facilities that Discharge to Recetving iorr* with a -Chronii Low FIow: Desigtt Flow Ratio of 100:1 or Greater, cDps permit coc_584000, statewide, cDpIIE, WQCD, Septembe.r 14,1994. Antid e gr adati on Signifi cance D etermination for N ew y lncr e as ed Water fu ality Imp acts' P'ror"iurot Guidaici, CDPffi, WQCD, December 2001' Memorandum Re: First tlpdate to Guidance Version I'I'CDPIIE' WQCD' April 23'2002' lu , - lii tffi Ii , I t t) tt Page 14 of 14 .' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I t.'ir I LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP DAVID H. MCCONAUGHY JAMES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQUIST.HEATH SUSAN W. LAATSCH NICOLE D. GARRIMONE ANNA S. ITENBERG MICHAELJ. SAWYER TERESA L. HOCK EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI Steve Rippy, Town Administrator Town ofNew Castle P.O. Box 90 New Castle, CO 81647 LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW IOII GRANDAVENUE P. O. DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (97 0) 9 4 5 -226 | Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 lel@lklawfirm'com April 13,2004 VIA FACSIMILE DENVER OFFICE:+ WMEE EXCHANGE BUILDINC IgOO WAZEE STREET, STE.2O3 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 '(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood SPrings Ouice) Re: I lr lr l: l: l: Dear Steve and Davis: : At your request, the consulting engineer for The-Rapids on the Colorado Wastewater Treatment Facility site Application has analyzed thJrort of extending service for The Rapids Development to the Town ofNew castle,s treatment piant. Enclosed is a letter analyzing those costs. Al lou can see, the cost of an extension to New castle is approxim ately $Z.Zmillion, *i"r"it a facility can be built at The Rapids for $.66 million. we did not analyze the cost of going to the intersection (to connect to the Riverside PUD line to be constructed) because tire breakerm point lgiven the cost of a line in the county road versus a river crossing) is approximately .4 of a mile, and ttr. "aaitional distance to the intersection is well over a mile. ln other words, it is cheaper to go under the river than continue up to the intersection' The site application review is tentatively scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners for Monday, April lg,2oo4. We would very much like to retain that schedule. could you please send a letter to tLe County at your earliest convenience? I have also asked the engineer to confirm that there is additional land at the site, and the proposed plant is capable of expansion, ti senre additional users. That letter will be forthcoming shortly' Ifyou have any further questions, or desire additional information, please feel free to contact me' Davis Farrar Western"Slope Consulting 165 Basalt Mountain Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Very tnrlY Yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. LEL:bsl Enclosure cc: Mark Bean, w/enc. Gene Hilton, w/enc. l:U0(xElios$rri.b. l'oald6tuiFy'FEr' l uf d MARTIN /MARTIN coNtuLTlNB ENEiINEERS Aor-r.?-O4 1l:34A AtR. 12. 2c)il4 1.14Pill t\JlARTIl{ & llARTI|{ P -O? N0,5996 P. lI t. I t I I I I T T T I I I I I t I I I Mr. Lec Leavenwofih, AttomeY Lcavcnworth & KarP, P'C'' 1011 GfidArcnuc P-O. Drrwcr 2030 Glcnsrood SPrings, Cotorado 81602 Rc: Thc RaPids ou tbc Colorado WWTF _ Dgrr Mr. Lcavarworth: As rcqucstcd by crcne Hiltoo, is thc opinion of cots for thc 'rrious sccnerios for seuagc E.cat!o.'At for ttrc rbow referenccd Projcct' Consructiog I scwsgc lift at the wcst God of thc RaPids dcvclo'pmcnt and pyryinqlt^Tfgt to Nor Crstle,r *.*rli, pf-t, i*1,aing oae hrrndre'd tvcaly sne 021) tap fees is $2,200'755 (see cacloscd shest).,.: Thi estinurcd oost for thc Rapi& ro eoturecr ro thc Silt Higb School linc thrt rrill go to Ule sill ilffiF;;b*";aorr o#ct^ry 4h ed&othnl includingtap fees is 52,604'500' MARTINA{ARIDI's latest opinion of costs to ccnstruc-ti&I-"\|lm for the Rapids at tttc a""Ifop*c", is cstimatcd to b; 1661,392 ar sbown in thc rddmdum. As shourn abovc, it is moT c ccoaoaical f6 the R'lpi& m co'nscucr rbcir owu wsstcwtlcf, reatmcatplmt Sinc.aelY, fi,'J"e,le nogErU. Smedcs,P.E- Principal Atuctrncnt RHS.njr 't i I |2..,,1.s1 cclf^t ^Y.iuz. ,.o.tol l.rsog I L^.Gwooo. coLot^co ro,l' t 9o3..!r..too F. L.,5Apr: IZ-o4 rr:344 t I I t T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Gomparison of Waete llYater Trcatment Alternatives For l2l Units At The Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision Cost of Taps & Line Extension From Rapids to Silt Tap Fees $3700 Per Tap X 3 Outside Town Limits X 121 Units River Crossing 425 Feet X $200/Foot Pump Statiori Due To Line Under River Pipeline Cost 3.75 Miles X 5,280 X $35 / Foot Due to Weter lssues Cost Rocovary Scfiool 3.50 Miles X 5,280 X $35 lFoolxl2 GenerEtor BaeJ<-up to Povver Pump Station ln Emergencies Cost of Easements Not Considered Dua to High Cost of Altemative Gost of Taos & Line Extension From Raoids to New-Castle Tap Fees $5,000 PerTap Outside Town Limih X 121 Units $ Locaie 8898 Feet of Line in CR 335 X $67 Ft Lines (Duplicate) Located on tha Rapids Subdivision 4,800 X S32 River Crossing 400 Feet X $350/Foot Lift Station and Controls Electrical Building Over \AM/TF Facilities Generator Back-Up to Power Purnp Station ln Emergencias lnterstate 70 Bore Engineering Cost of Waste Water.Trcatment Eacilitv at Raoids Headurcirks Sequencing Batctt Reaclor Sequencing Bbtcfi Reactor Basin U ltraviolet Disinfection Sludge Holding Standby Generator OutfallStruciurs Blorrers, and,Building Building Covering Plant Site Work Yard Piping Elec{rical / lnstrumentetion OutfallLinc Contingenqies $ 1,343,100 85,000 100,000 693,000 323,4muo'y 605,000 596,166 153,600 140,(n0 150,0(n 1E,000 75,000 50,000 290,000 123.000 28,000 138,000 126,000 26,000 38,000 35,m0 6,000 24,M 120,000 18,000 18,000 32,000 4,500 47,492 3 2,200,7&5 - $ 681,392 - 3 2,G04.500 - WWTF Comparisons NC Silt RDC I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lr lr lr lr lr lr lr lr lr lr lr lr t: Re: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lr I lr lr LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDERN. KARP DAVID H. MCCONAUGHY JAMES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQUIST-HEATH SUSAN W. LAATSCH NICOLE D. GARRIMONE ANNAS.ITENBERG MICHAELJ. SAWYER TERESAL. HOCK EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI Steve Rippy, Town Administrator Town ofNew Castle P.O. Box 90 New Castle, CO 81647 LEL:bsl Enclosure cc: Mark Bean, w/enc. Gene Hilton, w/enc. Roger Smades, P.E., w/out enc. LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW IOII GRAND AVENUE P. O. DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8{602 Telephone: (97 0) 945'2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 lel@lklawfirm.com April 14,2004 \rIA FACSIMILE DENVER OFFICE:+ WAZEE EXCHANGE BUILDING IgOO WAZEE STREET, STE, 203 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825'3997 ,(Please direcl all correspondence to our Glenwood SPrings OlJice) Dear Steve and Davis: As promised inmy letter ofApril 13, z}O4,enclosed is the engineer's letter confirmingthere is additional land at the siie, and the pioposed plant is capable of expansion to serve additional users' Ifyouhave any further questions, or desire additional information, please feel free to contact me. Davis Farrar Western Slope Consulting 165 Basalt Mountain Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Very trulY Yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. Leavenworth I :!roo.\C1i6tt\x{rad}l ao7\l!wrtoj]gry'i I t'2 ePn ll P -02I .t I t I I I Aor-L3-04 l2:09P lIARTIII & lt{ARTIII ll0. 6045 P r'l Mr. Lcc Lcavemvorth, Attorncy Lcavcnwortb &KarP'P.C. 101I Grutd Avcnuc P.O. Drewcr2030 Glcnwood SPriqs, Coluedo tt602 Rc: Thc RaPids on thcColora5s WWTF DcarLIr. Lcavcnworttu As reqrrcstedby bothyorrsclf and GtncHilbq lhaw rcviewed tI lasctl of land-that is Ooig"ii.i f"r ifc prciosca Repids wWTF in ordcr ro detcrmine if tbc poposcd frcility could bc exprndcd in tlu ftmrc. Thc cxis6ng sitc will accomsrodetc ur cxpmsior of thc ptoposod SBR faeitity iu oda to trclt -riC"ip".ra Oo* gours, p,royi&d thet futune lirbiliry $ 9$1;srye could bc rcsolwd prior to rn cxiansion taking plrcc ol tropcrtia ov*ned by ttre Rrpi& Devclopmcnt Conpany' If you heve my orha grstions, plcrsc contrctw rt 3034316100. Principal c: Gcnc Hrlton RHS.njt I I I I I I t I I I I I I MAFITIN /MARTIN CoNTULTINO ENBINEEiS I 2499 Waat troLtar Avcxuc . P.O.gor t5r5OO ' La(CtrCCO, Col.eraeo CO2l5 raa?.aA l.6ilOO Sincercly, Srnrdcs, P.E. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I Tousn oJ Silt RECEIVED APR / 200+ '31 *; lS 35?t.! 5;? i ?.JEdffibffi fftfr fo nn nc. March 29,2004 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Attn: Mr. Dwain Watson 222 S.6th Street, Room 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Dear Mr. Watson: The Town of Silt recently met with Gene Hilton, owner of the "Rapids" Subdivision and his attorney, Loyal E. Leavenworth. Town staff, Mr. Hilton and Mr. Leavenworth discussed the Town correspondence to the CDPHE dated February 27 ,2004, regarding the Town's position on Mr. Hilton's proposal to construct a Sequencing Batch Reactor wastewater treatment facility. Other items of discussion included the following: 1) the newly decreased density of the subdivision from 194 to l2l units; 2) increased land acreage associated with the development; 3) costs associated with attachment to the Town of Silt wastewater treatment system; 4) potential attachment to the Town of New Castle wastewater treatment system; 5) potential attachrnent of the Apple Tree Mobile Home Park to this proposed system; and 6) operation of the proposed wastewater treatment system. After numerous conversations with Garfield County, Mr. Hilton, Mr. Russ Talbott, and with the Town of New Castle, the Town was led to believe that a lagoon system would be installed for the "Rapids" Subdivision or on the Apple Tree Park parcel, to serve both developments. Lagoon systems typically ex'ceed effluent parameters, and the Town was concerned that this type of system would affect the Town of Silt domestic water intake. Additionally, the Town of Silt was opposed to the proposed density of 194 units, a 5887o increase from the number of platted units (33). The Town of Silt has long held that density should appropriately occur in municipalities, where g!! services are available, including police protection, parks and recreation, water and wastewater service, etc. However, the Town concecles that this issue is better addressed by the municipality most affected, in this case the Town of New Castle. I spoke with Davis Farrar on Monday, March 29,2004, and he informed that the developer's proposal of 121 units now conforms to the maximum density in the Town of New Castle Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation, with one unit per acre. He indicated rhat Mr. Hilton has had initial discussions with the Town of New Castle regarding density, location of trail, open space and clustering of units. The Town of Silt would recommend that the Town of New Castle and this developer negotiate and reach mutual terms for wastewater treatment, before any approval by I I I Garfield County for increased density, and before CDPF:IE's approval of the system. It is I the Town's understanding that a licensed wastewater operator must operate the wastewater Plant. I The Town of Silt appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project, as the project is within 2.9 miles from the Town of Silt boundaries. Should you have any questions, I please do not hesitate to call Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sincerely, I @,,€gJu,'*&tc/ I H,i.-";,i$Bti:l"r-ent Director I CC: Board of Trustees; Richard J. Aluise, Town Administrator; Mark Bean, Director of I Building and Planning, Garfield County; file I t I I tl lr lr lr lr lr lr lr l: lr lr lr l: LOYAL E, LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP DAVID H" MCCONAUGHY JAMES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQUIST-HEATH EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI SUSAN W. LAATSCH NICOLE D. GARRIMONE ANNA S. ITENBERG MICHAEL J. SAWYER TERESA L. HOCK CASSIA R. FURMAN LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 I4TH STREET, SUITE 2OO P. O. DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8I602 Telephone: (97 0) 9 45 -2261 Facsimile: (97 0) 9 45 -7 336 lel@lklawfirm.com REcE$}I"y,,P,,., MAY 0 4 2005 GARFIELD i;OUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING DENVER OFFICE:* W AZEE EXCHANGE BUILDINC 19OO WAZEE STREET, STE. 203 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 *(Please direct all coruespondence to our Clenwood Springs Offce) VIA HAND DELIVERYMark Bean, Director Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8'h'Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Dear Mark: Rapids Development Corporation Site Application As I mentioned in the voicemail I left you, Rapids Development Corporation, The Rapids on Colorado Homeowners Association, and the Town of New Castle have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in which the Town "shall consent to and recommend to the BOCC that they recorilnend approval of the site application for the [proposed wastewater treatment] facility." A copy of the complete executed MOU is enclosed. With the Town's consent and recomnendation of approval, Rapids Development Corporation would like to move forward with its pending site application. We would like to schedule the continued meeting before the Board of County Commissioners as soon as an agenda position is available. I assume you still have the amended site application. If not, let me know what you need and when we can anticipate going before the Commi ss ioners. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. A LEL:bsl Enclosure cc: Rapids Development Corporation, w/out enc. Loy 'd Leavenworth _) Mn*ron q.NDuM or UnUBRSTANDTNG A Tms Mruoneuourr,r oF UNDERSTANDSIG, made this EZ! duv of //fletr-- , ZOO5, by and among the Tomt or Nrw CASTLT, a municipal @rincipa1offrceat450WestMainStreet,NewCastle,Colorado 8:r6ql (hereinafter the "Town"), TID R..q,ppS DgWt OpIlml\rr COnpOnaTION, and TI:m R tpros ON rrr Colonaoo HowowNpns AssocmoN (the "HON'), both Colorado corporations having its principal office and place of business at 2102 West Arapahoe Drive, Littleton, Colorado 80 1 20-3008 (hereinafter collectively "Rapids")- y71TSRERS, Rapids owns certain real property situate in the County of Garfield, Colorado, consisting of approximately ninety-seven (97) acres, as well as the right to acquire an adjoining parcel consisting of approximately twenty-four (24) acres; and WHemAS, in September of 1997, Garfield County approved Rapids' plat for a subdivision comprised of thirty-three (33) single family residential lots to be known as The Rapids on the Colorado (hereinafter the "Project"), which plat is recorded in the office olthe Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado as Reception No' 513353, and WHgRres, in accordance with such approval, Rapids completed the public improvements for the contemplated subdivision, including roads, water, nafural gas, telephone, electricity, fire protection and drainage, with sewer service to be provided by individual sewer disposal systems; and WHERT4S, Rapids now desires to file an application for a PUD with Garfield County in order to replat the Project property together with the adjoining parcel consisting of approxirnately twenty-four (24) acres, or a total of one hundred twenty-one (l2l) acres, as a PUD comprised of one hundred twenty-one (i21) single family residential units; and WrmRses, in order to obtain the approval of Garfield County for a PUD, the subdivision must be serviced by a central waste water treatment system; and WlDnrRS, Rapids has prepared and submitted to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter the "BOCC") a site application dated December, 2003 for such a central waste water treatment service facility (hereinafter the "Facility") for the Project pursuant to CRS $25-8-502, et seq.; and Memorandum of Understanding by and among Town ofNew Castle, The Rapids Development Corporation and The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Association Page2 WHsRlas, the site application for the Facility approval was sent to the Town in its capacity as a referral agency with a sewer system within three (3) miles of the Project; and WlDRnes, the Town expressed concerns about the site application density as originally submitted; and WlDnEes, Rapids amended its application to the BOCC by amendment dated March 29,2004; and Wmnse.S, the Project is within the Town's three (3) mile planning area as set forth in C.R.S. $31-12-105; and WIEnEAS, Rapids seeks the cooperation of the Town in its site application to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (hereinafter the "CDPIfi") and a recommendation from the Town to the BOCC that they recommend to the CDPFIE that the application be approved, and WIEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Memorandum of Understanding to reflect certain agreements and understandings among thern. Now, TIEREFoRE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Subject to the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding, the Town shall consent to and recommend to the BOCC that it recommend approval of the site application for the Facility. 2. Rapids agrees that the proposal to be submitted to Garfield County for the replatting of its entire one hundred twenty-gne (121) acre parcel as referred to above as a PLID shall not contain more than one hundred twenty-one (121) single family residential units, and uses for trails, open space, roads, ponds, utility easements, water storage tanks, waste water treafinent facility, pipelines, irrigation ditches, lines and facilities, water wells, recreational facilities, community facilities and other uses approved by the HOA from time to time, and shall conform substantially to the sketch plan map attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The Town agrees that many elements of such proposed P[ID, including clustering, dedication of open space, preserving the hillside as open space and the like New Castle-Rapids Agreement 4. I 1.2005.FinalN.C..doc Memorandum of Understanding by and among Town of New Castle, The Rapids Development Corporation and The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Association Page 3 are consistent with its Comprehensive Plan, although not in strict compliance with such Plan as to density. The Town supports the PUD because of its substantial compliance with its Comprehensive Plan as noted above, the provision for a public trail with river access, and the provision of a waste water treatment facility with proposed use as provided herein; provided, however, that any such support is contingent upon compliance by Rapids with the provisions of this paragraph and, further, so long as the PUD proposal is consistent with the following conditions: a. Rapids specifically agrees that it shall, as generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto, dedicate to public use a defined trail (the "Trail"), not less than four access points ("Access Points") between the Trail and a fifteen- foot wrde river trail ("River Trail") to and along the water line of the Colorado River, as it may seasonally fluctuate, for fishing and other non-comrnercial and non-hunting recreational purposes during a time period commencing thirfy (30) minutes before sunrise and ending thirty (30) minutes after sunset, and shall provide nine (9) public parking spaces within the Project for such purposes. Maintenance and repair of the Trail, Access Trail, River Trail and the public parking area shall be the responsibility of the HOA. It is specifically agreed that the Trail shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from the rear lot lines of the residential lots in the Project. Fences, not higher than five (5) feet, may be constructed by the HOA and/or lot owners along the lot lines abutting the Trail. Fences not in excess of four (4) feet in height may be constructed outside individual lot lines within the dedicated open space to protect landscape features, provided that such fences in the'ilpen space do not unreasonably impede public access. The Trail shall be not less than six (6) feet wide, shall be initially composed of four (4) inch compacted road base, and may be modified by the HOA to provide a hardened surface to encourage use by the elderly and those who are confined to a wheelchair. The foregoing Trqil, Fishing Trail and Access Points shall be shown on the final plat with appropriate plat notes. b. As part of the PUD approval, Rapids specifically agrees that the open space tract ("Open Space Tract") located south of County Road 335 and west of County Road 312 shall remain as open space in perpetuity. The Town and Rapids acknowledge that the following uses shall be allowed on the open space tract: New Castle-Rapids Agreement 4. I I . 2005.FinalN. C.RevA. doc Memorandum of Understanding !I *d among Town ofNew Castle, The Rapids Development Corporation and The Rapids on the Colorado Ho-"o*nrrs Association Page 4 record. (1) Leases, agreements, reservations, easements and rights of way of (2) Additional water well(s) and warer storage facilities andequipment for Rapids, incruding access, utirities and w-3262underground water augmentation plan pipeline and associatedcontrols and equipment. (3) Existing access roads Nothing herein shall be deemed to affect the rights of third parties who haveeasements or reserved rights conceming the open space tract. IT*[f:ing open Space Tract shall be shown on the final ptat with appropriate c' The parties agree that alt road impact fees in excess of those alreadyexpended by Rapids shall, unless othen'ise directed by the Bocc, be applied toadditional improvements to county Road 335. It is further agreed that Rapidsshall propose to the Bocc that the balance of the Road Impact F.;r r, be paid byRapids shal be utilized for i-p.or"*.rrt, to cR 335 based uponrecommendations to be made jointly ty engineers representing the Rapids, theTown and Garfield County. The parties -specifically acknowledge that Rapids has previously expended.thesum of one Hundred Eighteen Thouiand r*o firnored six Dollars ($11g,206.00)as impact fees, prior to adjustnent for inflation,for the 33 approved existing lots,which funds were used toieconstruct and pave a one-half mile section of cR 335adjacent to The Rapids on the colorado subaivision, and that no traffic impactfees shall be due for 33 of the proposed 121 lots. d' The parties acknowledge ihat the waste water treatment facility siteprovided within the Project is sufficient in size to accommodate wastewatertreatrnent fo: approxmately one hundrea fiooir.res of privately owned landadjacent to the Project and Apple Tree Mobil. H";. park. Any expansion of theproposed Facility is dependent upon approval of an application to expand thefacility by the colorado Departrnent of public Health and Environment basedupon various factors, including but not limiteJ to comments from adjacent New Castle-Rapids Agreement 4. I l . 2005.FinalN. C.. doc Memorandum of Understanding by and among Town ofNew Castle, The Rapids Development Corporation and The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Association Page 5 rnunicipalities, residents and the recommendation by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado. In the event such an expansion ii approved by the State of Colorado, a service contract to provide waste water treatment to properties located south of the Colorado River and outside the Project would require such properties proposed to be served to provide: (1) Liability insurance for potential damages caused by offsite pollutants introduced into the plant system. (2) An agreement to hold Rapids harmless for all costs or liability resulting from damages associated with facilities or services for waste water treafment originating from properties not owned or acquired by Rapids. (3) cash payments shall be made in advance for all expansion expenses to be incurred by Rapids, its successors or assigns, including but notlimited to engineering and legar fees, administrative costs, utility modifications, modifications to the existing plant necessitated by thl expansion, and expenses of any kind or nature associated with theexpansion' It is specifically acknowledged that the expenses of :JjlTJ:ll:,XH':;.;'il:T,"",#;:1il:::,::T:1.,Jffi "il:lectsha,, (4) ry agreement that provides that maintenance, repair and replacementof all collector lines, lateral lines and associited facilities within adjacent properties or within Apple Tree Mobile Home park shall be f;J"J#,'J",fi 'il'3",t'ffi #ffi:H"J;y..rH'U#*rii: service contract; (5) Tap fees and services qharges for wastewater treatment provided to properties outside the Project (Apple Tree, Mountain Shadows and adjacent properties) shall be at rates acceptable to both parties. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, no connectionto the Facility by any third party shall be permitted without the written consent of the Town, provided however, that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld if the proposed land use is consistent with the New Castle-Rapids Agreement 4. I 1 . 2005.FinalN. C.. doc Memorandurn of Understanding by and among Town of New Castle, The Rapids Development Corporation and The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Association Page 6 Comprehensive plan for the Town. 4' Norce. -All notices required or appropriate under this Agreement shall bein writing and shall be hand delivered or sent Uy certinea mail, return ieceipt requested, postage prepaid, to the addresses of the parties herein set forth. All notices so given shalibe considered effective seventy-two (72) hours after deposit in the United States Mailwith the proper address as set forth below. Either parfy by notice so given may change the address to which future notices shall be sent. Notice to the Town:Town of New Castle 450 West Main Street New Castle, Colorado 81647 The Rapids Development Corporation 2102 West Arapahoe Drive Littleton, Colorado 80120-3008 The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Notice to Rapids: Notice to the HOA: Assn. 2102 West Arapahoe Drive Littleton, Colorado S0 1 20-300g 5' FnqAL Acneell{ENr. This Agreement supersedes and controls all priorwritten and oral agreements and representations of the pu.ti.., and is the total integratedagreement among the parties. 6' Mopn:celoNs. This Agreement shall not be amended or modjfied,except by subsequent written agreement of the parties. 7. Ivrs'RPRErerIoN. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance withthe law of the State of Colorado. 8' TBnrvmverroN. If the Rapids has not obtained final approval fromGarfield county of the replatting of the proposed one hundred twenty-oni ltzl) acresparcel into at least 121 residential lots as a PUD within two (2) years from the date of thisMemorandum of Understanding, then this Memorandum of Understanding shallterminate and its provisions be rendered null and void. New Castle-Rapids Agreement 4. I I . 2005.FinalN. C.. doc - Memorandum of Understanding by and among Town of New Castle, The Rapids Development Corporation and The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Association Page 7 IN Wrnrsss WHEREoT, Memorandum of Understanding on the day the parties hereto have executed this and year first above written. TowN oF NEw Cesn s TID Repns ON TT{E ColoReoo Gene R. Hilton, President Gene R. Hilton, Chairman GAAFIELD S.fiAL cour.Jry * New Castle-Rapids Agreement 4. I 1 .2005.FinalN. C.. doc I iEHHlil E SbgEEH E!EiEEE I$sr ,' ,:, ,, I ', iE i1 I t .l'', t.ri,!/t i1 i. .0, , t,'lri. ,, t ri ! i^ a it:;.:i,.,:ii,:l - -. i'.t I i,, B+5\$a I,, soIo o oSq- tBrt lg #t :t ,. i:, Egr }lillHilfi il Iifi lilillliiiiii iii illrli*+l*iliillilllllltl ll iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiliii;xirlii li i i{riliiin;liil"i:;i11, i;i;;; ii #r p''''"g 'i:: ^a','Q,A "t), *S'$ I l E o P ,tryhJ.JE a - \ C^() trlL *sdF oi'- ESa*.Fi E Hn! =,.. E ENHt^5 EH a f5.. Q ,+. Or H H" E s= " F: x C^ F.:o Iil:, lt tt I E IIEEHE- IEffiEE gHEEE= EI to(r2I E a,oBq !t2o 2El! ao uiEElrIi,HE;il*[1I* E. =9"$ (o ;2eL I E b{ 1 J A E E E !lo2 P9 3 q z6 E I F 5 I E I E a a E 6I E F EE>i9Z o6 EEil .<E5 EB EF EE4A EE EE az ,+ q .J g N(, AE+d N I N Io I .fi -Pm g PZa o 6oo6 a o+ (i EUS The RAPIDS on the COLORADO Planned Unit Development SKETCH PLAN MOUNTAIN EROSS HilS.I.il.-E*-ESIHS;,""11!,S; 626 112 Grand Avrnuo Gl6nw@d Sp.ing., CO 81601 oAE UIENE I I l ,i ;- ST{rE OF eOLOTUDO Bill Owens, Governor Dennis E. Ellis, Executive Direclor Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Divrsron Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www.cdphe.state.co. us March 6,2006 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 (303) 692-3090 Colorado Department of PublicHealth andEnvironment Mr. Mark Bean, Planning Director Garfield County 109 8th Street, #200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Rapids on the Colorado Dear ivir. Bean. .$K As you probably know Regulation 22 section 22.3(2) of the Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works, 5 CCR 1002-22 requires that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division (Division) ensure that each site application for a domestic wastewater treatment works has been developed considering local long-range comprehensive plans for the area as it affects water quality and that the proposed site has been properly reviewed by all appropriate local govemmental agencies. The Division previously understood that the Mr. Hilton, the President of the Rapids Development Corporation, the developer of this project, would apply for re-zoning of the Rapids on the Colorado property based on the County Attorney's decision to allow re-zoning prior to obtaining site and design approval. However, Mr. Hilton has hired a new attorney and they have requested that the Division act on the site application submitted to us on June 9, 2005 prior to submitting a re-zoning application to Garfield County. As part of its review, the Division will determine if the project meets the requirements of Regulation 22 the "Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works." As noted above, the regulation requires the Division to review the site application submittai and ensure that proposed treatment works is <ieveiopeci considering the local long-range comprehensive plan for the area as it affects water quality and the approved water quality management plan for the area. The adjacent property owners have submitted concerns to the Division that include issues regarding the zoning of the property and water quality based issues in the Colorado River. With these requirements in mind, we have some questions, regarding the re-zoning of this property to allow for a higher density composed of l2l units. It is our understanding that the comprehensive plan would need to be amended if the property is re-zoned from a rural or low a BT]ILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 22,2006 R. Kent Kuster, Environmental Protection Specialist Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Re: Rapids on the Colorado Dear Mr. Kuster: The Board of County Commissioners reviewed the site application for the proposed sewage treatment works on June 76, ?004. The Board reviewed the application and authorized the Chairman, John Martin to sign the document on behalf of the County. It is his signature on the document. The recommendation of approval was based upon a review of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 and a Memorandum of Understanding between the developer and the Town of New Castle regarding cornpliance with their Comprehensive Plan. Policy 10.1 of the County's Comprehensive Plan states, "Comprehensive Plan Zoning Resolution revisions, Zone District Amendments and individual projects within defined Urban Areas of Influence, will be consistent with local municipal land use policies." The application was referred to the Town of New Castle, who met a number of times with the applicant and reached a Memorandum of Understanding that established a number of stipulations between the parties and it stated that the Town would find the application in "substantial" compliance with their Comprehensive Plan. (See attached MOU) The recommendation of approval by the Board of County Commissioners included a notation in the staffreport that the recommendation of the Site Application in no way obligated the County to approve any proposed PUD or other development on the property in question. Nor is the County bound by any of the stipulations in the MOU between the Town and the applicant. Any proposed PUD will have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners on its own merit. Whether or not the statements made in the MOU will satisfy the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners regarding compliance of a PUD application with the Garfreld County Comprehensive Plan goals, objective and policies will have to be made at the time of the meetings and 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (e70) 94s-8212 (970) 28s-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 Gaffield Coun$ a hearings before them. The only determination the Board of County Commissioners made in the previous approval was based upon the general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies as they relate to the placement of a sewage treatment works in the area. In summary, the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners has not deferred a decision to approve or deny a PUD application to the Town ofNew Castle. John Martin's signature on the Site Application is only a recommendation regarding the placement of a sewage treatment works in the proposed location. There has been no further consideration of the recommendation regarding the sewage treatment works. If you have any other questions about this issue, I will try to answer them as soon as possible. Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department cc: Don DeFord, Garfield County Attorney Gene Hilton,2102 West Arapahoe Drive, Littleton, CO 80120-3008 Jill McConargry,0515 County Road 167, Glenwood Spring, CO 81601 Lee Leavenworth, PO Drawer 2A30, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Sincerely, STA|E OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor Dennis E. Ellis, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S.Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (30s) 692-3090 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www.cdphe.state.co. us May 17,2006 Mr. Gene R. Hilton, President Rapids Development Corporation 2102 West Arapahoe Drive Littleton, CO 80 I 20-3008 Re: Rapids on the Colorado Dear Mr. Hilton: ffi "--:lffiffi' B$[5ikb'-'r'XH'n*o The Water Quality Control Division is in the process of reviewing the Rapids on the Colorado application for site approval for a new wastewater treatment facility. In the course of the Division's review, a number of issues and questions have been identified that warrant further clarification. These issues are described below. o The application form used is not the correct form. Please use the form found online at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/eneineerine%20section/ree22lsiteappforms/SA_ form_new.pdf. The Division will accept the signature page from the old site application form; so new signatures will not be necessary. The sketch plan provided in Appendix C shows a well on the Water Reclamation Site. Piease provide a detailed drawing of this lot that shows the distance to that well from the proposed wastewater treatment facility and the property lines. The Geotechnical report does not contain the required statement from the Geotechnical Engineer stating that the site will support the proposed facility. Please provide a statement from your Geotechnical Engineer. The 1-mile map does not provide information on the habitable buildings or any public and private wells. Please submit a new map with all the required information. The finanoial document provided by WestStar Bank dated July 5, 2005 indicates that a formal loan commitment had not been issued, but it was expected that the request would be underwritten by July 3 i, 2005. Please provide the formal loan commitment for this project including funding for the wastewater treatment facility. ST{TE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor Dennis E. Ellis, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www.cdphe.state.co. us May 17,2006 Mr. Gene R. Hilton. President Rapids Development Corporation 2102 West Arapahoe Drive Littleton, CO 801 20-3008 Re: Rapids on the Colorado Dear Mr. Hilton: ffi ,o66rW*I^^, x8"ffitfl'r'n-'nirlrr' "'ff$hwonment B$fiSffii'd'I'oo.'so The Water Quality Control Division is in the process of reviewing the Rapids on the Colorado application for site approval for a new wastewater treatment facility. In the course of theDivision's review, a number of issues and questions have been identified that warrant furtherclarification. These issues are described below. o The application form used is not the correct form. Please use the form found online at :llwww t form new.pdf. The Division will accept the signatu.. pug. f.om the old site application form; so new signatures will not be necessary.o The sketch plan provided in Appendix C shows a well on the Water Reclamation Site. Piease provide a detailed drawing of this lot that shows the distance to thatwell from the proposed wastewater treatment facility and the property lines. The Geotechnical report does not contain the required statement from the Geotechnical Engineer stating that the site will support the proposed facility. Please provide a statement from your Geotechnicaf Engineer. The 1-mile map does not provide information on the habitable buildings or anypublic and private wells. Please submit a new map with all the require-d information. o The financial document provided by WestStar Bank dated July 5, 2005 indicatesthat a formal loan commitment had not been issued, but it was expected that the request would be underwritten by July 3 1,2005. Please provide the formal loancommitment for this project including funding for the wastewater treatmentfacility. o The proposed treatment for The Rapids on the Colorado subdivision is a single cell batch reactor with influent and effluent equalization basins and UV disinfection. The influent equalization basin is designed for 12 hours of emergency storage. The concern with this proposal is there is no redundant treatment. If there were a problem with the batch reactor that takes longer than 12 hours to repair, minimally treated wastewater could be discharged to the Colorado River. Please make arrangements to meet with Mark Kadnuck the District Engineer at (970) 248-7144 to discuss this issue. The Division continues to have reservations about the Garfield County review of the site application. The Division understands that Garfield County has agreed to allow the Rapids on the Colorado to submit an application to re-zone the property prior to receiving site and design approval from the Division. We recommend that you schedule a hearing to rezone this property to eliminate this concern. Sincerely, 0q, b"kC* R. Kent Kuster Environmental Protection Specialist Ron Falco, WQCD Mark Kadnuck, WQCD Tom Schaffer, WQCD Steve Brown, Assistant Attorney General, 1550 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203 Mr. Mark Bean, Planning Director Garfield County, 109 8tl' Sfeet, #200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Jill McConaugry, 0515 County Road 167, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Lee Leavenworth, PO Drawer 2030, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602