Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Referral CommentsM RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2001 STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Russell George, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 November 1, 2001 Kim Schlagel Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Lake Springs Ranch PUD; Dear Ms. Schlagel, For Wildlife - or People I have reviewed the application for Lake Springs Ranch PUD and have met with Kirk Beattie on the site back in February. I agree with most of Mr. Beattie's recommendations but suggest a few changes. Dogs and Pet Control -at night, dogs should be confined to a fully enclosed kennel including a covered top to protect pets from mountain lions and coyotes - recommend only one dog per household, consistent with current Garfield County guidelines Securing Hay - hay should be stored in a secure structure or secured by elk proof fencing. Tarps are not a secure defense against elk and deer. Hunting -the covenants should include an exception for hunting to alleviate damage that could occur from bear, deer, lion, and elk as long as it is done in a safe manner The increase in development in the Missouri Heights area will have an impact on wildlife. More human interactions between wildlife such as mountain lions, bears, and coyotes will occur with more encroachment into their habitat. Education of the homeowners is important to alleviate some of these conflicts. I also encourage the Wildlife Impact Fund to off set some of the loss of habitat. 1 would be happy to assist in the project planning Thank you for your time, feel free to call me at 963-6523 if you have any questions. Sincer K lly Woo , District Wildlife Manager DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. Walcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Rick Enstrom, Chair • Robert Shoemaker, Vice -Chair • Marianna Raftopoulos, Secretary � RECE.ED OCT 2 9 2001 STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 www.water.state.co.us October 22, 2001 Kim Schlagel Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, PE. State Engineer Re: Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan Sections 32, 33 & 34, T6S, R8e5W & Sec. 4, T 7S, R88W, 6th P.iVi. W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Ms. Schlagel: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 441.2 acres into 193 residential lots. 192 lots will be limited to one single-family dwelling, with a four -family dwelling on the remaining lot. Water for the dwellings and 2500 square feet of lawn and garden per residence (11.25 acres total) is to be provided through a central system supplied by the wells with permit nos. 55366-F (Lake Springs Ranch Well C), 56292-F (Lake Springs Ranch Well D) and 56293-F (Lake Springs Ranch Well E). The first permit was issued per consolidated court case nos. W-3751, W-3752, W-3753, W-3754, W-3997, and case nos. 91CW005, 95CW078 and 95CW079A. The last two permits were issued pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the District). Zancanella and Associates, Inc. estimate well water use at 107.97 acre-feet of diversions and 25.13 acre-feet of consumptive use. Central sewage treatment will be provided by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. The well with permit no. 55366-F is permitted to provide water for a development not exceeding 220 single family residential equivalent units with total irrigation lawn and other area not exceeding 7.6 acres, and the irrigation of a 100 acre portion of a 450 acre tract. Note that fire protection is included as a decreed use for this well. The wells with permit numbers 54820-F and 55366-F are permitted to provide a water supply for 196 residential units and 2 commercial units and 11.36 acres of landscape irrigation. The permitted uses of these wells are adequate for the proposed uses. Note that we have not received a Well Construction and Test Report for permit no. 56293- F, a Pump Installation and Test Report for permit nos. 56292-F and 56293-F, or a Statement of Beneficial Use for any of these wells. If these documents are not receive prior to February 20, 2002 for permit no. 55366-F, and August 16, 2002 for permit nos. 56292-F and 56293-F, the well permits will expire and be of no effect. The report by Zancanella and Associates, Inc. indicates that Lake Springs Ranch Well D (permit no. 56292-F) was completed under MH -25625. A well test conducted August 2 and 3, 2000 by the Samuelson Pump Company indicates that the well produced 90 gallons per minute over a twenty-five hour period, and that the well recovered to its initial static water level within a few minutes after pumping ceased. With adequate storage capacity this well should provide an adequate supply for the proposed use. • • Garfield County Building and Planning October 22, 2001 Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan Our records also indicate the well with Permit No. 160677 was issued for and constructed on the existing parcel. Note that CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(III) requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. Therefore, the existing exempt well must be included in either the District's substitute supply plan or an augmentation plan, or must be plugged and abandoned, since the provisions of CRS 37-92-602 which allowed for issuance of this well permit will no longer apply. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is adequate, so long as valid well permits are maintained for all of the wells and the disposition of Permit No. 160677 is resolved as stated in the preceding paragraph. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, Kenneth W. Knox Assistant State Engineer KWK/CML/Lake Springs Ranch.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Michael Cone, Water Commissioner, District 38 • November 1, 2001 Kim Schlagel Garfield County Planner 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Lake Springs Ranch PUD Dear Kim: acil0 FIRE • EMS • RESCUE I have reviewed the sketch plan sub the site. I would offer the following RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2001 ittal for the proposed Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. I have also visited omments: Access The proposed access for the subdivis'on appears to be adequate for emergency vehicles. Water Supply for Fire Protection A central domestic water system is p storage tank. A fire flow of 1,500 g. requirements the Uniform Fire Cod for Buildings for homes up to 3,600 plan drawings and the written submi be at an elevation of 7202 feet. The 7302 feet, which I believe is the corr are acceptable and meet the require oposed for the subdivision supplied from a 400,000 -gallon water lions per minute for two hours is proposed and would meet the (UFC) 1997 edition, Appendix IH -A: Fire Flow Requirements square feet. There appears to be an error both in the master utility al which indicate that the base elevation of the proposed tank will oad and profile drawings indicate that the elevation will actually be ct elevation. The proposed fire hydrant locations for the subdivision ents of the UFC. Wildfire Hazards The Colorado Stated Forest Service (CSFS) has completed a wildfire hazard review of the subdivision. Mitigation within the subdivision sh•uld be completed according to CSFS standards. Impact Fees The development is subject to impac fees adopted by the District for the proposed new residential units. The developer will be required to ent-r into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. This pay ent is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted .y the District at the time the agreement is executed. Please contact me if you have any qu-stions. Singly, Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale I& Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569 • RIVED NOV 0 9 2001 STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 FAX: (303) 866-2461 November 5, 2001 Ms. Kim Schlagel Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL Legal Location : SE'/4, NE'/4, S32, S1/2, S33,'ESOURCES SW'/4, S34, T6S, R88W; N 1/2, NE'/4, S4, T7S,Bili Owens R88W CGS Case No. GA -02-0004 Re: Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D., Garfield County, Colorado Dear Ms. Schlagel: Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Vicki Cowart State Geologist and Director In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972), I visited this property to review the plat. A Garfield County Preliminary Plan Application and Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan Documents, dated June 28, 2001, prepared by High Country Engineering, Inc. were included in the referral. Included in the application documents were: a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, dated August 29, 1997, prepared by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., a Preliminary Drainage Study, dated May 22, 2001, prepared by High Country Engineering, Inc., and other documents describing vegetation, wildfire risk, sanitation and water concerns. The subject property is located on approximately 442 acres of gently to steeply sloping land and comprises 198 proposed residential lots. The proposed subdivision site currently supports a working sod farm and two single-family residences. The following conditions were described in the referral and observed during the site visit: 1) Potentially Unstable Slopes. The steep slopes located in phases one and two should be examined closely to determine their stability in light of the proposed construction. Lots located on or adjacent to slopes greater than 30 percent should be evaluated for slope stability. The section of the proposed Lake Springs Drive road -grade that ascends the steep slope behind lots four — six, block eight, is located on a colluvium deposit and will require a fair amount of earthwork to construct. A detailed slope stability and engineering study should be required to determine the feasibility of this section of road. This study should include a cost estimate for the road construction and any potential mitigation methods which may be used as a basis for determining bond amounts, per Garfield County requirements. 2) Potential Evaporite Deformation. We are in general agreement with the recommendations of Hepworth-Pawlak regarding the potential for differential fault movement due to subsurface evaporite deformation. Fault zones should be verified by a professional geologist and avoided where they intersect proposed building envelopes. Plat notes for the subdivision should clearly state the presence of this hazard and list any lot(s) affected. .• • • • Page 2 November 5, 2001 3) Swelling Clay. The presence of highly expansive clay soils are documented in the Hepworth- Pawlak report. All subsurface structures planned for this site should be engineered to accommodate the swell pressures and potential movement caused by these soils, where applicable. Engineering designs for below grade structures should be based on lot -specific geotechnical investigations. Plat notes for this site should clearly identify the presence of swelling clays, require engineered foundations and state that mitigation efforts may be necessary to build on a lot. Due to the presence of swelling clay soils, perimeter drains should be installed around foundations. Perimeter drains prevent excessive ground moisture from saturating the soils and thus reduce the overall potential for expansion or consolidation. CGS is in general agreement with the underdrain systems recommendation in the Hepworth-Pawlak report. 4) Groundwater. The relatively impermeable clays that line the valley floor, in phases four and five, could produce seasonal perched water tables. The area that currently supports the sod farm is irrigated heavily throughout most of the year and would likely contribute to perched water tables in this area. Consideration of these factors should be given when designing roadways, utility infrastructure and foundations in phases four and five. 5) Potential Excavation Difficulties. Lots and utility easements located in areas of basalt colluvium may be difficult to excavate, or may require blasting due to the presence of large boulder clasts within a proposed building envelope. A detailed subsurface investigation should be completed prior to the start of construction to locate a building envelope and possibly mitigate any potential excavation problems. Plat notes for the subdivision should detail this concern. In summary, CGS recommends that Garfield County requires the above concerns to be addressed prior to acceptance of this project. Please feel free to contact me at (303) 866-2611 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Sean P. Gaffney Geologist Celia Green n Reviewing Geologist Gtech October 30, 2001 Mike and Maci Berkeley c/o Land Design Partnership Attn: Ron Liston 918 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com Job No. 197 348 Subject: Review of Previous Geotechnical Engineering Study, Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D., County Roads 114 and 119, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. and Mrs. Berkeley: As requested by Ron Liston, we have reviewed the 193 lot Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. (High Country Engineering Preliminary Plan Subdivision Sheets 12 through 16 showing the planned lot layout) with respect to our previous report dated August 29, 1997, Job No. 197 348. At the time of our previous report, a 96 lot subdivision was proposed with the existing Rivendell Sod Farm to remain. The current 193 lot P.U.D. proposes development in the same general area as proposed at the time of our previous report with the addition of Block 1. The area of Block 1 (21 lots) consists of gently sloping farmland and was proposed to be open space at the time of our previous report. This area was evaluated in 1997 but was not shown on the geology map provided with our report. There are no severe constraints or hazards in the area of Block 1 that would impact development. Based on our understanding of the currently proposed development, our previous report is suitable for planning and preliminary design of the current Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. If there are any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLA. A,,„ 0 \` i,' � �. e ( ���� ,►fir qq //�� 3!� ��® `=L • "f iJ • Daniel E. Hardin, P. ° _ ,��° i°(3v/off •o '�ooe*4v-, Sti®�Niw 11\t ��\R`��`` ° 11.CAL, INC. Rev. by: SLP DEH/ksw • • MEMORANDUM To: Kim Schlagel From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Lake Springs Ranch PUD Date: December 6, 2001 Kim, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Lake Springs Ranch PUD. My comments are as follows: 1. Noxious Weeds A. Inventory and mapping -The applicant has mapped and inventoried the property. B. Weed Management -The applicant has provided a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. C. Common area weed management -The applicant states that the Lake Springs Ranch Association will implement weed management on Common Elements within the property. D. Covenants -Weed management for the Association and each individual lot owner is addressed in the covenants. 2. Revegetation The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following: A. Plant material list. B. Planting schedule. C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). D. A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat. The applicant has provided the plant material list and planting schedule. Please provide a map or information, prior to fmal plat, that quantifies the area, in terms of acres. to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. • • The applicant may include estimates for the reclamation efforts. The estimates should include costs for seeding, mulching, and other factors that may aid in plant establishment. The Board of County Commissioners may determine that a revegetation security is necessary if the project has: A potential to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds. A potential to impact watershed areas. A potential for visual impacts from public viewing corridors. Steep slopes (15% or greater) or unstable areas. Disturbs large areas (Half an acre or greater) The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. 3. Soil Plan The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. Please feel free to contact me at 625-3969. •:■■: R E S b U R C E• RECEIVED DEC p 7 2001 ..I■.. ■U■■■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Ms. Kim Schlegel Garfield County Building and Planning Dept 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Lake Springs Ranch Preliminary Plan Review Dear Kim: December 6, 2001 At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed the preliminary plan submittal for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD. The preliminary plan application submittal is dated June 28, 2001. We reviewed the technical issues related to water rights and water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, drainage, geology/soils, wetlands and roads. We conducted a field review with High Country Engineers on October 19, 2001. Our comments are presented below with reference to applicable sections of the Garco Subdivision Regulations. WATER RIGHTS/WATER SUPPLY 1. The project is proposed to be served by a central water system supplied by wells. The wells are decreed junior water rights that are augmented by a Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD) water allotment contract. The existing BWCD contract No. 292 is technically inadequate for the proposed project. However an application for an amended contract has been submitted to the BWCD for approval at the November Board Meeting. The Applicant should submit a copy of the amended water allotment contract when it is available and prior to the planning commission hearing for this project. (Section 4:91 .A). 2. The submittal does not include an engineering report describing the central water system and there were no supporting analysis or calculations for the proposed design. Based on brief calculations and analysis, we believe the proposed water system is adequate. However, an engineering report must be submitted to support the design. (Sections 4:91 .B, 9:51). 3. The water distribution system traverses through adjacent property to complete a loop. There is no evidence of an easement for this water line. (Sections 4:91:B, 9:53, 4:59.H). WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT 1. Wastewater will be treated at the expanded Spring Valley Sanitation District wastewater treatment facility. The District has indicated that it can and will serve the project upon completion of construction and commencement of operations of the new District treatment plant and inclusion of the Berkeley property into the District boundaries. A pre -inclusion agreement outlining Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue IN Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 • (970) 945-6777 IN Fax (970) 945-11 37 Ms. Kim Schlegel December 6, 2001 Page 2 conditions for inclusion into the District has been executed. Any approvals should require inclusion into the District prior to any final plat approval. A copy of the wastewater treatment plant development agreement must be submitted and must indicate that the District is willing to serve the level of development requested in the preliminary plan submittal. (Section 4:92.C). 2. An engineering report with analysis and calculations supporting the design of the wastewater collection system vvas not submitted. (Section 4:92.A). 3. Sewer manholes A7 and A8 are located in a drainage ditch. The ditch should be adjusted to avoid the manholes. 4. A utility easement must be added to Lot 36 to include manhole E1. (Section 4:59.H). 5. The profile for sewer main C shows a proposed grade of 0.1 % between stations 3 + 00 and 5 + 00. This grade is too flat for a sewer line and .must be increased to provide a minimum velocity of 2 feet per second in the pipe. (Sections 4:92.A 9:62). 6. A majority of sewer main J is proposed at a 0.5% grade. The engineering report should address whether this is sufficient grade to maintain 2 feet per second for the design flow. (Section 4:92.A 9:62). 7. A portion of the sewer collection system along Lake Springs Drive is on property not owned by Berkeley. There was no evidence submitted that indicates an easement has been obtained across the property. (Section 4:59.H). DRAINAGE 1. The drainage plan is generally adequate. However there is no supporting analysis, calculation, or design for detention storage referenced in the drainage report. (Sections 4:80.D, 9:43). GEOLOGY/SOILS 1. Due to presence of expansive clays and evaporite related ground deformations, a plat note should be added that requires all lots to have an individual site specific geotechnical analysis. (Section 4:60.E, 9:12). 2. A fault may cross through Lots 17 through 21 in the eastern area of the project. A site specific study should be conducted on these lots to determine if a fault is actually present and to determine if the lots and/or building envelopes need to be adjusted/deleted. (Section 4:60.E, 9:12). RESOURCE ENGINEERING I N C Ms. Kim Schlegel December 6, 2001 Page 3 WETLANDS 1. The Beach Environmental report indicates that there will be no impact to any wetlands, jurisdictional or not, as a result of the Lake Springs Development proposal. Based on visual inspection, we believe wetlands and "Waters of the U.S." exist in the agricultural open space meadow. The proposed improvements to Spring Valley Road would impact these areas and will likely require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. (Section 4:70.D). ROADS 1. The submittal does not include an engineering report regarding traffic analysis and design of roads. (Section 4.94). 2. Spring Valley Road has an estimated ADT of 680 and should be designed as a minor collector requiring 12 foot lane width and 4 foot minimum paved shoulder. The typical pavement cross section for all roads in the project is shown as two 11 foot paved lanes with gravel shoulders. The design for Spring Valley Road includes 10% slopes which exceed the 8% maximum for a minor collector road. (Section 9:35). 3. Lake Springs Lane, Lakeside Lane, Valley View Court, VanCleeve Lane, Lake Springs Court, Spring Valley Drive and High Alpine Circle, are all cul-de-sacs which exceed the maximum length of 600 feet. The submittal did not include a request for a variance, discussion of the need for a variance or provisions for appropriate fire protection and emergency egress and access for the proposed design. (Section 9:33). GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Section 4.3 of the draft covenants should include maintenance of drainage. 2. Paragraph 6.9 of the covenants should indicate that each lot should be limited to no more than 2,500 square feet of outside lawn and garden irrigation area. 3. There are no plat notes on the submitted drawings. There are several standard County plat notes which must be added in addition to project specific notes. RESOURCE ENGINEERING I N C • • Ms. Kim Schlagel December 6, 2001 Page 4 Please call if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. Michael J. Eri, P.E. Water Resources Engineer MJE/mmm 885-6.0 lake spgs ranch review.885.wpd RESOURCE ■EEEE E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. G A M B A & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS PHONE: 970/945-2550 FAX: 970/945-1410 113 NINTH STREET, SUITE 214 P.O. Box 1458 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602-1458 October 29, 2002 Garfield County Commissioners 108 Eighth Street, Suite 213 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. - Preliminary Plan Review Dear Commissioners: As you are aware, our firm represents Spring Valley Development, Inc., the owners of the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D., with respect to engineering and surveying services. At the request of Spring Valley Development, we have performed a review of the proposed preliminary plan for the Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. Lake Springs Ranch borders the southern boundary of Spring Valley Ranch. This letter outlines our comments and concerns with respect to our review of the proposed preliminary plan of Lake Springs Ranch PUD. To begin with, we would like to inform the commissioners with respect to our experience related to development plan reviews. For the past ten years we have provided engineering services to the Town of Gypsum. These services have included the following duties: ■ Plan review of all development plans; ■ Construction inspection of all development infrastructure; ■ Design of municipal infrastructure improvements including: o Streets o Water distribution systems o Water treatment plants o Sewage collection systems o Sewage treatment plants o Storm drainage and flood mitigation infrastructure o Sub -surface drainage infrastructure o Site grading o Revegetation and erosion control systems; • Construction management and construction inspection of municipal infrastructure; • Preparation of the Town of Gypsum Public Works Manual and Design Criteria; • Assistance in the preparation in the Town Master Plan with respect to road system and utility planning; ■ Preparation of the Master Plan maps. During the past ten years in our capacity as the Gypsum Town Engineer, we have reviewed the development plans for over 48 residential development projects, consisting of over 2,300 residential units on more than 1,900 acres. In addition to these residential projects we have also reviewed the development plans for Lake Springs Ranch P. U.D. — Preliminary Plan Review October 29, 2002 Page 1 of 6 commercial and light industrial projects covering over 1,700 acres. During this period, the Town of Gypsum has more than doubled in population. Although the rate of growth that Gypsum has experienced within the last 10 years is enormous, we believe that Gypsum's infrastructure has more than kept pace with the growth. In fact, we believe that as a result of the quality of the Gypsum development planning and review process, of which we were an integral part, the overall functionality of the Gypsum infrastructure has vastly improved over the last ten years. Our approach to the development review process in Gypsum has been to insure that each separate development functions to the benefit of all adjacent properties, as well as to the benefit of the Town as a whole. This is the approach we have taken in our review of the Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. While we would like to stress that we are not opposed to the Lake Springs Ranch project, we do have some very serious concerns with the layout and design of the project as currently proposed that will have an effect on the Health, Safety & Welfare of the future residents of both Lake Springs Ranch and Spring Valley Ranch, as well as the general public. Virtually, all of our concerns have to do with the future traffic impact of Lake Springs Ranch on Garfield County Road 114 (CR114). As you are aware, CR114 traverses Lake Springs Ranch in a generally north -south direction and provides the primary access to Lake Springs Ranch. County Road 114 also provides the primary access to Spring Valley Ranch as well as all other public and private properties within the Spring Valley area. We have four primary concerns with respect to the impact of Lake Springs Ranch on CR114, which are as follows: 1. Impact on the Intersection of CR114 and Colorado State Highway 82. 2. Excessive Number of Closely Spaced Accesses from Lake Springs Ranch onto CR114. 3. Steep Grades on CR114 at the Intersections with the Lake Springs Ranch Accesses. 4. Lack of Proposed Improvements to CR114 within the Lake Springs Ranch Boundaries. Following are more detailed explanations of our concerns 1. Impact on the Intersection of CR114 and Colorado State Highway 82. According to the brief traffic study provided with the Lake Springs Ranch preliminary plan submittal, this project will generate approximately 2,100 vehicle trips per day. The traffic study submitted with this proposal did not provide any background traffic analysis for traffic on CR1 14, and therefore, provides no analysis of the impact of the future traffic volumes on CR114. As part of the traffic analysis that was prepared for the Spring Valley Ranch development applications, we performed a traffic count in 1998 that determined that the then existing traffic volume on CR114 accessing State Highway 82 was between 1,400 and 1,900 vehicles per day (VPD) depending on the time of the year and whether CMC was in session. According to Section 2.6 (3) of the current Colorado State Highway Access Code, a Highway Access Permit is required if traffic volumes are increased by more than 20%. This project is proposing an increase Lake Springs Ranch P.UD. — Preliminary Plan Review October 29, 2002 Page 2 of 6 of between 110 % and 150%. Therefore, this project is required to obtain a Highway Access Permit for the intersection of State Highway 82 and CR114. We recommend that the developers of the Lake Springs Ranch project be required to apply for and obtain a Highway Access Permit in accordance with the Colorado State Highway Access Code. 2. Excessive Number of Closely Spaced Accesses from Lake Springs Ranch onto CR114. The Lake Springs Ranch project is proposing to construct 14 accesses onto CR114, four of which are driveways serving single-family lots while the other 10 are roads serving between 4 and 68 lots. When the future traffic of Spring Valley Ranch PUD is added to the anticipated future traffic volumes from Lake Springs Ranch and the existing background traffic volumes, CR114 through Lake Springs Ranch will experience in excess of 7,000 VPD. This level of traffic volume is significant. Under Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, CR114 would be classified as a Major Collector Roadway. The State Highway Access Code does not categorize highways based on specific traffic volumes, but at a minimum, if CR114 was designated as a state highway it would be categorized as a R -B Rural Highway. According to Section 3.9 (6) of the current Colorado State Highway Access Code, "the recommended spacing of all intersecting public ways and other significant accesses that will be full movement is one-half mile intervals." The Lake Springs Ranch project proposes to construct 14 accesses onto CR114 within a distance of 3,700 -feet, with an average distance of approximately 560 -feet between intersections. We are very concerned about the number of accesses. Each access is a potential point of vehicular conflict. We strongly recommend that the county commissioners require the proposed layout for the development to be revised in order to combine as many accesses as possible, in order to reduce the total number of accesses onto CR114. 3. Steep Grades on CR114 at the Intersections with the Lake Springs Ranch Accesses. In addition to our concern over the number of accesses, we are even more concerned over the proposed location of the accesses with respect to the vertical grade of CR1 14 at each access point. The industry standards reference for the design of roads is the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. According to AASHTO, grades in excess of 3% should be avoided at intersections. AASHTO further states that grades at intersections should never exceed 6%. Of the 14 accesses proposed in the Lake Springs Ranch project, 11 of them intersect CR114 in areas where the grade of CR114 is in excess of 3%. 10 of the accesses are in locations where the grade of CR114 is in excess of 6%. The proposed design of the street system for Lake Springs Ranch has 10 out of 14 (or 71%) of their accesses directly in conflict with AASHTO design standards. The concern with respect to steep grades at the intersections becomes most apparent during adverse weather conditions. According to AASHTO, "most vehicle operators are unable to judge the increase or decrease in stopping or accelerating distance that is necessary because of steep grades. Their normal deductions and reactions thus may be in error at a critical time." In Lake Springs Ranch P.UD. — Preliminary Plan Review October 29, 2002 Page 3 of 6 other words, steeper grades at intersection will result in more frequent and more sever accidents, particularly during adverse weather conditions such as snow or ice. We are very concerned with respect to the safety of the general public who may drive on CR114 following the development of the Lake Springs Ranch project as currently proposed. We strongly recommend that the county commissioners require that the design of CR114 through Lake Springs Ranch and/or the locations of proposed intersections with Lake Springs Ranch internal roads be revised to comply with AASHTO standards. 4. Lack of Proposed Improvements to CR114 within the Lake Springs Ranch Boundaries. Finally, we are also concerned over the lack of proposed improvements for CR114 associated with Lake Springs Ranch. As previously stated, CR114 is the primary access for the entire Lake Springs Ranch project, and in fact serves as a major internal road to the project as currently designed, yet other than proposing to chip & seal the existing road surface, the developer is proposing no other improvements to CR114. According to County Subdivision Regulations, and best engineering practice, the design of the improvements to CR114 should at a minimum provide for: • an appropriate road section • an appropriate road surface • an appropriate road centerline grade • appropriate turn lane improvements at intersections. A. ROAD SECTION: According to the Garfield County Road Design Standards contained within the county subdivision regulations, CR114 through Lake Springs Ranch would be classified as a Major Collector roadway. The design of a Major Collector road should adhere to the following Garfield County design criteria: a. 80 -foot wide ROW b. 2 — 12 foot wide driving lanes c. 2 — 6 foot paved shoulders As previously noted, the proposed improvements to CR114 through Lake Springs Ranch consist of providing a chip & seal surface over the existing gravel roadway. The existing roadway consists of a rough gravel surface that varies in width from 22 -feet to 28 -feet. The existing platted right-of-way for CR114 is 60 -feet in width and does not correspond to the existing physical roadway. Therefore, the proposed improvements to CR114 by Lake Springs Ranch do not comply with the county regulations with respect to the road section geometry. B. ROAD SURFACE: According to the Garfield County Road Design Standards, a Major Collector roadway shall be surfaced with asphalt. Therefore, the previously noted chip & seal surface as proposed by the developer of Lake Springs Ranch does not comply with the county regulations with respect to the road surface. Lake Springs Ranch P.UD. — Preliminary Plan Review October 29, 2002 Page 4 of 6 C. ROAD CENTERLINE GRADE: According to the Garfield County Road Design Standards, a Major Collector roadway shall have a maximum road centerline grade of 8.0%. The developer is not proposing to perform any road grading to improve the grade of the existing road, which has grades in excess of 10% for significant lengths. In some locations, the grade of the existing road exceeds 12%. Therefore, the proposed improvements to CR1 14 by the developer of Lake Springs Ranch do not comply with the county regulations with respect to the road centerline grade. D. TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS: Garfield County Road Design Standards do not address turn lane improvements at road intersections. The accepted engineering practice would dictate however, as previously noted, if CR114 was designated a state highway, at a minimum it would be categorized as a R -B Rural Highway. Based on Section 4 of the current Colorado State Highway Access Code, and accepted engineering practice and design principles, six of the proposed accesses onto CR114 should be provided with adequate turn lanes, consisting of left turn decelerations lanes, right turn deceleration lanes and in some cases, right turn acceleration lanes. We recommend that the applicable standard for the proposed turn lanes be the State Highway Access Code in order to determine the appropriate length width and geometry of the turn lanes. It should be noted that the turn lane design criteria within the State Highway Access Code provides for grade adjustment factors for the length of turn lanes, when the turn lanes are in excess of 3%. As previously noted, the centerline grade of CR114 at 11 of the proposed accesses is in excess of 3%. It should be further noted that the design criteria within the State Highway Access Code does not provide a grade adjustment factor for grades in excess of 7%. This indicates that the State Highway Access Code does not allow intersections at grades in excess of 7% under any conditions. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In summary, we have many significant concerns with the layout of the Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D as currently proposed. It should be understood that our concerns are not related to any potential financial impact to Spring Valley Ranch. In fact, we believe that these design problems with Lake Springs Ranch would have no financial impact on Spring Valley Ranch whatsoever. However, we do believe that these issues affect the health, safety and welfare of the general public who will be traveling CR114. We have prepared a set of design criteria for CR114 through Lake Springs Ranch, which we believe to be appropriate and are attached to this letter as Exhibit A. The design criteria provided within Exhibit A are based on the following design standards: Garfield County Subdivision Regulations; A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1990 published by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); Colorado State Highway Access Code dated August 31, 1998; Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD); State of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1999; Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Plans; and the Lake Springs Ranch P.UD. — Preliminary Plan Review October 29, 2002 Page 5 of 6 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, January 1996. We strongly recommend that any road design issues related to Garfield County Road 114 and the intersections with the Lake Springs Ranch development roads be designed and constructed in accordance with the attached Exhibit A and the above referenced standards. We would like to reiterate that we are not opposed to the Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D., but we recommend that this application be postponed for 30 days in order to address the issues referenced herein. Furthermore, we strongly caution the county commissioners with respect to the very real danger to the general public and the associated liability related to approval of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD as currently proposed. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Gamba & Associates, Inc. Michael Gamba, P.E. & P.L.S. 28036 Cc: Todd Grotstein, Spring Valley Development, Inc. Arthur Ferguson, Holland & Hart H:\01269\10\10C-Lake Springs Ranch Review\20021029 Letter to Garco BOCC - mjg.doc Lake Springs Ranch P.UD. — Preliminary Plan Review October 29, 2002 Page 6 of 6 Exhibit A SECTION 1 EXISTING HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT OF GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD 114: Road design criteria for the improvements to Garfield County Road 114 through Lake Springs Ranch and the intersections with Lake Springs Ranch development roads based on the current horizontal alignment of Garfield County Road 114: 1.1 Table of Road Design Criteria for Garfield County Road 114 through Lake Springs Ranch (Section 1): Garfield County Road 114 Design Criteria (Section 1): Design Capacity (Vehicles Per Day) 2500+ Minimum Right of Way Width 80 -feet Type of Surface for Driving Lanes and Shoulders Asphalt Pavement Design and Subgrade Stabilization Prepared By Registered Geotechnical Engineer Based On Site Specific Soil Analysis And Anticipated Traffic Volume For 20 -Year Design Life Minimum Driving Lane Width 12 -feet Minimum Shoulder Width 6 -feet Ditch Width and Storm Drainage Culverts Designed by Professional Engineer to Provide Minimum Hydraulic Capacity to Convey Peak Flow From 100 -year Storm Event Cross Slope 2% to 8% Based on Superelevation Design of Roadway by Professional Engineer Shoulder Slope Identical to Cross Slope Minimum Design Speed [Miles Per Hour] 35 MPH Minimum Centerline Radius [Feet] Varies with Superelevation Rate of Superelevation: 2% Crown Section 610 -feet 2% 470 -feet 4% 420 -feet 6% 380 -feet 8% 350 -feet Minimum Percentage of Runout on Tangent 80% Minimum Runout Length [Feet] Varies with Change in Rate of Superelevation Exhibit A November 5, 2002 Page 1 of 8 Garfield County Road 114 Design Criteria (Section 1): Change in Rate of Superelevation: 4% 84 -feet 6% 126 -feet 8% 168 -feet 10% 210 -feet 12% 252 -feet 14% 294 -feet 16% 336 -feet Maximum Centerline Grade 10% Minimum Centerline Grade 1% K -Value for Crest Vertical Curve 40 minimum K -Value for Sag Vertical Curve 50 minimum 1.2 Design Criteria for Intersections Between Garfield County Road 114 and Lake Springs Ranch Development Roads Through Lake Springs Ranch: 1.2.1 Grade of Garfield County Road 114 at Intersections: At intersections with Lake Springs Ranch development roads, the vertical alignment of Garfield County Road 114 shall have grades no greater than 5% for a minimum distance of 25 -feet as measured from the centerline of the intersecting road. 1.2.2 Grade of Intersecting Road at Intersections: At intersections with Garfield County Road 114, all Lake Springs Ranch development roads shall have grades no greater than 4% for a minimum distance of 120 -feet as measured from the centerline of Garfield County Road 114. 1.2.3 Angle of Intersections: Intersections shall be designed as nearly to right angles as possible, with no intersecting angles of less than 85 degrees. The centerline of intersecting roads shall be designed with a tangent at the intersection with a minimum tangent Length of 60 -feet as measured from the centerline of Garfield County Road 114 to the first Point of Curvature (P.C.) on the intersecting road. 1.2.4 Proximity of Adjacent Intersections: Where two Lake Springs Ranch development roads intersect Garfield County Road 114, the intersecting centerlines shall be directly aligned, or shall be separated not less than 200 -feet as measured between intersecting centerlines. In the event that one or both of the intersecting streets requires that County Road 114 be provided with auxiliary lanes (acceleration and/or deceleration lanes) as provided for herein, then the intersecting street centerlines shall be offset sufficient distances so that the minimum length of the auxiliary lanes, as required for herein, are provided and do not overlap. Exhibit A November 5, 2002 Page 2 of 8 1.2.5 Requirement for Auxiliary Lanes: Intersections of all Lake Springs Ranch development roads shall be provided with auxiliary lanes (left turn deceleration lanes, right turn deceleration lanes, right turn acceleration lanes, and left turn acceleration lanes) if warranted by Section 3.9 of the Colorado State Highway Access Code dated August 31, 1998. 1.2.6 Design Criteria for Auxiliary Lanes: The design of all required auxiliary lanes shall be in accordance with Section 4 — Design Standards and Specifications of the Colorado State Highway Access Code dated August 31, 1998. 1.2.7 Intersection Sight Distance: At intersections of Lake Springs Ranch development roads and Garfield County Road 114, clear zones shall be designed and maintained to provide sight distance for the vehicle on the intersecting road (stop or yield) to observe a moving vehicle on Garfield County Road 114. The clear zone shall be maintained free of all vegetation and objects taller than 24 - inches except for traffic signs. The sight distance shall be measured from a point on the intersecting road (stop or yield) which is 15 -feet from the edge of pavement on Garfield County Road 114. The minimum intersection site distance for intersections with Garfield County Road 114 based on a 35 MPH design speed shall be 365 -feet. 1.2.8 Access Points: Direct accesses onto Garfield County Road 114 by individual lots shall be prohibited. No individual lot shall access a Lake Springs Ranch development road within a distance of 115 -feet from an intersection with Garfield County Road 114, as measured from the nearest edge of pavement of Garfield County Road 114. 1.2.9 Road Pavement Markings and Traffic Signs: Road pavement markings and traffic signs shall be provided on all roads in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), the Colorado supplement thereto and the following pavement marking specifications: 1.2.9.1 Road Pavement Marking Specifications: The pavement marking work shall be accomplished in accordance with the MUTCD, the Colorado Supplement, and Section 627 of the State Department of Highways, State of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. 1.2.9.2 Road Pavement Marking Materials: Paint materials shall be Epoxy Pavement Marking Material as called for in section 713.16, Division of Highway, State of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1999. 1.2.9.3 Pavement Preparation and Application of Road Pavement Marking: Prior to application of pavement marking material, all ice, snow, sand and debris shall be removed from the surface of the pavement and said surfaces shall be at least 40 degrees F and rising. Exhibit A November 5, 2002 Page 3 of 8 1.2.10 Utilities and Street Construction: Street and road construction shall not proceed beyond subgrade preparation until all utilities which are intended to be placed under any part of the street or road are complete, including all service lines, and all utility trenches are backfilled and compacted in accordance with the street or road construction specifications as provided by the registered geotechnical engineer. 1.2.11 Delineators and Reflectors: Delineators and reflectors shall be installed on Garfield County Road 114 in accordance with Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Plan No. S-612-1 (5 sheets), and Section 612 of the State Department of Highways, state of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1999. 1.2.12 Guard Rail: Guardrail shall be provided for all roads when conditions warrant the need for guardrail as defined in Chapter 5 of the ROADSIDE BARRIERS, in AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, January 1996. Specifications and design for materials and placement of guardrail shall be in compliance with Colorado Department of Transportation Plan No. M-606-1 (12 sheets), and Section 606 of the State Department of Highways, state of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1999. 1.3 Accepted Design Criteria: The design criteria provided herein are based on the following design standards: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1990 published by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); Colorado State Highway Access Code dated August 31, 1998; Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD); State of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1999; Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Plans; and the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, January 1996. Any road design issues related to Garfield County Road 114 and the intersections with the Lake Springs Ranch development roads that are not defined herein shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the above referenced standards. Exhibit A November 5, 2002 Page 4 of 8 SECTION 2 REVISED OR AMENDED HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT OF GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD 114: Road design criteria for the improvements to Garfield County Road 114 through Lake Springs Ranch and the intersections with Lake Springs Ranch development roads based on a revised or amended horizontal alignment of Garfield County Road 114: 2.1 Table of Road Design Criteria for Garfield County Road 114 through Lake Springs Ranch (Section 2): Garfield County Road 114 Design Criteria (Section 2): Design Capacity (Vehicles Per Day) 2500+ Minimum Right of Way Width 80 -feet Type of Surface for Driving Lanes and Shoulders Asphalt Pavement Design and Subgrade Stabilization Prepared By Registered Geotechnical Engineer Based On Site Specific Soil Analysis And Anticipated Traffic Volume For 20 -Year Design Life Minimum Driving Lane Width 12 -feet Minimum Shoulder Width 6 -feet Ditch Width and Storm Drainage Culverts Designed by Professional Engineer to Provide Minimum Hydraulic Capacity to Convey Peak Flow From 100 -year Storm Event Cross Slope 2% to 8% Based on Superelevation Design of Roadway by Professional Engineer Shoulder Slope Identical to Cross Slope Minimum Design Speed [Miles Per Hour] 35 MPH (30 MPH under limited conditions)' Minimum Centerline Radius [Feet] Varies with Superelevation Rate of Superelevation: 35 MPH 30 MPH 2% Crown Section 610 -feet 430 -feet 2% 470 -feet 335 -feet 4% 420 -feet 300 -feet 6% 380 -feet 275 -feet 8% 350 -feet 250 -feet 'If the horizontal alignment of Garfield County Road 114 is relocated to the south side of the existing pond, then the minimum design speed is 35 MPH. If the horizontal alignment of Garfield County Road 114 is to remain on the north side of the existing pond, in order to design a desirable vertical alignment it may be necessary to reduce the design speed of horizontal roadway curves between Spring Valley Road and Van Cleeve Lane (per High Country Engineering preliminary plan documents dated April 8th, 2002) to 30 MPH. Exhibit A November 5, 2002 Page 5 of 8 Garfield County Road 114 Design Criteria (Section 2): Minimum Percentage of Runout on Tangent 80% Minimum Runout Length [Feet] Varies with Change Supere in Rate of evation Change in Rate of Superelevation: 35 MPH 30 MPH 4% 84 -feet 72 -feet 6% 126 -feet 108 -feet 8% 168 -feet 144 -feet 10% 210 -feet 180 -feet 12% 252 -feet 216 -feet 14% 294 -feet 252 -feet 16% 336 -feet 288 -feet Maximum Centerline Grade 8% Minimum Centerline Grade 1% 35 MPH 30 MPH K -Value for Crest Vertical Curve 50 minimum 30 minimum K -Value for Sag Vertical Curve 50 minimum 40 minimum 2.2 Design Criteria for Intersections Between Garfield County Road 114 and Lake Springs Ranch Development Roads Through Lake Springs Ranch: 2.2.1 Grade of Garfield County Road 114 at Intersections: At intersections with Lake Springs Ranch development roads, the vertical alignment of Garfield County Road 114 shall have grades no greater than 4% for a minimum distance of 50 -feet as measured from the centerline of the intersecting road or the length of the left turn storage lane if warranted as provided for herein, whichever is greater. 2.2.2 Grade of Intersecting Road at Intersections: At intersections with Garfield County Road 114, all Lake Springs Ranch development roads shall have grades no greater than 4% for a minimum distance of 120 -feet as measured from the centerline of Garfield County Road 114. 2.2.3 Angle of Intersections: Intersections shall be designed as nearly to right angles as possible, with no intersecting angles of less than 85 degrees. The centerline of intersecting roads shall be designed with a tangent at the intersection with a minimum tangent length of 60 -feet as measured from the centerline of Garfield County Road 114 to the first Point of Curvature (P.C.) on the intersecting road. 2.2.4 Proximity of Adjacent Intersections: Where two Lake Springs Ranch development roads intersect Garfield County Road 114, the intersecting centerlines shall be directly aligned, or shall be separated not less than 150 -feet as measured between intersecting centerlines. In the event that one or both of the intersecting streets requires that County Road 114 be provided with auxiliary Exhibit A November 5, 2002 Page 6 of 8 lanes (acceleration and/or deceleration lanes) as provided for herein, then the intersecting street centerlines shall be offset sufficient distances so that the minimum length of the auxiliary lanes, as required for herein, are provided and do not overlap. 2.2.5 Requirement for Auxiliary Lanes: Intersections of all Lake Springs Ranch development roads shall be provided with auxiliary lanes (left turn deceleration lanes, right turn deceleration lanes, right turn acceleration lanes, and left turn acceleration lanes) if warranted by Section 3.9 of the Colorado State Highway Access Code dated August 31, 1998. 2.2.6 Design Criteria for Auxiliary Lanes: The design of all required auxiliary lanes shall be in accordance with Section 4 — Design Standards and Specifications of the Colorado State Highway Access Code dated August 31, 1998. 2.2.7 Intersection Sight Distance: At intersections of Lake Springs Ranch development roads and Garfield County Road 114, clear zones shall be designed and maintained to provide sight distance for the vehicle on the intersecting road (stop or yield) to observe a moving vehicle on Garfield County Road 114. The clear zone shall be maintained free of all vegetation and objects taller than 24 - inches except for traffic signs. The sight distance shall be measured from a point on the intersecting road (stop or yield) which is 15 -feet from the edge of pavement on Garfield County Road 114. The minimum intersection site distance for intersections with Garfield County Road 114 based on a 35 MPH design speed shall be 365 -feet, and based on a 30 MPH design speed shall be 310 -feet. 2.2.8 Access Points: Direct accesses onto Garfield County Road 114 by individual lots shall be prohibited. No individual lot shall access a Lake Springs Ranch development road within a distance of 115 -feet from an intersection with Garfield County Road 114, as measured from the nearest edge of pavement of Garfield County Road 114. 2.2.9 Road Pavement Markings and Traffic Signs: Road pavement markings and traffic signs shall be provided on all roads in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), the Colorado supplement thereto and the following pavement marking specifications: 2.2.9.1 Road Pavement Marking Specifications: The pavement marking work shall be accomplished in accordance with the MUTCD, the Colorado Supplement, and Section 627 of the State Department of Highways, State of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. 2.2.9.2 Road Pavement Marking Materials: Paint materials shall be Epoxy Pavement Marking Material as called for in section 713.16, Division of Highway, State of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1999. Exhibit A November 5, 2002 Page 7 of 8 2.2.9.3 Pavement Preparation and Application of Road Pavement Marking: Prior to application of pavement marking material, all ice, snow, sand and debris shall be removed from the surface of the pavement and said surfaces shall be at least 40 degrees F and rising. 2.2.10 Utilities and Street Construction: Street and road construction shall not proceed beyond subgrade preparation until all utilities which are intended to be placed under any part of the street or road are complete, including all service lines, and all utility trenches are backfilled and compacted in accordance with the street or road construction specifications as provided by the registered geotechnical engineer. 2.2.11 Delineators and Reflectors: Delineators and reflectors shall be installed on Garfield County Road 114 in accordance with Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Plan No. S-612-1 (5 sheets), and Section 612 of the State Department of Highways, state of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1999. 2.2.12 Guard Rail: Guardrail shall be provided for all roads when conditions warrant the need for guardrail as defined in Chapter 5 of the ROADSIDE BARRIERS, in AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, January 1996. Specifications and design for materials and placement of guardrail shall be in compliance with Colorado Department of Transportation Plan No. M-606-1 (12 sheets), and Section 606 of the State Department of Highways, state of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1999. 2.3 Accepted Design Criteria: The design criteria provided herein are based on the following design standards: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1990 published by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); Colorado State Highway Access Code dated August 31, 1998; Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD); State of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1999; Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Plans; and the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, January 1996. Any road design issues related to Garfield County Road 114 and the intersections with the Lake Springs Ranch development roads that are not defined herein shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the above referenced standards. H:\01269\10\10C-Lake Springs Ranch Review\Exhibit A r3.doc Exhibit November 5, 2002 Page 8 of 8