HomeMy WebLinkAboutTown Watershed Permit Application3IÊ BALCOMB&GREEN
wÅTrR rÂlt I RtAr tsTATt I r.tTrGATr0il | Busilrrss I$l! r95t
John Mallonee
Telephone (970) 945-6546
Direct (970) 928-3471
imallonee@balcombgreen.com
1une19,2023
David McConaughy
910 Grand Avenue, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
dmcconaughl¿@ garfieldhecht.com
Via Email Only
Rn: Gn¡NoHocnecrWernnsnnDANDRrcHr-Or-WevPnnvurApprrcerrorus
Dear Mr. McConaughy:
Please find attached a set of Stamped Plans as well as a Drainage Report. Grand
Hogback Ranches Road is intended to far exceed any possible requirements for watershed
and right-of-way permits in New Castle. I have also included a checklist based upon the
requirements of the ordinance in order to make the request for the watershed permit
consistent with the other three applications required in the past 18 years. I have also included
the engineefs notes in red on the February 8,2023 Report.
As you can see from the Plans, this request covers Tracts 4-13. Tracts 1.-3 on the east
side are completely unaffected by the grading on these Tracts should be treated as such.
Additionally, West Divide Ranch, LLC and Dow Rippy have not moved any dirt on Tracts L4-
1.8, since transfer of title, nor do they intend to in the future, and request that those be treated
separately as well. The Rippy's, LLC owns Tracts 4,5, and 6 and we request permits for those
Tracts, as well as the road which will run from Tract 4 to Tract L3.
The applicant does not waive any rights, or acknowledge that the requested
information is, in fact, required by New Castle ordinance based in part on my explanation in
previous correspondence, and the fact that New Castle's water intake is up Elk Creeþ rather
than being actively used in the Colorado River. Selective enforcement of ordinances should
not be a common practice, especially when driven by personal agendas of individual
politicians. There has been considerable delay and added expense to this project based upon
unique administrative interpretations. For that reason, we request that you attempt to fast-
track the approvals of these "applications." We hope you do not need any additional
informatiory but if you do, please let me know as soon as possible.
ASpEN I BUENA VTSTA I GLENWOOD SPRTNGS I LAMAR
PostOfficeBoxT90 | GlenwoodSpdngs,Colorado31602 | 970.945.6546 | BalcombGreen.com
l=Ic Letter to D. McConaughy
tÁTittAï I RtÂt¡sItIt I ililßÂTt0il | sü$mfs$ f¡r!n¡t June19,2023
Page2
The watershed "application" is included with this letter, along with stamped
engineering plans and a drainage report. I have also included the enginee'rs notes, in red,
on the February 8,2023letter from SGM to Glenn Hartmann regarding the right-of-way and
watershed issues. Please have your engineer review those notes, as they, taken in
conjunction with the revised plans and drainage report, should satisfy all of the Town's
requirements. Please confirm at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Bnrcou¡ & GnnEN, P.C.
BALCOM B&GREEN
By'
]ohn Mallonee
/ .t ,4-/
..11,, v'h {.^^4.¿ -
:/
ASPEN I BUENA V|STA I GLENWOOD SPRTNGS I TAMAR
Garfrcld Coanty
REVEGETATION BOND
Appl icant: DOW RIPPY
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Planning File #:
Bond #:
Amount Effect Date:
Bond Gompany:
Description of Project:GRAND RIVER HOGBACK ROADWAY REVEGETATION. 1.5 acres of disturbance area
within the project boundaries will be required to be re-vegetated to Garfield County standards. Projected
cost of re-vegetation $5,000 per acre, $7,500 for the project area
Bond Returned Upon Release to:
3
1. The name, mailing address and telephone number of the applicant;
West Divide Ranch LLC
Grand Hogback Ranches (Tracts 4-13)
c/o Dow and Nicole Rippy
10031 County Road 311
silr, co 8t652
(970) 230-0247
2. The name, mailing address and telephone number of the owner(s) of the land
upon which the activity is to occur if different from the applicant and written
authorization from the landowner(s) for the submission of the application;
N/A - Same as applicant
A legal description of the lot, tract, parcel or other land upon which the activity is
to occur;
Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 9l V/est of the 6th P.M. a parcel of land situate in
Sections I and 12, being more particularly described as Tracts 4,5, and 6 per plat of
Grand Hogback Ranches at Reception No. 967927 for West Divide Ranch, LLC (Dow
and Nicole Rippy) specifically, ard Tracts 4-13 for the "road" desuibed in the Plans.
4. A written narrative describing the activity for which the permit is being sought,
including a general identifïcation of the environmental characteristics of the
subject land and surrounding area;
This permit is being sought for roadway ties to a section of CR 335 through the Town
of New Castle and unincorporated Garfield County - specifically the road identified in
the Plans, through Tracts 4-13 described above. The general environmental
characteristics of the subject land and surrounding alea are undeveloped with shrub
vegetation among Camborthids-Rock soil conditions.
5. A vicinity map showing the land on which the proposed development is to occur
and all lots, tracts, parcels or other lands adjacent thereto, and illustrating any
wetlands, lakes, ponds, springs, watercourses or other bodies of water and water
wells;
Stamped Plans and Profiles by High Country Engineeringo Inc., as well as a letter from
SGM, Inc. are attached that we believe fulfill this requirement.
6. A boundary and improvements map or sketch of the land subject to the
application containing sufficient detail and drawn at a scale to accurately
illustrate, review and assess the location of all proposed activity and existing
structures, and illustrating the existing direction of slope (contours) and direction
7
of surface runoff. A professionally prepared boundary and improvements survey
may be required if the town engineer deems it necessary in order to adequately
assess an application;
Stamped Plans and Profiles by High Country Engineering, Inc., as well as a letter from
SGM, Inc. are attached that we believe fulfill this requirement. No existing structures
are in the vicinity ol'the operations.
A listing and copy of all federal, state or local permits or approvals required or
obtained for implementation of the activity;
A Stormwater Management waiver has been obtained from CDPFIE in the past, and the
rcquiremcnts can be met again. A Garfield County grading permit is pending, though
should not be required for this activity.
8. A detailed description of the impacts or potential impacts the activity may have
on any surface or subsurface water sources or courses, including wetlands;
The Drainage Report included with this application fulfills this requirement.
9. A detailed description of the impacts or potential impacts the activity may have
on existing vegetation, trees and groundcover;
There will be an area of approximately 1.5 acres of disturbance within the project
boundaries that will be required to be re-vegetated to Garfield County standards. The
projected cost of re-vegetation will be approximately $5,000 per acre, for a total of
$7,500 for the project area.
10. A detailed description of the impacts or potential impacts the activity may have
on soils, including a description of the nature and condition of existing soils and
any planned grading, excavating, filling or surfacing;
The Drainage Report included with this application fulfills this requirement.
11. A detailed description of the impacts or potential impacts the activity may have
on existing drainage patterns and land contours, including comparative runoff
and absorption calculations for the subject land and any impacted adjacent land,
both pre- and post-development;
Stamped Plans and Profiles by High Country Engineering, Inc., a letter from SGM,
Inc., and Drainage Report from High Country Engineering, Inc. are attached that we
believe fulfill this requirement.
12. A detailed description of any proposed wastewater or sewage disposal system to
be installed and a copy of the designed/engineered plans, including soils and
percolation test results;
N/A
13. A detailed description of any proposed water supply/delivery system to be
installed, including the watersource and anticipated consumptive use, and a copy
of the design/engineered plans;
N/A
14. A detailed description and copy of any and all mitigation plans or measures
addressing impacts resulting from the activity to surface and subsurface
watersources, wetlands, vegetation and trees, soils, drainage and slopes;
N/A
15. The identification of any activity to be undertaken by the applicant as part of the
development that presents, or may present, a foreseeable risk of pollution or
injury to the town's waterworks or district waters, along with a specific
description of the best management practices designed to eliminate or minimize
such risk(s) to the maximum extent feasible;
N/A.
16. Such additional information as the applicant or town may deem necessary to fully
evaluate the proposed activity and/or demonstrate or explain why a watershed
permit should be issued.
N/A
gSGM
RE:
www.sgm-inc.com
February 8,2023
Mr- Glenn Hartmann, Principal Planner
Garfield County Community Development
108 8üStreet, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Grand Hogback Ranches
Proposed Access onto CR 335 Through the Town of New Casrle
Dear Glenn,
The purpose of this letÈer 'ls to follow up with our preliminary review of the documents provided to us from High
Country Engineering on behalf of Dow and Nicole Rippy fortheir proposed roadway tie to the section of CR 335
through the Town of New Castle- The main reeson we are identifuing this as preliminary is that Dow is seeking
direstion from the Town on how the Tovr¡n would like for the driveway ties to be constructed. We antic¡pate a
subsequent submittal will be required to address modifications to the proposal to address the Town's concems
and direction as discussed later in this letter.
To conduct our preliminary review, we have been in receipt of the following infomatlon:
1- A four (4) sheet set of drawings prepared by HCE dated as stamped an 1L178122- These are drawings of
the internal eccess road and proposed ties to CR 335 with proposed details for construction.
2. A series of six {6} sheets of drawings that define the specific platting for the subdivision of the property
¡nto the 18 separate tracts-
3. An email datedlZlV2?fram Wyatt Keesberyto Roger Nea¡
4. An email dal':ed 72/13l22fram orrin Moon to John Plano and Roger Neal
5- An email datedt2ÍLl22fromWyatt Keesberyto Glenn Hartmann, Ðow Rippy and Roger Neal
6. A drainage report prepared by HCE for design of orsite culverts dated December 2A22
7 - A filled out Right of Way permît application {not yet signed as not yet acted upon}
As you are aware, the tìÂro existing driveways are sufficient for a single-family home use each to be consistent with
the County's Rural zone district prior to the subdivision of the property into 18 separate parcels {tracts)- We now
understand that the use of the driveways wíll expand to potentially nine {9} platted single family träcrs. From this
inforrnation, if uses on each tract follow the "permitted uses" and avoid any subsequent uses that would otherwise
require a "land use change" permit from the county, at a minimum, the potential traffic on the driveway ties to CR
335 would expand from approximêtely 20 VPD {vehicles per day} to 180 VPÐ over development of the nine {9} lots'
lwouldnotethatemailcorrespondence-fromDowind¡catesthatthewesternmost driveway serves turo {2} owners
and the driveway rô rhe êast seryes three {3} owners indícating that various o\rvners have purchased two {2) to
three (3) lots. That said, this review and evaluation has consîdered the total lots separately as no lot line
dissolutions have been applied for.
Ptease note that in reviewing the design information presente4 we also have reviewed the drawings with those as
buîlt drawings provided to the Town by lntermountain Engineering for the River Park project. We have attached
GTENWOOD SPRINGS l1B West Sixth Sl, Suite 2OO I Glenwood Springs, CO 8ló01 | 97O-945-1OO4
SEMI-PRIMITIVE ROADWAY AREA OF RECYCLED ASPHALT PROVIDES ACCESS TO TRACTS 4,5,6,7&B OR 50 VEH. TRIPS/DAY
sEMr-pRrMrrvE RoADWAv AREA oF REcycLED ASpHALT TRACTS 9-13 50 wD , Page I I
PRIMITIVE ROADWAY PROVIDES ACCESS TO TRACTS 7 AND B WITH 20 VEHICLE TRIPS/DAY
SSGM
www.sgfn-lnc.com
the pertinent drawings from these as builts to help with findìng any pertinent improvements that were constructed
ín the right of way with t'hat pro¡ect thãt also are pert¡nent to lhis project.
West Driveuravle To CR335
The following figure (F¡eurê 1) identifies the design proposed for the driveway ac¡oss from Park Drive while the
subsequent figure {Figure 2} identifies the as built information from 2005 when River Park was constructed-
Figne !- Proposed HCE Ðesigx at Tracl 16 øzd 17 øcrosfrom Park Ðrite
The pert¡nent take aways from this proposat are that the driveway width is approximately 50 wide as it t¡es to CR
335 and drainage from the driveway and CR 335 are directed to a proposed valley pan that is to be 2ü wide. The
flowtine of the valley pan is 5, off of the edge of asphalt (fhe slope from edge of asphalt to flowl¡ne is 5% while the
slope out of the valley pan to the driveway ís set at a 5% for 5'then increases to a max¡mum of 6% in the driveway'¡
Edge of flowline to pan and out of valley revísed to 3.0?
The Town's preference for the driveway connection to the roadway ¡s to have the driveway be no wider than 25'
(excluding the curb return dimension). Drainage off of CR 335 needs to be away from the edge of asphah but no
it""p", than 3%. This drainage is to be continuous at a min¡mum, to the right of way line. No valley pans are
desiredwithintheTown's rþhtof way. Pavingof the drivewayis required withintheTown's rightof way- Concrete
paving or asphalt are acceptable. lf concrete, adequate expansion and contraction joints need to be pmvided and
the concrete shall be a minimum of 6'thick- The existing edge of asphalt would need to be saw cut to provide a
straíght edge to the concrete and the top of concrete would need to be a minimum of /.' below tfie edge of asphalt
GLENWOOD SPRINGS I I B West Sixth St, Suite 200 I Glenwood Sprinç, CO 81601 I 970-945-3404
Page | 2
ffiscM
www.sgm-lnc.com
toässuredrainagefromtheroadwaydoesexittheroadwayandisnottrappedatthejoint. lfasphalt,theminimum
depth of asphalt would be 4,,, constructed in two lifu. The asphalt would need to tie to thê existing asphalt roadway
of cR 335 using a 1 1/,,, milled existing surface, 24" wide. subgrade preparation requirements and base depth under
each option woufd need to be coordinated with your engineer to assure adequate structural number exists to
accommodate the increased traffíc imposed by the subdivision'
7
Figrt'e 2- 20()5 As Built CondiÍion Òf Exisling Þtívan'ry
From the above as built drawing, ¡t a ppears that the culvert that crosses the driveway parallel to the e dge of asphalt
has not been shown or has been removed sínce the as builts were prepafed. The surveyor/engineer needs to
confirm its existence and incorporate ît into the design, relocate it or remove Ìt, With the current proposal,
atthough the driveway is shown to move, the grading needed to establish proper drainage from the existing
driveway tie needs to be regraded to avoid offsite drainage from entering onto CR 335.
Eäst Þr¡vewãv Tie to-.cR335
The following figure (Figure 3) identifies the des¡gn proposed for the diiveway across from the east intersection of
Riverview Drive with CR 335 while the subsaquent figure {Figure 4} identifies the as built information from 2ü05
when River park was constructed. The pertinent tãke awâys from this part of the proposal are that the driveway
width is approximately 35.5' wide as ¡t ties tÕ CR 335 and similar to the west driveway tiÊ, dralnage from the
driveway and CR 335 are directed to a prûposed valley pen that is to be 20'wide. The flowf íne of the valley pan is
5' off of the edge of asphalt, The stope from edge of asphalt to flowline is 5% while the sfope out of the valley pan
to the driveway is set at a 5% for 5' then increases tô a mâximum of 6% în the driveway'
'l I 8 West Sixth Sl, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO Bl ó01 I 970'945-1A04
Page | 3
-*--
GLENWOOD SPRINçS
ffi5GM
www.sgm-lnc.com
Figtre 3-East Ðriveu,q'Tíe to CI?3JJ a¡ Tract 13
T'he Iown's preference for this drlveway connect¡on 'tu l-ire ro¿dway is identical to the west drivcway tie to CR 335
where we request to have the drîveway be no wider than 25' {excluding the curb return dimet:sion}. Drainage off
CR 335 needs tg be away from the edge of asphalt but ¡ro steeper than 3%. This drainage is to be continuous ât â
minimum,totherightofwayline. NovalleypansaredesiredwithintheTown'srÎghtofway. Pavingofthedriveway
is required within the Town,s right of way. Concrete pav¡ng or asphalt are acceptable. lf concrete, adequate
expansion and contraction joínts need to be proviclecl ancl the concrete shall be a minimum of 6" thick. The existíng
edge ofasphalt would need to be saw cutto provide a straight edge to the concrete and the top of concrete would
need to be a minimum of %' below the edge of asphalt to âssure drainage from the roadway does exit the roadway
andisnottrappecl atthejoint. ìf asphalt,themin¡mumdepthof asphaltwouldbe4",constructedintwolifts' The
asphalt would need to tíe to the ex¡sting asphalt roadway of CR 335 using a 7/"" mílled exi'çting surface, 24" wide'
Subgrade preparation requírements and base depth under each option would need to be coordinated with your
engineer to assurê adequate structural number exists to accommodate the increased traffic imposed by the
subdivísion.
I l8 West Sixih Sl, Suire 200 | Glenwood springs, co Bl ó0-l | 970.945.1004
Page | 4
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
ffisGM
{.
www.sgm-lnc.com
v,l
\
\
*oÁþ
flEl!
I **.ffûà'*.
*
\'\d,r'. tF
Figø'e *2t05 As Bldþ Inlerseclion of CR 3jS and Rîven'ieta: Drive
From review of the revised driveway t¡e to be relocated to tîe at the intersection of Riverview Ðrive ând CR 335,
there appears to need to be more specific direction provídêd to assure that draínage does not pond at the east
side of the driveway tie. ,{ culvert may need to be installed to assure drainage is adequately provided to avoid
pondíng in CR 335 borrow ditch and/or the driveway itself as the borrow ditch and driveway grading noted abûve
in Figure 4 had drainage in the borrow ditch proceeding west from the east side of the old driveway location,
Note that the applicant has províded an application for a right of way permit with the Town. This is not the
instrument used to provide and access permit. Thus, we have afiached the Town's application with submittal
rÊqu¡rements for ân Access Permit. We would hope the appl¡cânt can modify their prÕposal and provide us with a
completed access permit along with the ancillary information (calculations and reportsi to substantiate the design'
Until that information is r*ceived, we cännot provide an affirmative recommendation or accêss for the proposed
change in traffic conditiôns ímposed by the subdivision. We can allow, however, access to thê exist¡ng driveways
from traffic that would be imposed by two {2) single family homes (total for the nine (9) tracts) with an ADU
consistent with the County's permilted uses for the Rural zone district. Beyond that, no other addítionaI access
will be granted.
I I B Wesi Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 I 97A'945.1044
Page | 5
GLËNWOOD SPRINGS
SsGM
www.sgm-lnc.com
Review of DrainaFq Renort
As noted earlier, one of the ltems submitted by High country Engineering was that of a drainage report prepared
to substantiate the design of the culverts for the "onttru"t"d
roadway within the subdivision. The noted speclf¡c
pürpose of the report was to 'address tåe storm wøter drainage for the proposed roadway Ínfrastructure
modificdtions for the praryrty tocoted in îarîietd Øunty Colomdø nearthe Tawn of New Cosile." Of concem for
the Tou¡n of New CasUL is the ?¿ct that the drainage calculation stop short of (rroviding any calculalions,
recommendations or proposed improvements lhat would mitigate the increased floìw am¡c¡pated)to otist as a
result of the modified drainage conditions observed to exist as a resutt of the mass grading that has occurred
upstreâm of the oristing drainage infrastructurê across and under CR 335 and through Riverpark SubdMsion' The
report does not evatuaæ the(mnacls of the grading activitieqon these culverts and whether or not the çxisting
infrastructure is capable of haàdÌngthe increased fl"*q li::iL*:l!?^å"¡1!;"Îiå?å,3åå1nug" *¡*,
calculations and tables
The following figure (Figure 5) identifies the conditions of ihe uiísiie drainage ti-ibutai-¡ to the site as of 2ü)5 when
the drainage infrastructure was designed for the Riverpark Subdivision-
Fígtrc 5-2005 Afsitc Draiwge BasÍn Løtd Usc
118 Wesr Sixth st, suile 200 | Glenwood sprinç, co Bìó0'¡ | 970-945-1004
Page I 6
GIENWOOD SPRINGS
#SGM
www-sgm-¡nc-com
. Likewise, the following figure {Figure 5) shows the condÌtions of the offsite drainage tributary to the site as of 2022
following the grading aclivities.
Figwe 6-2t22 lblap of O{síte Draînege Basin Land Use
Noted of concern is the obvious increase in disturbance in the 2t22 map versus that of the 2005 map- The
significance is that there is going to be increased drainage to thejnfrastructure provided to transfer flows across
CR 335 and through Riverpark Subdivision- The drainage report does not identifo how much of an increased peak
!s expected nor does it identifu the extent to which the drainage infrastructure is compromised. Obviously, floodÌng
is of grave concern especiatly since the grading actîv¡t¡es have been performed directly uphill of the 156-un¡t
Riverpark Subdivision. Likewise, it appears that the grading as !t now exists is devoid of any drainage controls that
would throttle flows developed from these grading activities back to existing conditÎons. To further complicate the
.concern is that no apparent stormwater controls are ín place nor âre they proposed that would otherwise be put
in place to control the transport of sedimentthat could otherwise further compromíse the capacity of the dra¡nage
GLENWOOD SPRINGS l'18 Wesr S¡xlh St, Su;te 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81óOl | 97A945.1A44
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS BEYOND SINGLE
FAMILY WILL NEED TO FOLLOW THE LAND
USE CODE FOR ADDITIONAL USES.
Page I 7
ffi5GM
www.sgm-lnc.com
infrastructure. What is of note is that the drainage improvements currently provided do pass these increased flows
across the roadway infrastructure proposed for Grand Hogback Ranches into CR 335, Rîverpark and the Colorado
River unabated to protect downstream lands from flooding, increased sedimerrt loads and poterrllal pollutants and
debris.
îhis discussion and concern leads to the fact that this area is within the 5 mile watershed dÍstrict for the Town of
New Castle and that a watershed permit is necessaryto be apptied forwith this grading activ¡ty. We have prevíously
requested the applicant to apply for a watershed permit but have been to{d by the applicant that the grading
activitiesareagricultural activitiesandexemptfromthisrequirement. TheTowndoesdisagreewiththatassertion'
The Town,s Watershed protectîon Distr¡ct regulalions arc found at Chapter 1.3.40 of the New Castle Municipal Code
{available at www.newqas{gcolorado,Olg) and do not include any general exemption for agricultural activities
other than stock grazing. The Town therefore requests the applicant make application for a watershed permit
accordingly. We trust that the County likewise shares a similar opinion. Regardless of any argument about
agricultural activities, individual trãct owners already are beginnîng uses withín the subdivision that are not
agricultural in nature nor äre consistent with the permitted uses within the Rural zone dÎstricl, and the required
road improvements addressed above are not agricultural either. A watershed permit application ís required, and
we would request that this be included as a condition of any land use change permit to be considered by the
County.
We have attached a copy of Chapter 13.40 WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT, from the Town's Municipal Code
for the applicant to have proper dírection in applying for and preparing the complete submittaI for the watershed
permit.
On behalf of the Town of New Castle, I want to close in thanking you for keeping the Town appraised of the
submittal and development actîv¡ties related to this project. I hope that our côncerns are clear as presented and
encôurage you to contacl us upon your receipt and review ofth¡s letter îfyou have any questîons'
Respectfully,
SGM
jefferey S. Simonson, PE
PrincipallTown Engineer
1 I 8 West Sixth St, Suiie 200 | Gìenwood Sprîngs, CO 81ó01 | 970.945.1A04
Page I I
GLENWCIOD SPRINGS