Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutTBP 1998-06-17 , . . . TOWN OF FRASER "Icebox of the Nation" P.O. Box 120/153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 (970) 726-5491 FAX Une: (970) 726-5518 TOWN BOARD AGENDA REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 1998 FRASER TOWN HALL 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of 6/3/98 minutes 3. Open' Forum ," .1. . -~ 4. Public Hearings r ..;" ,.... 5. Action Items . ; a) Request for recoIlSideration of Ordinance 240. b) Setting a public hearing to amend the zoning district map and the Business Zone R~gWations. c) . Sign variance request, Melanie Zwick d) Request to approve a crack and seal coat contract for various rOad,' and trail improvements in the am~)Unt of$12,734.40. e) Memorandum of Understanding, Emergency Services Dispatch t)' Memorandum of Understanding, St Onge parcel 6. Discussion Items a) Maryvale: request for water service on "Forest Meadows" b) Wellhead protection program c) Grand County Housing Authority, draft MOU 7. Staff Choice 8. Board Choice {,' 4r~ - ,hJ 1,'11:rl ~ a) . Grand County Water & Sanitation District update '" J'i~ 1iJ~'-i..JJiel Upcoming Meetings June 24th Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 15th Town Board Regular Meeting ýÿ I J . . TOWN OF FRASER "Icebox of the Nation" P.O. Box 120 /153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 (970) 726-5491 FAX Line: (970) 726-5518 -- manager's briefmg: .June 12, 1998 Wednesday begins with ajoint Town Board / Planning Commission picnic at 6:00. We'll provide meats and drinks - you bring the rest. This picnic is a quick celebration of a lot of hard work from the past six months! The rest of the night is dedicated to "mouing." (Read on. : .) ~.- , Action Items We received a "motion for reconsideration" from Grand County Water & Sanitation District relative to Ordinance 240, which annexed their property. The motion is enclosed This motion-is a procedural requirement that GCWSD must file in order to keep their legal options open. You have two ways in which to respond to this request, each with follow-up decision options: 1. you can choose to reConsider Ordinance 240: you would do this by making a motion to reconsider Ordinance 240. If this motion fails, its the end of the request. If this_ motion passes, then reconsideration of Ordinance 240 is on, the table. 2. you Can choose not to reconsider the motion: you would do this by. not taking any action on the request orby formally making a motion to deny their request. If you choose not to reconsider the motion, GCWSD will have met their procedural requirements and will keep their legal options open to challenge Ordinance 240. If you choose to reconsider 240, I would recommend tabling this reconsideration until such time as Fraser's Special Counsel, Gerry Dahl, can be present for this discussion along with Maryyale, Bradley, and Sumrall. Also enclosed is Carl Houck's partial critique ofGCWSD's minimum stream flow ~tudy. Once you wade through this issue, and no matter which decision-you make, you need to set a public hearing to amend the Zoning District Map and the Business Zone Regulations. Staff is recommending that the hearing be held Friday, .July 24th at 8:~ a.m. (a special meeting) with the Planning Comlnission hearing this issue on July 22nd. \ Melanie Zwick has requested a variance to the sign code (see letter) which would allow her to place a sign underneath the existing "Finnegan's" sign on U.S. 40 at Eastom Ave. As a general rule, Fraser does not allow "off premise" signs. Finnegan's received a variance in exchange for an easement for the Fraser River Trail in 1991. Staff recommends denial of Zwick's request based on the belief that allowing the variance would set an undesired precedent. Jim Tucker will be present to request approval ofa motion to approve a contract for $12,734.40 for crack fill and seal coat expenses for the Walk Through History Park and Amtrak station parking lots, Railroad A venue, and the Fraser-Winter Park bike path. This should substantively increase the life span of the asphalt at these locations. _ D \If.,{ - J . . . Enclosed in the packet is the final (their emphasis, not mine) Memorandum of Understanding for emergency services dispatch services. Also enclosed is another memorandum of understanding between Fraser and Winter Park regarding development of the St. Onge parcel. The MOU is the same as the one adopted last fall with the only change being extending the time for something to happen an additional year. Discussion Items: Last March, Maryvale requested water service for the Forest Meadows parcel. Their specific request is enclosed Stan Cazier, Ron McLaughlin and I reviewed their request. Stan and Ron's recommendations are included I'll brief you on status of the wellhead protection program. Finally, the MOU for the Grand County Housing Authority is enclosed and ready for discussion. Staff Choice: Nothing at this time. Board Choice: Kit and Mike will give an update of the discussions with GCWSD. . . . . TO\\"N BOARD JUl'i'E 3, 1998 The regular meeting of the Board was called to order by lVIayor Johnston at 7:30 p.m.. Board present were Swatzell, Klancke, Rantz, rvfcIntyre, Sanders and Soles. Also present were Reid, Trotter and Winter. Swatzell made a motion to approve the minutes of the 5/6 and 5/20 meetings, 2nd Sanders, carried. OPEN FORUM Sheriff Johnson gave the Board a status report of the Dept. Johnson also reviewed the latest information regarding the dispatch. Colleen Deem presented a request for a driveway easement from County Rd. 8 ( St. Onge property) to access a lot she owns. This lot is steep at the normal access and this will work better. This property is also owned by the Town ofWmter Park as joint tenants with Fraser. Rantz made a motion to approve this easement as far a the Town's is concerned, 2nd Swatzell, carried. CHAMBER VPDATE Catherine Ross gave an update of Chamber activities. DISCUSSION ITEMS Cemetery Assoc. Board again discussed the request from the Cemetery Assoc. for exclusive easement for the driveway, view corridor easement and buffer easement. After discussion Board \\till walk the site Sunday at 4:00 p.m. and will decide how to process this request. Mal)'vale Augmentation plan. Reid reviewed that lVfaryvale has submitted a amended augmentation Plan. The TO\\tn has filed an objection to said plan as a matter of policy. Safeway building. Reid discussed the potential use for the soon to be vacated Safeway building and the discussion that the committee has had regarding finding appropriate uses. . . STAFF CHOICE Board and Planning members ",ill have a picnic on June 17th at 6:00 p.m. Vicky rvfattox and Jim Swanson ",ill attend the July 15th meeting. The new school addition will be tapping the main directly. Staff will re'\iew Ordinances to see what charges are appropriate. Board will not waive fee. Reid discussed the Muse Drive improvements. Board directed Reid to proceed. Reid discussed a new water main break in the meadow, the transite pipe again. Lignosite will be used on the roads for dust control. July 1, 1998 meeting canceled. No further business meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. t . . PARCEL, MAURO & SPAANSTRA, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 3600 1801 CALIFORNIA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2636 TELEPHONE (303) 292-6400 TELECOPIER (303) 295-3040 (303) 293-6502 DAVID A. BAILEY DBAILEY@PARCELMAURO.COM June 4, 1998 Mr. Chuck Reid Town of Fraser P.O. Box 120 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, CO 80442 Re: Motion for Reconsideration Dear Chuck: I have enclosed for filing the Motion for Reconsideration of the Grand County Water and Sanitation District, pertaining to Resolution No. 1998-4-5 and Ordinance No. 1998-240. . As you know, the Motion is a prerequisite to judicial review of an annexation decision and, therefore, a mandatory filing for the District in order to maintain that option. Moreover, the District believes that sound bases exist upon which the Town Board should grant the Motion and withdraw the annexation (see, in particular, section III.A on page four of the Motion). This District does not, however, desire the Motion to deter or inhibit the current negotiations concerning location of the District's new wastewater treatment plant and zoning on the annexed property. We anticipate that these negotiations would continue as expeditiously as possible even if the Town Board granted the Motion for Reconsideration. Please let me know when the Motion will be considered by the Town Board so that we can appear before the Board in support of the Motion. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Yours very truly, dlfIft/5 DABlbap Enclosure cc: Mr. Bruce Hutchins ( w/encl.) Gerald Dahl, Esq. 174898.1 I . . TOWN OF FRASER, COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA TION OF THE GRAND COUNTY WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT NO.1 TO PETITION FOR ANNEXATION IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO OF M.J. SUMRALL, STEVE SUMRALL, MARYVALE, L.L.C., J. SCOTT BRADLEY, PEGGY L. LORE, OTTO VICTOR TSCHUDI, AND YVONNE LOUISE ERICKSEN TSCHUDI The Grand County Water and Sanitation District No. 1 (the "District"), through counsel, submits its Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Petition for Annexation filed by M. J. Sumrall, Steve Sumrall, Maryvale L.L.C., J. Scott Bradley, Peggy L. Lore, Otto Victor Tschudi, and Yvonne Louise Ericksen Tschudi (the "Petition"). I. Procedural Background On April 29, 1998, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Fraser (the "Town Board") passed Resolution No. 1998-4-5 (a resolution making certain findings of fact regarding the proposed annexation of a parcel of land to the Town of Fraser) and Ordinance No. 1998-240 (an ordinance approving the annexation of certain territory to the Town of Fraser). The subject Resolution and Ordinance are sometimes collectively referred to herein, for convenience only, as the "Annexation Decisions." The Annexation Decisions were published in the local newspaper on May 6, 1998. Pursuant to C.R.S. 931-16-106, "ordinances shall not take effect and be in force before thirty days after they have been so published." There is an exception for ordinances that are "necessary to the immediate preservation of the public health or safety and containing the reasons making the same necessary in a separate section." Id. As published, the Annexation Decisions contain no such "separate section" and, thus, the 30-day rule applies. Accordingly, the effective date of the Ordinance No. 1998-240 is June 5, 1998. A motion for reconsideration must be filed, pursuant to C.R.S. 931-12-116(2)(a)(II), within 10 days of "the effective date of the ordinance finalizing the challenged annexation." Such a motion is a condition precedent to judicial review of the annexation ordinance. The due date for the District's Motion for Reconsideration is June 15, 1998. II. Factual Background Zoning Correspondence from the Town of Fraser to the District, dated March 9, 1998 and April 8, 1998, indicated that the Petition was to be coupled with zoning of the District's . . property that was intended to preclude the District from using its property for any economically viable purpose and, specifically, such that the District would not be allowed to build a mechanical wastewater treatment plant on the proposed to be annexed site. At its April 29, 1998 meeting, the Town Board postponed a zoning decision affecting the District's property annexed by the Town to allow the parties to discuss and determine whether an agreement could be reached concerning the zoning of the District's property. At least one such meeting has occurred and others are scheduled. The Petition The Petition was granted without the consent of the District notwithstanding that approximately 24 acres of its property, generally located between Highway 40 and the Fraser River north of the Town of Winter Park, was included therein. The District's property, which constitutes only 23% of the acreage covered by the Petition, is designated as Tract NO.4 in the Petition and on the maps attached thereto. As representatives of Maryvale L.L.C. ("Maryvale") and the Town Manager freely admitted at the April 29, 1998 meeting, the District's property is adjunct to, and unnecessary for, annexation of the remainder of the property covered by the Petition. The District's property is connected to the other annexed property, and therefore subject to annexation, only because it is contiguous with the 1.6 acre tract of land owned by Bradley, et al. The primary Petitioner is Maryvale whose property is approximately 70 acres or 70% of the total amount of property annexed. One of Maryvale's principals stated at the Town Board meeting that it allowed its property to be divided between the Petition and a second petition for annexation (approved by the Town Board at the same meeting) to facilitate Fraser's desire to annex the District's property.1 The April 29. 1998 Meeting As noted above, the Town Board considered two separate annexation/zoning proposals at its April 29, 1998 meeting. The first of these was for a 224 acre parcel owned exclusively by Maryvale and the second concerned the 103 acre parcel that included a 70 acre parcel also owned by Maryvale and the District's 24 acre tract. At the time Resolution No. 1998-4-5 and Ordinance No. 1998-240 were considered by the Town Board, the Town Manager observed that the Annexation Agreement with Maryvale included a clause that provided that if Fraser did not complete annexation of all of Maryvale's property within 30 days of the date from which any part of the property had been annexed, Maryvale had the opportunity to void the Annexation Agreement and to opt- out of any annexation by Fraser. Thus, the Town Manger took the position that the Town was required to annex the 103 acre parcel or risk Maryvale withdrawing from the annexation. I Without Maryvale's 70 acres, the District's property could not have been annexed because the Petition would not have satisfied the requirement of C.R.S. ~ 31-12-107(1)(a) that the landowners of more than 50% of the land to be annexed must be petitioners for annexation. - 2 - ýÿ t . . Inexplicably, the conflict ostensibly created by the Maryvale Annexation Agreement was not identified until after the Town Board had voted on that Agreement (Ordinance 1998-238), which vote preceded consideration of Ordinance 1998-240 by a few minutes. Moreover, counsel for the Town, Rodney McGowan, indicated that Maryvale would have only a weak argument that it could void the Annexation Agreement with the Town or withdraw from the annexation. Notwithstanding, after some additional discussion, the Board voted 4-3 to approve the Annexation Decisions. As noted above, the Board then tabled zoning of the District's property. The District's Proposed Use of the Property Absent Annexation Prior to the filing of the Petition, the District was engaged in negotiations with the Fraser Sanitation District ("FSD") and the Winter Park West Water and Sanitation District ("WPYVWSD") concerning construction and operation of a new consolidated wastewater treatment plant in Fraser. In the event that those negotiations had been completed, the wastewater lagoons presently located on the District's property covered by the Petition would be removed, and the Property would be used for some other purpose. The primary issues in the consolidation negotiations were the adverse impact of consolidation on the Fraser River in the reach between the two existing treatment plants (i.e., decreased streamflows in the river as a result of transporting the District's wastewater to a location north of the Town), the increased cost to the District of funding a consolidated wastewater treatment plant rather than constructing its own plant (approximately $1 million), selection of an appropriate design and design engineer, and the terms of an operating agreement for a consolidated wastewater treatment plant. If the District constructed a new wastewater treatment plant on the property subject to the Annexation Decisions, a new plant site would occupy only about four of the District's 24 acres. A new plant site would be located near the river in the southeast corner of the District's property and away from Highway 40. The site would be bermed and landscaped to have a very limited, if any, visual impact. The remainder of the property would be available for other uses. The District believes that such use of its property would be in the best interests of the residents of its service area. -3- , I . . III. Grounds for Reconsideration A. The Annexation Decisions were the Result of a Controversial Annexation Petition. Approved by the Town Board by Only One Vote. and Will Result in Litigation Unless Zoning can be Agreed to by the Parties within a Short Period of Time. Prudence Therefore Dictates that the Annexation Decisions be Reconsidered and Withdrawn to Allow the Parties Adequate Time to Seek a Negotiated Resolution of this Dispute. As discussed above, the proposal to annex the District's property was controversial from its inception. The District opposed annexation of its property. Maryvale agreed to break-up the annexation of its property into two parcels to facilitate the Town's desire to forcibly annex the District's property. Critical information concerning the purported interplay between the Maryvale Annexation Agreement and annexation of the District's property was not timely disclosed at the April 29, 1998 meeting of the Town Board. Ultimately, the Annexation Decisions passed by a single vote. This Motion for Reconsideration is filed as a prerequisite to judicial review of the Annexation Decisions. C.R.S. 9 31-12-116(2)(a)(II). Judicial review of an annexation decision must be commenced within 60 days from the effective date of the ordinance Id. 931-12-116(2)(a)(I). Thus, if the District's files suit, and the strong probability is that it will, its complaint must be filed no later than August 4, 1998. Once a case has been filed, judicial review of an annexation ordinance is conducted on an expedited basis. Id. 931-12-116(2)(a)(III). The Town Board and the District's Board have met once to initiate negotiations concerning the appropriate zoning for the District's property. A committee comprised of members from each body has been appointed to continue these discussions. The key issue at the outset of these discussions is the effect on the Fraser River of relocating the District's wastewater treatment plant to a downstream site. The District's analysis of this issue, prepared by Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, is that the impact will be significant and that the plant should not be relocated. The Town has retained its own engineer, but no report has yet been issued. The District does not anticipate that the conclusion of its streamflow analysis will be materially altered by the Town's current review. Thus, barring some unforeseen turn of events, litigation can be avoided only if the Town definitely determines that a new wastewater treatment plant can be constructed on the District's property and the parties agree to design factors that will protect the Town's interest in the aesthetic appearance of the plant and the remaining property. This is no small task and one that will be difficult to accomplish in the two months remaining prior to the deadline for commencement of litigation. Moreover, if litigation is filed, it will almost certainly have a polarizing effect on the parties and reduce the probability that the current negotiations will ever reach a successful conclusion.2 -4- I . . Neither the Town's interest, nor the District's, are served by the current path and probable sequence of events. Although the Town and the District should be, and are, making every effort to cooperate with one another, each of them has legitimate interests to protect in the context of their current negotiations. While the District believes that it has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the residents of its service area, it recognizes the Town's legitimate concern and interest in the use of the District's property and the appearance of a new wastewater treatment plant located there. Both parties understand and recognize their moral obligation to protect the Fraser River. None of these issues appear to be insurmountable, but achieving a mutually acceptable resolution of them in such a short time frame will be difficult. The current negotiations should not be conducted with the probability of litigation looming in the distance and drawing closer all the time. The Town Board should reconsider and withdraw the annexation for a period of time in which the negotiations can be completed. B. The District's Property is not Subiect to Unilateral Annexation Because the Property Comprises More than Twenty Acres With an Assessed Value Greater than $200.000. Colorado law prohibits the unilateral annexation of a tract of land comprising twenty acres or more "which, together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon has a valuation for assessment in excess of two hundred thousand dollars for ad valorem tax purposes for the year next preceding the annexation ...." C.R.S. 9 31-12-105(1)(b) (1997). The Petition includes approximately 24 acres of land owned by the District. The value of the District's property, as determined by the Grand County Assessor's Office (the "Assessor") , is $946,630. The Assessor has appraised the land at $270,230 and valued the improvements thereon at $676,400. The Petitioners failed to determine the value of the District's land prior to filing the Petition. Based on the Assessor's determination, the District's property conclusively exceeds the threshold amount required by Colorado law. Therefore, C.R.S. 9 31-12-105(1)(b) prohibits annexation of the District's property without its consent.3 2 Even if the Town prevails in the annexation litigation, a separate case, based on distinct legal theories, may be filed concerning the Town's ultimate decision on zoning. 3 Any assertion that a court should or would apply the "assessment. . . for the year next preceding the annexation" language in the statute merely seeks to place form over substance. Clearly, the legislature intended that valuable tracts of property in excess of a minimum size (20 acres) should not be forcibly annexed. The fact that the property at issue here was not routinely assessed because it is tax-exempt while owned by the District, and in light of staffing and other economic considerations in the assessor's office, should not defeat the legislative intent. - 5 - , . . C. The Petition is Defective and. at the Minimum. Must be Refiled and Republished. Paragraph 3.b of the Petition states that "[n]ot less than 1/16 of the perimeter of the property is contiguous with the Town of Fraser." This is an incorrect statement of the Colorado statute which requires that 1/6 of the property to be annexed be contiguous with the annexing municipality. C.R.S. ~ 31-12-104(1)(a). Thus, the Annexation Decisions are invalid and without legal effect. The Petition must be refiled and republished. D. Annexation of the District's Property is Sought for an Improper Purpose. The improper purpose underlying the Petition weighs strongly against any finding that annexation of the District's property is in the community interest. The Town has described the Petition as furthering community objectives. Notwithstanding, the Petition appears to have been primarily intended to limit the District's options in the location of its new wastewater treatment plant and the consolidation discussions with FSD and WP\fWIJSD. No "community interest" is served by this improper exercise of statutory rights of annexation. E. Maryvale's Water Rights. The Town has not addressed or resolved the issue of whether Maryvale's water rights used for domestic purposes will properly augment the Fraser River and the possibility that the plan may fail to protect the water rights of the District, the Town and others, particularly in the event that the annexation causes the District to move its wastewater discharge to a location downstream of Fraser. Moreover, depletions caused by Maryvale's groundwater diversions for golf course irrigation purposes are subject to an exchange plan decree in Case No. 90CW235. However, this exchange protects diversions from the wells only if the "call" originates at a point downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. Maryvale has attempted to "overfile" on the District's treated effluent as it left the wastewater treatment plant; however, such a filing most likely amounts to no more than a very junior water right. Thus, Maryvale has done little or nothing to protect senior water users in the vicinity of Fraser from depletions associated with its golf course diversions, particularly as growth continues in the Upper Fraser Valley. This condition will be exacerbated if the effect of the annexation of the District's property is to force its wastewater treatment plant to be moved downstream. IV. Request for Relief The District requests that the Town reconsider the Annexation Decisions and withdraw them to allow the parties to conduct the negotiations concerning location and appearance of the District's new wastewater treatment plant. - 6 - ýÿ . . Dated this !:/if day June 1998. PARCEL, MAURO & SPAANSTRA, P.C. Ult:~ Paul S. Enockson 1801 California Street, Suite 3600 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 292-6400 Telecopier: (303) 295-3040 ATTORNEYS FOR THE GRAND COUNTY WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT NO.1 -7- ýÿ . . Certificate of Mailing I hereby certify that, on this :..J"-'1-oay of June 1998, the forgoing Opposition of Grand County Water and Sanitation District to Petition for Annexation was mailed to the following, United States mail, postage pre-paid, addressed as follows: Town of Fraser P.O. Box 120 153 Fraser Ave. Fraser, Colorado 80442 M.J. and Steve Sumrall P.O. Box 2470 Fraser, Colorado 80442 Maryvale, L.L.C. c/o E. Rick Watrous 3333 South Wadsworth Blvd. Lakewood, Colorado 80227 J. Scott Bradley, et al. 3450 South Poplar, No. 203 Denver, Colorado 80237 Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. Gorsuch Kirgis LLC 140117th Street, Suite 1100 Denver, Colorado 80202-0180 ~. rJ' . ~~ 173144.1 - 8 - ýÿ ~ ~,~!f9.!-e~~ . Df//h:lllfa I,} ffftltil'I'. rf.~p,.u""hil', fTUflW.l/.<i,i1u././(l1l.'! Ji;r 1/1/.1:;(' WI'iit'fn'. June 12, 1998 Mr. Charles Reid, Town Manager Town of Fraser P.O. Box 120 153 fraser Avenue Fraser, CO 80442 Dear Mr. Reid: This is to document my review of the draft report by Leonard Rice el'ltitled "Potential Impacts of Wastewater Consolidation on Flows in the Fraser Rivet'," following a meeting with Leonard Rice personnel at their offices on Friday, June 5, 1998. The meeting was held at your direction to critically review items in the report. ht attendance were Greg Ten Eyke and Ed Duerr, Leonard Rice, and Bruce Hutchins, GCW &SD plant operator. After a presentation by Leonard Rice personnei on tbe background concerning the issue, the discussion centered on several key elements which will be commented on here. Later, a page.by-page review was conducted during which minor corrections were addressed (e.g., bottom of page 5, average velocity is reported in cfs, which is a quantity of flow term _ fps (feet per second) should have been used). There is no need to discuss these minor COlT~ctions here __ they will probably be addressed by the report authors when the report is finalized. The principal disagreements fotllld with the report are swnmari;zed as followS: 1. Reduced Flow Impact to the Fjshety The low flows reported in the final foul' tables of the report are felt to be reasonably accurate, if the growth projectjons presented are accurate. Their dire impact on the fishery that exists in questionable. On the one hand, these low flows are not continuous, or necessarily sequential, one month after the next. They have been developed based on flow gaging data to show statistically what the 30 day average low flow for each month might bc, once in every three years (30E3 flows). If a statistically developed low flow were to occur, for example, in January, there is a one in three chance it would be 4450 Arapahoe, Suite 100, . Boulder, CO 80303 . (303) 415-2048 FAX (303) 41S.z5011 ýÿ , . . Mr Charles Reid, Town Manager Page NO.2 June 12, ) 998 followed by the 30E3 flow for February, and a 2/3 chance the Febl1lary flow would be higher. What the report is attempting to portray is that during periods of low flow, the flows would likely be lower then they have been. The brook trout which inhabit this reach of the Fra.ser Rivcr are remarkably resilient fish _ in fact, the Colorado [)jvision of Wildlife has found that in general brool< trout in Colorado arc so prolific that an additional bag limit of 10 brook trout under 8 inches has been established. Undoubted lower low flows would place more stress on the fish. The meandering strcam reach (immediately below the current Grand County W &S District outfall down to the confluence with 51. Louis Creek, would probably support fewer fish than at present. What isn't mentioned is that the stream reach above the outfall would also contain the same reduced flows, as a result of increased diversions above for domestic water use. What about the fish in tbe upper reach, which is considerably longer? Who has a responsibility for the fishery tbat will be diminished in the upper reach? Is it GeW &SD, as well as other water users, because of their diversions for domestic water use? The real question to be asked, both for the reach below the GCW &SD outfall and for the upper reach, is would the fishery be destroyed? Probably not. Would it be possible with stream enhancement measures (construction of pools, and tro'ut~holding waters) to offset the reduction in flow? Probably yes, and the cost of such l11easw'es would likely be one to two orders of magnitude less for the lower reach .through Fraser than the millions of dollars difference claimed by the proponents of consolidation vs. two treatment plants. If the case is going to be made in the report that spending millions of dollars removing anunonia from the effluent will not benefit, but harm the fishery because of flow reduction with consolidation, then the alternative of stream enhancement mitigation should also be presented. 2. Reduced Flow Impact to Stream Aesthetics A fishery could be preserved (and probably even enhanced) in the reach of stream from the existing GCW&SD outfall to St. Louis Creek. Would i.t be the samc character of stream? Probably not. Would it be aesthetically pleasing? If could be. Other Colorado communities, faced with low flow conditions in their streams have spent money on stream restoration to improve the stream environment - Pueblo, Steamboat Springs, and Boulder come to mind. What is the value of making these improvements? It probably exceeds the value of not making improvements if consolidation occurs and there is no reduction of flow in the reach. After all, the low flows without consolidation are only slightly higher than with consolidation, even with full buildout as projected in the Rice 4450 Arapahoe, Suite 100, . Boulder, CO kO~Cl3 . (303) 415-2048 F.-\ X (303) 41S-2S0l) , . . Mr. Charles Reid, Town Manager Page I'o. 3 June 12,1998 report. This is especially true during "the summer months of May through early September, when likely toulist and other activity would be at its peak alongside the stream. To the casual public and toumis that might walk along a path next to the stream through town, if large rocks were placed in the stream to form holding pools for tfout, tbe aesthetics of the "stream experience" ",",ould probably be improved. It again should be emphasized that low flows will not always be occun'ing (the same 30E3 discussion as before). 3. ln1Pact of a Mechanical W\VTP at the Site of the CWTent GCW &SD Treatment System If the point is made that mitigation measures should be considered for improving stream babitat and the fishery, then the same argument can reasonably and logically be made that visually, a new WWTP can be designed with structural and landscaping features to not be unpleasant. This issue was not made in the Rice report, but was discussed at the review se~sion on June 5. If mitigation measures should be considered to offset the reduction in stream flow, mitigation measures should also be considered to offset the visual presence ofa new WWTP at the GCW&SD site. That is true. There are a nwnber of communities in Colorado where the WWTP is not a drawback to the community. An example is Durango~ where the WWTP is located in town, next to the highway entrance to town wom the south, and also adjacent to a rapids section of the Animas River wbere significant rafting and kayaking occur. The WWTP is not a visual eye sore. But visual ae~thetics is not the only consideration. If it were, then that concern could be adequately mitigated. Odor is another issue. Even though modem WWTPs can be designed to be essentially odor free (and many of them are, most of the time), therc are wlfortunatcly upset conditions which can and do occur at most WWTPs which result in odors, Ask the rcsidents of Avon, Colorado, about the Upper Eagle W&S District plant in their town, supposedly designed with the highc~t tech equipment for odor control. Modern WWTPs are not odor free - they are largely odor free, but odors do and will occu.r. The issue is subjective one, depending on your viewpoint. In the case of the town of Fl"asel', having aWWTP at the entrance to the town, no matter how well visually matched with the environment, there would still be the potential that odor problem~ could occur -- sometime. 4450 Arapahoe. Suite 100, . Boulder. CO 80303 . (303) 415-2048 FAX (31)3) 415-2500 . . Mr. Charles Reid, Town Manager Page NO.4 June 12. 1998 There are a number of lesser issues found in the draft Rice report which wl1l be mentioned in closing - they are not of tbe same substa.nce as the three issues discussed previously. They are: 1. There is no mention of the Consolidated Ditches vs. Denver case wherein Denver was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Coun in its choice to move the point of its effluent discharge downstream. below the point of diversion of an intervening ditch. Ratber, the Rice report stared that consolidation could impact the Hammond Ditch. That might be true, but it certainly is legal for the relocation of the GCW &SD outfall to occur, regardless of any intervening water right. The same is true also concerning the junior Maryvale inigation water right. 2. Confinnation was obtained independently that CWeB, which holds the junior 1ow- flow filings on the stream, will not object to consolidation. CWeB does not want to get involved. or have their water rights a basis of contention between two local parties. 3. The impact of Clinton water is stated in the Rice report currently to occur between December 1 and May 1. The terms of the Clinton water agreement are that the water can be called for between September 15 - May 15. The Rice report docs acknowledge that because there is a very short-period of record, the Clinton Watel' could impact the CDPHE low flows over time. We concur in that statement -the Ullpact would be positive (potentially more flow). That is especially important when the results of the flow analyses in the final four tables of the Rice report are examined - additional flow would lessen the impact of consolidation on the stream during the fall and winter low flow months. In their final analyses of the Clinton and O'Neil water on page 11 of the report, the Riee authors state weekly and diurnal demand fluctuations, offset by the dampening of flow variations which occurs in the GCW&SD lagoons, could more than use up tbe potential gains of both the O'Neil and Clinton water in regard to in stream flows. We do not concur in that statement- with whatever dampening of flow variation that occurs in the lagoons, the input of additional water could only be positive. In smnmalY, it i~ our opinion that there would be some reduction of flow in the Fraser River reach of concern if consolidation occurs. We do not believe it would have a devastating effect on the existing fishery, or that the effect could not be mitigated with proper stream engineering and habitat restoration. The same mitigation could enhance the public's opportunity for increased use and enjoyment of the stream through town. Having a mechanical wastewater treatment plant upstream from town at the present site of the 4450 Arapahoe, Suit!! 100, . Boulder, CO 803U3 . (31'-3) 415-1048 FAX (303) 415~Z500 ýÿ , . . . Mr. Charles Reid, Town Manager Pa.ge NO.5 June 12, 1998 GCW &SD lagoons could also be mitigated, so that arch itec uu'ally , envirolUl1entaUy and vi~'Ually the plant would not detract fi'om the town's image. However, the potential for odors cannot be mitigated with 100 percent cel1:ainty. The risk for that possibility, and the slightly reduced flows in the river arc impact~ that the town must weigh in deciding if it is beneficial or not to push for consolidation. If consolidation does occur, the town should seek mitigation for the fishery and stream corridor, to offset the impacts of flow reduction. Ifwe can be offurther service in helping to l'esolvc this mama', please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, CAROLLO ENGINEERS Co.-.j) \-\o.)c.~~~-., Carl P. Houck) P.E. 44S0 Arapahoe, Suite 100, . Boulder, CO 80303 . (303) 4t5-2048 FAX (Jf)3) 41 S-2S00 it. ~\ Ii" , IVY Y .'c,. . II" S Ir II Ot- k~Q,,;y\l- .- ~~'\ ~. ~ @-0' ~ ~~ 'tl>VJ / ~\~. \ tq<\ \ ~f\1- May 14, 1998 Fraser Town Trustees Box 120 Fraser, CO 80442 Deaf1i'ustees, This is a request for permission to add a sign below Finnegan's SIgn at the corner of Eastom and Highway 40. I am requesting this location because my building and property Is blocked from view to people heading north on Highway 40. Linda Finnegan and I spoke about this and she Is agreeable to this arrangement. The sign will say INSURANCE and be the width of the posts (approx. 5') and about 10 " high. Sincerely, Melanie Zwick . ~.::j l.ldO;:::::'O :::':,6 t .,; t '.~ll?l'l t~';'b ':<':~ o..:.~, : '011 3111JHd 'T.ld . .1011.1:,'.1)(; :;, r 6'_11:! : l.IOdJ 1(1,. III.. RECORDED 01/22/91 AT 12:34:22 BOOK 474 PAGE 151 RECORDER - GRAND COUNTY CO PG tt 4 OF 6 EXHIBIT "B" TO EASEMENT DEED (WARRANTY) FROM THE OWNERS OF WINTER TRACT 1 TO THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1- GRANTOR shall have the right to erect a directional sign in the town landscape planter at the corner of Eastom avenue and U.S. highway 40 as long as such sign complies with the provisions of the Town of Fraser sign code. . ýÿ II . . The Company You Keep'" New York Life Insurance Company PO Box 323 Fraser, CO 80442 Bus. 970 726-8883 Melanie Zwick, ChFC June 16, 1998 Agent Fraser Town Trustee Fraser, Co 80442 Dear Trustee, I am requesting to add a sign for my business to the existing Finnegan's sign at the comer of Eastom and the highway on town property. The sign will say'insurance' and be about five square feet. The reason for this request rather than placing a sign on my building is that my building and property are blocked from view by the Maynard Realty building. Many people have suggested that I add a sign to Finnegan's. I have spoken to Linda Finnegan and she is agreeable to this. My other options are: 1. Put a sign on my property. This would be about 15' away from the existing sign. I think that would present a cluttered look and would not be as aesthetically pleasing as adding to the existing sign. 2. Use an existing Fraser directory sign. Catherine advised that a new directory sign would not be offered. There is no appropriate existing directory sign. I am requesting use of an existing sign. If there was no sign, I would not be requesting the placement of a new sign. Your consideration is appreciated. G}l!' 1 C~ Mela Ie Zwick Ace ~-- .., ----_. N>> Hwy 40 ----'1 ! 1 I Eastom 8 (not to scale) ! NVLlfl for Financial Products & Services I Registered Representative for j NYLlFE Securities Inc. 3200 Cherry Cr. Dr. S. Denver, CO 80209 303 744-2000 New York Life Insurance Company New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporetion fA Delaware Corporetlon) NYLlFE Securities Inc:. 51 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010 ýÿ . . I J P No. of Pages PROPOSAL AND '53' lRu Gt< IIV boo ~ PA\l1 "'6- I kJ c... ACCEPTANCE Po. 6.,)( 3\c:..S- V..)I ~ T e r- P",rr<. Co go~~ 2.. 1- 970. S' 3/" 3'i 'I 0 ,.." Pit.. -17C -72.'-S"'792... . c~,:', cc PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO PHONE DATEt; _ f _ rB '-0 (,V ^' 0':- FRASe/( $3J. 3J.. ~ q STREET JOB NAME /63 PI< A st5 If.. 11v'= FI?AS l5 t< CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION.!. FI!AS /:,( el> ?tJ Y'I z. ~E~ Bcl.ou.) AnSIIIl'!.!:f DATE OF PLANS JOB PHONE 4 TT: .::Ti fv1 Tut:.J(E~ SEAL S31-3",;Cf We hereby submit specifications and e,timates for: T~IJjN 'TD C-LGAJW 'A-rH PA1lJ{'~~,"CJrs. !lD.4PS 1''' ,. -,-----_.~ _._--- "-"~_Y+'~-'~-'~-'+---'~-'~-'- -,,_.~_.. .~--+ -, ..~._---,-_.._---_. ---~--"'. FlU st' It Iff IK G..--'!..A 'TH I t>, S.~-.E..._LU..J...'l DeO A r OJ..() ri ~~-4-k...I!?I.l,.LC..C.__i:.~!;?"':'_~_~.._.. -...------- -------------------.------------- I T()~S a.€~T2JZ.. -ll.)t' ISO ~7DO - .__...._--._._-' 3S x I ~O r~~ 'Sz.5o :5"E'A i- Ce A- r ?/l.o;je~7 s , /00 I( ~o 1'~F 10coll:O ~ 8 oil. ;t g nit ""..- .-. -;!.A~ett IIlJE .... ---- -Rfl./1.. l!oAD AllG S7;~ .z.g 7$.~ ,,,. 100 r LJ7 A..l..-~t::..a..#-f 6,~ t /) $ j:' / .;u~r.._.._:n . ~--- __..A...'I.........t..!.P~;;:-~.dIJJFt> .....J:.C r If i- ___nO . 1tW!t.N..fr. AJeGA T~A uJ STATlo~ ,s'C I( 3Q~ /500 _-'!~..l~ ~__" I :l,.23-'i' 'Ie t#...__.._.._____. eft) ~ !/Q~...........L.:I.OQ___ -,,--~--,_._-----,-~,~.....---------_._-_._.._--~_.- S' c ?!.... z. 0 , s F..._L~~_... _____.______.________.___ .~._-~-_.__._-~-----....~- ------_._----~.-_.-----,._~,.~..-----_..__.--_..._',._-.~.--'.._-~-_.._._._-----_.,_._----_. We Propose hereby to furnish material and labor - complete in accordance with above specifications. for the sum of: --# '10 I- dollars ($ /~. 7..3 'I. ). Payment to be made as follows: . . I>FP",-SIT 8f1ft.ANCc Z>u All material is guaranteed ta be as specified. All work to be completed In a workman. Authorized <:. like manner according to standard practices. Any alteratlan ar deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent Signature upon strikes. accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire. tornado Note: This proposal may be '3l:l and other necessary insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Com. withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. pensation Insurance. Acceptance of Proposal -The above prices. specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature X to do the work os specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance Signature t><;. PACC-fl93.3 ~ \. I PRINTED IN U.S.A. ~ , GRAND . . CO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JAMES L. NEWBERRY PHONE: 970n25-3347 District I, Winter Park 80482 Fax: 970n25-Q100 ROBERT F. "BOB- ANDERSON R. HOWARD MOODY District II, Granby 80446 County Manager PAUL J. OHRI ANTHONY J. DICOLA District III, Kremmllng 80459 MEMORANDUM County Attorney TO: All Dispatch Entities FROM: County Manager ~ DATE: June 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Dispatch M.O.D. Enclosed is the final M.O.D. on the future dispatch operation. Please have your mayor, fire chief or board president sign the enclosed M.O.D. and return. to the County Manager's office by July 1, 1998. .. P.O. BOX 264 HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS CO 80451-0264 ýÿ . . MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding dated the 19th day of May 1998 is between Grand County, the Towns of Grand Lake, Granby, Hot Sulphur Springs, Kremmling, Fraser and Winter Park and the East Grand, Grand Lake, Kremmling, Granby Fire Department and Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall Fire Departments. The purpose of this MOU is to provide funding for the Countywide dispatch center in order to provide dispatching services for the above entities. Parties will be presented with an IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) which further defmes details by the fall of 1998. The parties to this MOU desire to provide dispatching services locally and agree to the following: A. Provide funding estimated at $125,000 start up costs and $246,000 annual costs based upon the following percentage of participation: Percent Grand County 47 Granby Fire Department 1 Kremmling Fire Department 1 East Grand Fire Department 2 Grand Lake Fire Department 1 H.S.S./ParshaU Fire Department o ($500 min fee) Towns of Kremmling 10 Winter Park 14 Granby 8 Grand Lake 7 Fraser 7 Hot Sulphur Springs ---1 100010 B. Parties agree to provide funding by January 15th each year for their percentage of participation for a period of 5 years. For the 1 st year (1999), entities shall provide 1/3 funding by April 1, 1/3 funding by July 1 and balance 1/3 by October 1, 1999. C. The effective date of this agreement is January 1, 1999. The County and E-91 I Board will provide initial funding for 1998 staff costs. D. County agrees to establish a separate "Dispatch Fund" to insure the integrity of the funds. ýÿ . . . E. Efforts shall be made to secure grants for various portions of the operation. In the event of successful receipt of grant funds, each parties contribution shall be reduced by the percentage of their participation. F. Parties agree to maintain a fund balance of at a mlnimum of 20% throughout each fiscal year. G. The Dispatch Operation shall be a separate department, separate fund, under the control and supervision of the Grand County Sheriff. Attest: Grand County Commissioners Chairman, Board of County Commissioners (date) Granby Fire Department Chairman, Board of Directors (date) Kremmling Fire Department Chairman, Board of Directors (date) East Grand Fire Department Chairman, Board of Directors (date) Grand Lake Fire Department Chairman, Board of Directors (date) H.S.SJParshall Fire Department Chairman, Board of Directors (date) Kremmling Mayor, Town ofKremmling (date) Winter Park Mayor, Town of Winter Park (date) Granby Mayor, Town of Granby (date) Grand Lake Mayor, Town of Grand Lake (date) ýÿ . . . Fraser Mayor, Town of Fraser (date) Hot Sulphur Springs Mayor Town of Hot Sulphur Springs , (date) . . . MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BElWEEN mE TOWNS OF WINTER PARK AND FRASER WHEREAS, the towns of Winter Park and Fraser jointly purchased a parcel of land described generally as the "St. Onge" parcel; and WHEREAS, the approval and intent of this purchase is stated in Town of Winter Park Resolution 502 Series of 1997 and Town Fraser Resolution No. 10-3-97; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the towns of Winter Park and Fraser concurrent with Resolutions 502 and 10/3/97; and WHEREAS, this Memorandum of Understanding is set to expire by June 30, 1998 unless extended by both the towns of Winter Park and Fraser; NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWNS OF WINTER PARK AND FRASER AGREE TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS PROVIDED HEREIN: . The parceL if developed at the initiative of the two towns, sha1I be used to provide affordable/attainable housing. . The two towns shaIl share any and all development costs, or costs associated with preparing the site for develop1l1ent, on a "SO/50" basis. . The two towns shall actively seek other partners to participate in the development of affordablelathllmable housing on this parcel. . The towns shall work on a formal intergovernm.ental. agreement that will govern the relationship between the towns of Winter Park and Fraser vis-a-vis development on the parcel. It: for any reason, the terms of the formal intergovernmental agreement can not be agreed upon or completed by June 30, 1999 or such longer period as the two towns agree, the land shall be sold pursuant to the language below: Net proceeds from the land, if sold for any reason, sha1I be divided between the two towns on a "SO/SO" basis. Town of Winter Park Town of Fraser Harold N. Teverbaugb, Mayor Jeff Johnston, Mayor AITEST . Town of Winter Park Town of Fraser Nancy J. Anderson, CMC, Town Clerk Vicky Winter, Town Clerk . . . 602 Park Point Drive. Suite 275. Golden. CO 80401 Phone: (303) 526-2600. Fax: (303) 526-2624 email: pjtmwi@aol.com March 31, 1998 Mr. Chuck Reed, Town Manager Town of Fraser P.O. Box 120 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, CO 80442 Re: Proposal for Maryvale' s Use of Forest Meadows Augmentation Plan Job No. 406.1 Dear Chuck: Jeff Kirkendall asked me to prepare this proposal to the Town of Fraser for Maryvale's use of the water rights and plan for augmentation described in the decree entered for the Forest Meadows property in Case No. 83CW362. He also asked me to request that the Town respond as soon as can be accomplished. After the Tuesday meeting on March 17, Stan Cazier sent me the Forest Meadows decree and its supporting engineering report. I found that the Forest Meadows decree provides for the same type of water uses as those planned by Maryvale for the portions of Maryvale which lie within the Forest Meadows boundaries, to wit, single-family residential, multi-family residential, hotel units and commercial and municipal, and also irrigation. So it would seem to me that Maryvale could pay the Town the full "tap fee" for as much of the Forest Meadows augmentation plan as needed for Maryvale, and that that part of Maryvale which lies within Forest Meadows would be operated under the slightly different unit water use criteria described in the Forest Meadows augmentation plan. An alternative to the above basic proposal would be for Maryvale to construct the two wells and the augmentation reservoir described in the Forest ýÿ , . . . Mr. Chuck Reed Page Two March 31, 1998 Meadows augmentation plan and deduct these costs from Maryvale's payment of full tap fees to the Town. I have roughly calculated the amounts of water needed by Maryvale's portions of Forest Meadows, using Forest Meadows unit water requirements for the numbers of units, etc., which Maryvale plans for the areas. While I would need to refine these numbers, what I came up with would include some 331 mostly multi-family units requiring 4.64 acre-feet per year of consumptive use from the Forest Meadows plan. Also, Maryvale' s planned 60 hotel units for Parce17 would require 0.42 acre-feet of consumptive use. Along with the in- house consumptive use for the 331 residential units and the 60 hotel units, there would be approximately 1.8 acres of irrigation requiring 1.8 acre-feet per year of consumptive use. Thus, excluding the Maryvale golf course irrigation within Forest Meadows, Maryvale would need a total of approximately 6.86 acre-feet per year of consumptive use from the Forest Meadows plan. As I read the Forest Meadows plan, it provides a total of 32.65 acre-feet per year of historic consumptive use credit from the Elk Creek No.2 Ditch. It appears to me that 10.87 acre-feet of reservoir evaporation was and is anticipated, leaving some 21.78 acre-feet net for the domestic and irrigation consumptive uses. Maryvale would like to have the Town augment at least the roughly 6.86 acre-feet per year of consumptive use. In fact, Maryvale would like to utilize all of the 21.78 acre-feet per year of consumptive use from the Forest Meadows plan, not only for the domestic and associated irrigation consumptive uses described above, but also to help irrigate as much of the roughly 17 acres of the Maryvale golf course which lies within Forest Meadows. However, as an engineer, I see a problem with this, and the problem is that the Forest Meadows plan in Paragraph (12)(D) on pages 5 and 6 seems to restrict the total area irrigated to 10.1 acres under the Forest Meadows plan. I will leave that question to Stan Cazier and Bob Trout, but I shall continue herein under the assumption that the 10.1 acres is limiting. The maximum use of the Forest Meadows plan to which Maryvale would like to go would be to use 5.06 acre-feet for domestic and hotel purposes, 1.8 acre-feet for related domestic and hotel irrigation, and 8.4 acre-feet for golf course irrigation, for a total 15.26 acre-feet. This would allow for a total of .)fill'li/l {/I/d wi",d \hill'r (:"/ls/llltl//ls, II/e ýÿ , . . Mr. Chuck Reed Page Three March 31, 1998 10.1 acres of irrigation, including 1.8 acres for related domestic and hotel use, and 8.3 acres of golf course irrigation. So, again the concept would be for Maryvale to pay the Town for the full tap fee cost for the use of whatever water Maryvale acquired from the Town, with Maryvale being able to deduct from such full tap fee costs the costs of constructing the two wells, the augmenlatioti reservoir, and possibly other items such as a pipeline from the two wells southward to Forest Meadows, if Maryvale constructed or paid for the construction of such required facilities. One of the benefits which Maryvale would hope to achieve would be the acquisition of part of the Forest Meadows water to augment the Maryvale golf course. This would, of course, allow Maryvale to stretch the remaining use of its changed Cozens Ditch water for use on the Maryvale golf course. Jeff wanted me to advise the Town that Maryvale wants to make some provision to allow the Town to use whatever remains from the changed Cozens Ditch after Maryvale's downsizing and golf course are taken care of, it there is any such remainder. At Jeff's request, I have sent copies of this letter to those named below. Please, let Maryvale know of the Town's general response to this proposal. If the Town responds favorably, Maryvale will need to discuss numerous details on costs and other factors with the Town. Also, I need to advise you that Maryvale at this time plans to file an application to amend its augmentation plan by, among other things, using Maryvale's Cozens Ditch water to augment the Maryvale portion of Forest Meadows. Maryvale has a need to file this application as soon as possible, and we believe that Maryvale must file now by covering the Forest Meadows area with its own water so that the amendment may move along, particularly if this proposal to use the Town's water fails. We believe that the Maryvale application can be filed so that the Cozens Ditch water may be removed from the Maryvale plan and the Town's Forest Meadows water used instead, without need to change the Town's decree for Forest Meadows to allow for Maryvale's intended uses. What this letter attempts to do by advising the Town thusly is to avoid any shock, surprise, or upset when the Town sees Maryvale's application .11t/rllllllllrl \V",," \~(",'r (:"IISIIIIt/llls. 11Ie. , . . Mr. Chuck Reed Page Four March 31, 1998 to amend which will state its true intent to use Cozens Ditch water for the Forest Meadows area. At the same time, however, Maryvale wants to pursue the proposal described herein. Thank you for taking a look at this proposal. Very truly yours, Gv.f J Tom Wood, P.E. President JTW:dkp MSWORD:03I27J98:406.1..lJSEOFFORESTMEADOWS-PROP cc: Jeff Kirkendall Rick Watrous Bob Trout Stan Cazier Ron McLaughlin ,\Jar/ii/till" WiJ/J{/I~{J/t'r (:"/ls/I/Ia//ls, f/lL , JUN-12-88 13,38 FROM'MCLA~IN WATER ENGRS 10,303.766 PAGE 2/13 June 11, 1998 Mr. Chuck Reid, Manager Town of F~aser P.O. Box 120 Fraser, Colorado 80442 RE: Input to Det~ine F.-aser Water Demand at Build-Qut Dear Mr. Reid: As you are aware, Leo Eisel and I have been working with Stan Cazier to detennine the relationship of the Town of Fraser's water demand and its associated water rights, augmentation plans, and associated water agreements at build-out conditions. The results of tIlis effort is contained in the accompanying draft copy of Table 1 which is enclosed fOf your review. Of particular interest to us would be for you and members of your planning staff to confinn the ,aumber of EQRs Fraser will be serving at build-out conditions that are listed in the first cell of the Table. You will note tIle number presently in this cell is 1335. This represents the number for ultimate EQRs within Town Limits as presented in MWE's January 1998 Predesign Report and Application for Site Approval, Wastewater Treatment Plan:t ExpansionlUpgrade for the Fraser Sanitation District and Winter Park West Water and Sanitation District, Grarui CoUn:ty. Colorado. The second number we would like confirmed is whether the 592 EQRs in the second cell of the first row for the number of EQRs at build-out for the Forest Meadows sbould be counted with the 1335 EQRs mentioned in the previous paragraph. If the 592 EQRs are already included in the 1335 EQRs, as the current draft of Table 1 shows. then the remainder of the calculations in the Table are correct. If the Forest Meadows EQR number should be added to the Town's EQRs raising the total to 1927 EQRs, then the associated calculations in the table will need to be redone since the number of EQRs is fundamental to forecasting water demand at build-Qut. . JUN-12-88 13,46 FROM'MCLA~LIN WATER ENGRS 10,303.8766 PAGE 2/2 The third number we would like you confirm is to advise if the category of developable areas~ described in MWE's January 1998 Report under the category of "Developable Areas Outside Town". should be included in the water demand projections for the Town. If the approximately 600 EQRs are to be included in these projections it would raise the total projected EQR demand to nearly 3200 EQRs: Developable Ar~ Build-Out E.o.& Within Town Limits 1335 Developable Areas Outside Town 1200 Forest Meadows 592 Total EQRs at buiId-Qut = 3127 Obviously. if the total EQRs at buiId-out will approach 3200, the associated water demand will be higher than the value contained in the draft of Table 1 based upon a build out population of 1335 EQRs. MWE would need to recalculate the demand based upon the Town's best estimate of EQRs at build-out conditions. The final piece of infonnation needed is the area within the Town of Fraser, as indicated in the fourth cell of Column 1 where the current number is 600 acres. This value was estimated from a map and may not be accurate. Would you or your staff please provide a more accurate nUlllber? Thank you for your assistance in clarifying these items. If you have additional questions about this request or Table 1. please contact our office. Very truly yours, McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. ~~~ Enclosure cc: Stan Cazier 2 \V)A'~"9S.022.001PIF"""'r BuiJd-o~ EQRB , . JUN-12-88 13,38 FROM'MCL~LIN WATER ENGRS 10, 303.8766 PAGE 4/13 l1M'~ Table 1 \ ' FT ........" '-' Summary of Water Rights and Plans of Augmentation for Town of FrdSer, Maryvale, and Forest Meadows Town of For~'i Original Amended Aug Plan Fraser Meadows Maryvale in 9SCW041 in S3CW362 AugPIan (included in 86CW2S8 Fraser at w/o Small w/SmaII buildout Capacity Wells Capacity Wells conditions) Total EQRs at Build-o\lt 1335e11>) (!) 592(11) 5516(4) 3401(61 2829(4) Annual Demand (af/yr) S48 AFo3} (!) 263 AF(Z) 1459 AF(~ 901 Af<m 748.9 ,~';) CU (af/yr) 131.15 (1) 32.65 AF<I) 84.S AF<I3) 53.0 AF(11l) 45.7 A};'U\l) AFiyr'-J51 Area 600 Acres,'ll) 40.29 Ac Approx Approx; Appro;'!; 700 acres 960 ac~) 960 acre~.';:J) 75.3 Ac including 37.1 Area "D"<=) acres of lawns{l4) Supply 900 gpm (9) From 1600 gpm 1600 gpm 1870 gpm 870 AF/yr Town of Fraser 1459 AFfYR(6) 1550 AFIYR(6) 1680 AFIYR(6) Physical supply source 9 wells~> Troublesomem Troublesome Troublesome T{oublesome producing aquifer via aq\lifer aquifer through aquifer through at'1~ Town of Fraser through 16 up to 16 wells(1l) up to 16 luge 100 gpm wells wells"') wells & 91 OD- 60% site weUs'U) of the tin1e = 870 ac--ft/yr Source of Aug Water (10) Elk Creek Cozens Ditch Coze.ns Ditch Co:;;ens Ditch(6) Ditch Nt 2(lZ} Mat)vale Res Maryvale Res Maryvale Res Detention Detention Detentiou Reservoirs Reservoirs Reservoirs Quantity of Aug Water 183 AF/yr'IO) 32.65 AF/yr(l':) 116 AFfYR(4) 116 AF(4} 116 AP<~ Required AccoUDting ('24; Included iJ:l ~ l;S, /25, ToYtu of Fraser 1 9~OZ2.001P/''''''J PlNI SctV ArQ> robk: ýÿ . . JUN-12-88 13,40 FROM'MCLA~LIN WATER ENGRS . 5/13 10,3034808766 PAGE Consumptive u...<:e as % N.A. 5%(1) 3.3% 3.3%\<1' 91 wells of total water divided 10% /domestic(") S6%/lawns 3.3% for central(4) water system. Maryvale Golf Co1U'Se (1HJ> Note: The water demand for the Town of Fraser is based upon the assumption of 1335 EQRs at buildout conditions within the Town. This assumes an increase of 550 EQRs from the present number ofEQRs,as reported on Page n-2 of the MWE's Pre-Design Repol1 And ApplicationFor Site Approval WasteWater TreatmenL Planl Expansion/Upgrade for flu! Trasel' Sanitaiton Di$tTict and Winter Park West Water And SanitioJi()n District, Grand Ccunty Colorado. Please see footnote 20 accompanying Table I, there ate areas listed in this footnote which would increase this value to 2535 EQRs, if these areas are also going to be served water by Fraser. Also, does the 1335 EQR "within Town Limits" value include the 592 EQRs estimated for buildout at Forest Meadows, or is that in addition to the 1335 EQR raising the total to 1927 EQRs tor Fraser "within the Town Limits"? If the additional areas listed in FootnOte 20 of this table are also to be served, this would raise the total EQR number to as high as 3127. If this number ofEQRs (1335) at buildout for "within Town Limits" is not correct, please advise, since it is the basis for determining the water demand for future growth. An error in this estimation, particularly on the low side, will have serious consequences for the Town's future growth. DHAff 2 95.022.001P/A"i f'JaD Setv Alea Ta1>~ ýÿ . JUN-12-88 13,40 FROM'MCLA~LIN WATER ENGRS 10, 303.8766 PAGE 6/1::3 0-< '" " .;'JlAf ~" FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 1 . , I~~' (1) From Case N2 83CW362, Table 1: ConsuMDtion Demand Summary Domestic Consumption :: 11.64 AF Irrigation Consumption =437,500 ft:! x 1 Ac ;; 10.04 Acres x I.OIAF ..- 10.14 AF 43,560 ft'l Ac Evaporation from Augmentation Reser:oir = 10.87 AF Total ;; 32.65 AF (2) Town of Fraser "Integrated Augmentation Plan Framework" HRS Water Consultants. February 1990 Water Demand Domestic Demand Itription Demand SPDU 30 x 350 gpd ... 10,500 3000 !tel/unit = 9O,OOOftZ MFDU 480 X 250 gpd = 120,000 500 ftZ/unit = 240,()()()ft2 Hotel 500 units 500 ;ll; 125 8Pd = 62.500 150 ft'l/unit = 7S,OOOrr Com & Ind 130,000 tt2 ;ll; 107 gpd/lOOO ft2 = 13.900 250 ~11000 ftZ = 32.500ftZ 206,900 gpd 437,SOOff Domestic & household = 206,910 gpd x 365 days x AE .- 232 AP Yr 325,851 gal Diversion Demand SummarY Reservoir Storage = 17.7 AF Irrigation Demand 437,500 ftZ x Acre x ~ = 13.5 AF 43.5W AC Domestic ;;:; 232 AF Total = 263.2 AF (3) Predesign Study 1996 Water Improvements for the Town of Fraser, MWE, Ltd., September 1996 (4) Case N2 86CW258. The source of augmentation water for the 5516 EQRs at haildout is 116 acre- feet of historic consumptive use credits from tbe Cozens Ditch which call be stored in the 84 acre- feet of storage in Maryvale Reservoir, Maryvale Reservoir enlargement and the proposed detention reservoirs. (5) Engineer Report for Augmentation Plan for the Town of Fraser, Bl'oyles Engineering Company. November 20, 1984, Item B.2, Page 1 (6) Application to Amend Finding of Fact, Conclusion of Law, Judgement and Decree Adjudicating Augmentation Plan Gathered in Case N2 86CW258, September 1, 1988 indicates 3401 EQRs at buildout without small capacity wells and 2829 EQRs with small capacity welIs. 3 9S-022.001P/Aag P!ar) ~ Area Tllble . JUN-12-88 13,41 FROM'MCLAtIlLIN WATER ENGRS 10,303.8766 PAGE 7/13 Ii. rl Ui..'1t\ . Estimated supply is based on: . Assuming 100 gpm yield based on Fraser Well Nil 1 and 2 and a wen utilization factor of 0.60: 100 gpm x 16 wells ~ 1600 gpm, 1600 gpm x 144D min/day x. 365 days/yr x 0.60 + 325,900 gal/AF = 1550 AF/Yr . Assuming 3 gpm for the on-site small capacity wells and a weIl utilization factor of O. 30: 91 wells x 3 gpm = 273 gpDl, 273 gpm x. 1440 min/day x 365 days/year x 0.30 + 325,900 gal/AF = 130 AF/Yr The decree is Case Nil 86CW258 indicates estimated supply from the 16 wells is 1459 AF /Yr. Tbe toW for tIle with on-site wells situation is; 1600 gpm -+- 270 gpm = 1870 gpm, and 1550 AFfYr + 130 AF/Yr = 1680 AFfYr . The decree in Case NQ 86CW258 limits pumping from the wells to 1600 gpm and 1459 acre-feet/year . (7) Golf Course was not included in Case NA 86CW258 (8) Per 1989 lease agreement between Town of Fr3$er and Maryvale, 65 acre~feet of water from Middle Park Conservancy District were to be leased by the Town of Maryvale for golf course irrigation. (9) . 9 weIls decreed in 85CW337 (Windy Gap Exchange) with pennitted yield of: (a) 2.23 efs (1000 gpm) for Wells NQ 1,2, 3a, Sb, 4 and 5, and (b) 1.11 cfs (500 gpm) for Wells Nil 7 ~ 8 and 9. A total of 3.34 cfs (1500 gpm) can be pumped from Wells 1,2, 3a, 3b, 4,5, 7> 8 and 9 as decreed in 82CW219 and 85CW339 (Elk Creek Ditch No.2). . 2.28 cis decreed for Fraser domestic water system in Civil Action 1175, W2279 and 82CW219. . Wells 1-5 are alternate points of diversion for 2.28 cfs (1954 appropriation date from Fraser domestic water system. . Per Decree 9OCW235 and information provided to MWE April 4. 1998 titled "Original Approximate Well Capacities"; the Fraser well capacities are: Well CaDacity (cpm) 1 100 2 100 4 9$-O:u.OO1I'fAug I'Iim s...v ..vca Table ýÿ . JUN-12-88 13,41 FROM'MCLA4IlLIN WATER ENGRS I D, 303.8766 PAGE 8/1:! Wen Capacity (e:pm) DRAFT . 3A 40 3B 70 4 unknown 5 18 (not used) 6 18 (not used) 7 65 (manual start) 8 nOt driU~ 9 not drilled Use 100 gpm as average yield and 60 percent utilization factor for calculation purposes; 100 gpm x 9 wells = 900 gpm, 900 gpm x 1440 minlday x 365 days/year ... 325,900 gal/AF x 0.60 = 870 AFIYR (10) The Town of Fraser does not have a decreed augmentation plan; instead the Town relies On a collection of augmentation sources to insure that the Town~s nine decreed wells in Case NQ 85CW337 can continue to pump out of priority when a senior call is administered. Sources of augmentation water include: . Green Mountain Reservoir releases to augment municipal water rightS with priority dates senior to OctOber 1977. All nine of Fraser's wells bave appropriation and adjudication dates junior to 1977. Well N2s 1.9> however, are decreed as alternate points of diversion for other water rights senior to 1977 in Case N2s 82CWZ19 and 82CW337 (Gaskill Ditch and Fraser Domestic Water System). Therefore, these wells should be covered by Green Mountain Reservoir releases. In the event that Green Mountain Reservoir releases are not available, the Town~s junior wells are cover~ by other sources of augmentation water discussed below. There appears to be some question that Well N2s I and 2 are cover~ by Green Mountain. This question is being investigated by MWE. Well NRs 1 and 2. how~ver, are augmented in the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation decreed in 83CW 362 and the decree in Case no. 85CW339 by Elk Creek Ditch N2 2 (7/23/1894 appropriation date and 8/1111906 adjudication date) for 32.65 ac-ftlyear of historic consumptive use). . Fraser bas 80 acre-feet of Middle Park: water: 65 acre-feet can be used by Maryvale under an 1989 lease to irrigate the proposed Maryvale golf course. . Fraser has 25 acre feet of Windy Gap water which can be used for augmenting out of priority diversions by W ell N~ 1-9. This was decreed in Case NI"L 85CW337. 5 9S-0n.oorV/Aug Plu Setv .....ea Table . . JUN-12-88 13,42 FROM'MCL~LIN WATER ENGRS 10, 30.08766 PAGE 8/1 ; ",' :;. .':!j 8.'.\ .;..,-........-- UriAtl. . F laser has 110 acre-feet of Clinton Reservoir Agreement water which it can use tot direct supply Or augmentation purposes. However, this water is only available from September lS.!l to May 5th. This gives the Town the right to have Denver bypass 110 acre-feet of water from diversion into its Fraser River collection system and deliver this water instead to either St. Louis Creek, Big Vasquez Creek and/or the Fraser River. St Louis Creek joins the Fraser River downstream from the Town's well field while the Big Vasquez Creek joins the Fraser River upstream from the Town's well field. The Fraser River point of delivery would also be upstream from the Town's well field. These factors make the Big V asqu~ Creek point of delivery and the Fraser River point of delivery more advantageous than the St. Louis Creek point of delivery. If the Town wants its Clinton Reservoir water delivered at Big Vasquez Creek or the Fraser River upstream from the Town it must provide 0.67 ac-ft of replacement water to Denver for each acre-foot of Clinton water bypassed to the Big Vasquez Creek or Fraser River. In addition~ the Town must replace its depletions resulting from use of the by- passed water. In contrast, if the Town were to accept delivery of its Clinton Reservoir water At Williams Fork Reservoir, it wHl not have to make the replacement payment of 0.67 ac-ftIac-ft to Denver. The Town has already acquired the necessary water to allow the Town to receive delivery of the Clinton water at Big Vasquez Creek or the Fraser River. This replacement water has been transferred to Denver. The amount of water required for replacing the Town's depletions when the 110 acre-feet is bypassed to the Town's points of diversion on the Fraser River or Big Vasquez Creek is based on 5 % of depletions because this by-pass water will be required during the winter when there will only be depletions resulting from in-house use. These depletions will be replaced by bypassing 5.0% of Fraser's 110 acre-feet Or 5.5 acre-feet (.05 x 110 acre-feet :!!i!! 5.5 acre-feet) of Clinton Reservoir water at Williams Fork Reservoir . Assuming the Town takes all of its 110 acre-feet of Clinton Reservoir bypass water from either the Fraser River or Big Vasquez Creek and replaces 5.5 acre-feet of its depletions from by-passing flows at Williams Fork Reservoir. this will require payment of70 ac-ft to Denver (110 ac-ft - 5.5acft) x 0.67 ac-ft/ac-ft = 70 ac-ft). This 70 ac-ft will be released from Wolford Mountain Reservoir under terms of an agreement. Tn summary. the sources of water available to Fraser in addition to Green Mountain for replacing out of priodty diversion include: Source AcftJyear · Augmentation of Fraser Well ~ 1 and 2 by the Forest Meadows Plan 32.65 for Augmentation decreed in Case N2 83CW362 and 85CW339. · Windy Gap Water decreed in Case N2 8SCW337 25.0 · Remaining Middle Park Conservancy District water from 80 acft 15.0 after leasing 65 acft to MaryvaIe 6 95-{fn.OOIP/Aue PIllIl Setv Arm Tat.I~ I . JUN-12-88 13,Q3 FROM'MCLA~IN WATER ENGRS 10,303.766 PAGE 10/13 ",. ';'''''lJ. :> ';-"']'" , . j. 1 f' !. .. " . ~.~ ~'t ~ lJnAt ' Sourc~ Acft/y~ · Clinton Reservoir Agreement water ll2:.Q Total 182.65 (11) The source of supply is 16 weIls decreed in Case NA 86CW258 and included in the amended Maryvale plan for augmentation. Results of well production for Wells 7, 8 and 9 are from "Town of Fraser 1994 Testing Program Well N2s 7, 8 and 9". Prepared for the Town of Fraser by HRS Water Consultant Inc. October 1994. Well N2 7 was estimated to produce 88 gpm, Well Nt 8 at 70 gpm. and Well Nil 9 at 150 gpm. (12) As decreed in Case N2 83CW362, the source of augmentation water is Elk Creek Ditch N2 2 for 0.5 cfs diversion and 32.65 acre-feet/year from previously irrigated meadowland consisting of 32.32 acres. FOr purposes of this comparison, the nine wells are assumed to each have a capacity of 100 gpm, and would pump at 60% oftbe time. This would result in a total annual combined production of: 9 wells x 100 rrm x 1440 min x 365 days x AF x 60% = 870 AF we day yr 325,851 gal Storage will be required to carry over the 32.65 acre-feet/year of historic consumptive use credits from the Elk Creek: Ditch Nil 2 for use during the non-irrigation season. The decree in case N2 83CW362 (paragraph 121) tequites the reservoir to be at least 17.66 acre-feet. (13) Average Annual Demand is projected to be: In house: 1335 EQRs x 350 g:aJ x 3-65 days x AF = 523 AF EQR day Yr 325,851 gal Landscape irrigation: 1335 EQRs x 500 ftZ + 43560 sq ft x 1.6AF = 25 AF EQR day EQR Ac Total = 523 + 25 = 548 AF (14) Engineering Report Plan of Augmentation Prepared for Regis - MaryvaIe, Inc., Grand County, Colorado by Wright Water Engineers, January 1987, Section 1 (15) Consumptive use for the To~'Il of Fraser is based upon 5 % of the average annual daily diversion (350 gpd/EQR) being consumed for in house use. For landscape irrigation during the months of June, July. and August, and assume 500 sq ftfEQR of landscape irrigation and 1.6 ac-ft/acre of consumptive use. In house consumptive use for June, July and August: 7 95-0ZZ.001 PfAug PIllA SCI'V .~ Table ýÿ , . 10,303.8766 JUN-12-88 13:43 FROM'MCLA.LIN WATER ENGRS PAGE 11/1- 350 gal/day EQR x 1335 EQR x AF x 5% x 92 days = 7 AF DRAFT 325,851 gal Landscape irrigation; 500 sq ftJEQR ..,.. 43.560 sq ft/ acre x 1.6 AF/acre x 1335 EQR = 25 AF In house consumptive use fOf January through May and September through December: 350 gal/day EQR x 1335 EQR x AF x 5% x 273 days = 20 AF 325.851 gal SUBTOTAL = 52.00 AF Forest Meadows == 32.65 AF TOTAL = 85.00 AF (16) EOR CaIculation.~: SFDU 30 x 350 gpd x 1 EQR = 30 EQRs 350 gpd MFDU 480 x 250 gpd x 1 EOR == 343 EQRs 350 gpd Hotel 500 x 125 gpd x 1 EQR == 179 EQRs 350 gpd Commercial & IndustriaJ; 130,000 ft2 x 107 ~ x 1 EOR = 40 EORs 1000 ft2 350 gpd Total EQRs = 592 EQRs (17) As proposed in Case N2 98CW041; application to Amend Case N2 86CW258. (18) As decreed in Case ~ 86CW2S8, Maryvale Plan for Augmentation. (19) As proposed in Case N2 98CW041, Application to Amend Case N2 86CW258. (20) Predesign Report and Application for Site Approval. Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion/Upgrade for the Fraser Sanitation District and Winter Puk West Water and Sanitation District, Grand County, Colorado by McLaughlin Water Engineers. Ud., January 1998. PagelI-2: Ultimate EQR within Town Limits 1335 EQR Developable Areas outside Town, excluding Maryvale: Existing 150 lots to northwest 150 EQR Denver Water Board Property 50 acres 200 EQR Commercial Site to North 250 EQR Developable Land Adjacent to the Town on the West (150 acres) 600 EQR 8 9$.Q2Z,OOlP/Aug PIllIl Scrv ~ Table . JUN-12-88 13,44 FROM'MCLA~IN WATER ENGRS 10,303&766 PAGE 12/13 Dn - Total EQR's 2535 EQR (21) This value of the service area of Fraser needs to be provided by the Town of Fraser. (22) Engineering Report for Augmentation Plan for the Town of Fraser, By BoyleS Engineering Co., November 20, 1984. (23) Estimate of Acreage by MWE from Exhibit A of Case NQ 98CW041. prepared by Martin and Wood, March 1998. (24) The Town of Fraser must: (1) Maintain records on volume of Clinton Reservoir bypass water taken at: (a) St Louis Creek. (b) Big Vasquez Creek, and (c) Fraser River. (2) Maintain records on volume of Clinton Reservoir bypass flows used to replace depletions from Clinton Reservoir bypass flows. (3) Amount of Clinton Reservoir deliveries taken at Williams Fork Reservoir. (4) Amount of Middle Park Conservancy District water requested and the amount provided ,. to augment the Maryvale golf course. (5) Amount of Windy Gap water requested (6) The quantity and timing of augmentation water used to augment Town of Fraser Well Nils 1 and 2 under the terms and conditions of the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation decreed in Case NQ 83CW262. (7) The volumes of pumping from the Town's nine wells: (I) Under their own priorities (2) As alternate points of diversion for: (25) The following accounting and reporting requirements will be necessary: 9 9$..(l2'2.00lPf AIIg PItm ~rv Area Table . JUN-12-88 13,44 FROM'MCLA~IN WATER ENGRS 10, 3034.766 PAGE 13/13 DRAFT Table 2 Summary of Watt'r Supply and potential Augmentation/Replacement Requirements Available Sutplus (Deficiency) Potential Augmentation! of water for Depletion Replacement augmentation purposes Situation (acre-feet/year)(X) (acre-feeUyear)G) (acre-feet/year) Town of Fraser with original 170rJ) 299(4) 129 Maryvale augmentation plan (86CW258) Town of Fraser with amended 138(5) 299<4) 161 Maryvale augmentation plan, w/o on-site wells Town of Fraser with amended 131 (6) 299<4) 168 Maryvale augmentation plan, with on-site wells Footnotes: (1) This assumes the worst case situation at full buildout conditions in which Fraser had to replace all of its depletions; I.e. there was no Green Mountain Reservoir water and all its water rights were out of priority. (2) These annual values do not provide monthly amounts of water for augmentation purposes. This refinement will be completed if necessary. (3) Town of Fraser in.eluding Forest Meadows: 85 acre-feet Maryvale Original Augmentation Plan (86CW258) 85 acre-feet Total 170 acre-feet (4) Town of Fraser including Forest Meadows: 183 acre-feet MaryvaIe Original Augmentation Plan 116 acre-feet Total 299 acre-feet (5) Town of Fraser including Forest Meadows: 85 acre-feet Maryvale Amended Augmentation Plan w/o onsite wells 53 acr~feet Total 138 acre-feet (6) Town of Fraser including Forest Meadows: 85 acre-feet Maryvale Amended Augmentation Plan w/on-site weJIs 46 acre-feet Total 131 acre-feet P:9S.022,OOIPlTabIe 2 . JUN-12-88 13,46 FROM'MCLA~IN WATER ENGRS 10, 303.8766 PAGE 1/2 . ~lcLaughlin Water Engineers, L~d. -- ~ y- --. a, \ --- - ... ...- ....-----1Io("llI"t__ 2420 Alcott Street. Denver. Colol4ldo 80211 (303) 458-5550 .. ... - .. ...- "'---.-. FacsimiJe (303) 480.9766 -, FAX TRANSMITrAL DATE: ...:rUh~ f:) I I ~ f 8 COMPANY: {f'5~ of ~e.v TO: Ctuu:K ki2, d ~Uh1 Hf~~k J FAX NUMBER: if?O] 7~h -SS/8 FROM; td2r~d &~~ RE: ha~u.." W41-t..t_ tf:,<.J1; / ~7b1.k -h~ ~ Su~ MWE PROJECT NUMBER q~-b~~,t:D11' Number of pages (total. including this sheet) /3 If you do not feceive all pages, please contact ~~d .4~ at our office at (303) 458-5550. COMMENTS: ~-I1!1 ~ :I.411h,.,~-IY~ y~~ N'~ ~r~~' It)cY)4. .::3. ( '111~~ ~1 ~ ~~~. P:\Forms\Fax Tr.1lISIDiaal.Wtld.1lme 10. 1998 ýÿ ~ Sun 10 98 03:2610 8ak. Cazier 8. McGowan 97.87-9430 10.6 Mr. Joe Tom Wood Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. 602 Park point Drive, suite 275 Golden, colorado 80401 RE: Ability to use Forest Meadows Augmentation Plan Dear Joe Tom: This letter is written in response to your inquiry about whether the Town would allow service to the Forest Meadows property utilizing the Forest Meadows Augmentation Plan. The Board of Trustees would provide service to the Forest Meadows property upon the following terms and conditions: 1. Maryvale would be responsible for construction of the storage pond required by the Forest Meadows Augmentation Plan and convey the property to the Town together with necessary easements in and out. The "Reservoir" is to include all inlet and outlet hydraulic conduits, measuring facilities and controls. Plans and construc- tion will be reviewed and approved by Fraser as part of the project cost. The Reservoir shall be at least 17.66 acre-feet in size. 2. Maryvale would obtain a conditional decree for the Reservoir as required by the augmentation plan. 3 . Maryvale would pay the appropriate plant investment fees. The Town would not charge a water resource fee since Maryvale is providing the Reservoir, even though the Town is providing the water rights. The Town would agree to provide water service for up to 331 multi-family units as well as 60 hotel units as requested. The Town understands that to the extent that this reduces the quantity of water needed from the Cozens Ditch for the augmentation plan, that water will be devoted to use on the golf course. Implicit in this proposal is your ability to hook on to the Town's existing water system served by wells no. land 2. Hopefully, the forgoing proposal is acceptable and, if so, we can work out an appropriate agreement. Sincerely, ~ . . . Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding dated the 16th day of June, 1998 is between the Towns of Winter Park, Fraser, Granby, Grand Lake, Hot Sulphur Springs Kremmling and Grand County and the Winter Park Recreation Association. The parties to this Memorandum of Understanding desire to further the efforts of providing housing throughout the county and agree to the following: A. 1. Enhance the furtherance of the provision of housing by contributing to the formation of a Grand County Housing Authority staff. 2. The entities shall provide the funding on an annual basis as follows for a period through the year 2002: (parties agree to provide funds each year by January 1 and agree to provide ~ year's funding for start up year by July 1, 1998. Grand County $ 25,000 Winter Park Recreation Assoc. 25,000 Town of Winter Park 25,000 Town Fraser 25,000 Town of Granby 300 Town of Grand Lake 300 Town of Hot Sulphur Springs 300 Town of Kremmling 300 B. Reallocate the formation of the Grand County Housing Authority Board as follows: (Board membership based on recommendations from the following agencies) Each member shall be appointed for a 5 year term. 1. Winter Park Town Council 2. Fraser Board of Trustees 3. Winter Park Recreation Association Board of Directors 4. Grand County Board of Commissioners 5. Board of Trustees from Granby, Grand Lake, Hot Sulphur Springs and Kremmling. C. Funds shall be held by the Grand County Housing Authority. A fund balance of at least 20% shall be maintained in order to insure financial stability. During the year 2002 determination shall be made as to the need for continuing the subsidies by the parties. ýÿ .. . . D. Annual audits shall be prepared and the Housing Authority shall operate under the provisions of the existing bylaws until the newly appointed Board determines necessary changes for the efficient operation of the Housing Authority. Current contracts, projects and loan agreements shall be maintained with regard to Grand Living Solar Senior Homes, Silver Spruce Apartments and Cliffview Assisted Living. Attest: Grand County Commissioners Chairman, Board of County Commissioners (date) Winter Park Recreation Assoc. Chairman, Board of Directors (date) Winter Park Mayor, Town of Winter Park (date) Fraser Mayor, Town of Fraser (date) Granby Mayor, Town of Granby (date) Grand Lake Mayor, Town of Grand Lake (date) Hot Sulphur Springs Mayor, Town of Hot Sulphur Springs -.- - (date) Kremmling Mayor,TownofKrennnHng (date) ýÿ \ . . < MEMORANDUM TO~ Catherine Trotter Town of Fraser Planning Department FROM: Bruce Hutchins Grand County Water and Sanitation Department DATE: July 13, 1998 RE: GCWSD Comments to Ordinance Amending the Town of Fraser's Business District Regulations The following are the comments of the Grand County Water and Sanitation District to the ordinance amending the Town of Fraser's business district regulations which would govern construction of a new mechanical wastewater treatment plant on the District's property along Highway 40. 1. Section C (Submission Requiremel1t&). IftJD a. Is there an established fee schedule or seme other document that specifies the amount of the llrequired fee. II If not, can you provide a ballpark estimate of this fee. b. We suggest adding the following underlined language to the last subsection IJtJ.: 1'V^ of Section c: /,JI~~ ~ I.-l~c::.~ "6 { ~11 vtl' er Any additional materials ~ the opinion oflhe Town Staff, are ()b"" nec:essa.ry 10 adequately r, lew the apPII~io~ ~~~~:n:riill& shall beJdentltied by the Town___the pre-applrCi&tlo 0 . 2. Seetio" E (Site Guideline~J. a, Subsection (1) - The "maximum building footprintlJ for both the building and the treatment area probably is too small. We understand that Fraser A,~ determined the proposed size by scaling-off some of our design drawings, but we think it makes sense to increase the maximum footprint over these preliminary drawings. We would like to increase the building footprint to LJ\ 10,000 square feet and the treatment facility to 2,500 square feet per 100,000 gallons of capacity. Also, we are assuming that this subsection is supposed to reflect a true footprint of the structures and does not take Into account buffer areas around each of them (which also could be specifically identified in the application). Finally, we suggest including contingency-type .. . . language at the end of this section that would allow the size of the maximum building footprint and the treatment facility to be exceeded, at the discretion of the Town, "due to unforeseen circumstances or as may be necessary to comply with present or future federal, state and local laws and regulations." ~~ -.pJ!.. v.v(.. t b. Sypsection (Z) .. We would like to change the first sentence to. "The surface of all on-site parking shall be paved or shall be a material acceptable to the ~ ~l~\- ",m ~ ~j' Town." We may propose parking blocks of sand, gravel or grass. which we \ ~ 1 :tAva think the Town would find aesthetically acceptable and consistent with a .Au.oA j\0 c. W\ ';1 . \ \iO'l"wi\\ u..,e..~'" minimalist approach to constructing the plant at the current location. c..\.\ c \I<.:a. l~~"""'~ c. fujpsection (4) - This subsection should be indented to align with the other subsections in order to avoid confusion. We also suggest re-wording this ttXW- ,1Wl ~ subsection to state: "All structures shall be set back 100 feet from the Fraser River." We have reviewed the preliminary drawings and it appears that the _ ~u.-+' v third or fourth treatment unit or cell may be within 150 feet of the Fraser. Our ,~ . understanding is that it is more important to be farther off of Highway 40 than . v.u,.t. a bit closer to the river, but let me know what you think. ~ ~o(id-i~1 d, Sybsection (5) .. We would like to remove the prohibition on chain-link fencing. We agree that ordinary galvanized fencing Is unattractive and we ~ . li,J f~o.L- would not propose it. However, we might propose PVC-coated chain link N f) t, &<.1 o1'l fence which comes in several colors such as forest green and black. The ~ilOJJJ . first sentence of this section seems to give Fraser the protection that it needs to approve anything we propose. e. Subsectior, (8). i. For the reasons discussed below, the District feels strongly that it makes sense to handle the "future use of the District's remaining ~f i~~J propertyl! issue outside of the proposed zoning regulation. The District recognizes that the "open spacel! issue is very important to the yi'1G Ifi~ Town and will work with the Town to accomplish this objective in a mutually acceptable manner. The District also iQ not opposed to the majority of its property being dedicated to open space. However, this property also represents a potential source of revenue to the District and the residents of its service area which cannot be ignored by the Board. There are three sub-issues, which are discussed below and which we should discuss in greater detail. (1) We believe the cost of cleaning the ponds will be In the $200- 300,000 range. To defray this expense, as well as construction of the plant itself, the District believes that it and the Town should jointly explore grant programs and other sources of funding that might compensate the District for 2 , . . cleaning up the property and dedicating it to open space. If the Town's zoning regulation is designed to force the District to simply give up a portion of its property as a condition of a special review and approval process, it seems unlikely that the District and the Town will qualify for any grant programs. I)'f, ~ pt-J (2) The District's Board believes tha~ at least at the outs9~ only .Add I).C , n. "JJ. f two-thirds of the District's 24 acres should be committed to an (,u.J tJ . 0"'1 1 open space process. Once the plant is built and we have a #.1 #t II /). . I good sense of how future treatments units and other possible J 1) '" u.~ f.- tt-vtt;6'l modifications will fit on the property, an additional increment of ~ J/o"", c 1/ ~. (,.f)'ti' the land might be available for open space. For now, however, , lfld;~ r. we think we should err on the side of keeping one-third of the Cd' \ .<to::. f- ~10;' acreage available for trealment-relatsd purpose.. ..fJ- ~~I,.t. ~ '-----(3) Lastiy, as you know, the ponds may also serve as sources of J /. /-, Inl' augmentation water to protect the Fraser River and the ~ () I tMd /' Districfs water rights. The current draft does not account for 1~11J~fj(" e' this usage. ii. Four years from the building permit issuance may be an inadequate It- ~ . period of time to clean the ponds in light of the fact that the District will fI,,6 ~6~ fJ dtfXA1' flVf need the ponds through the construction period and in light of some rt; e:h'r;-;J of the possible. least-cost alternatives for oleaning the ponds. We f) yn1 CJn!~ v would like to modify this to four years from the date the ponds are --h'~~ taken out of service. iii. Most likely. the District would publicly-dedicate the ponds as open- uh l +l ~ ~t ~,,-.f space rather than getting into issues related to reolaimed wetlands , !;.. (which means different things to different people and requires more ~ t&""/JOit1t 'III ol-, t l1-1 specifioity if it were to stay in the zonIng regulation) or as a ""~r,v-l- i+ (a.,uW Recreational Class 2 facility. There may be other viable alternatives, riD ~ t~' I vM cf}l . , which is another reason why we think this issue should not be dealt '1.. ___ k. --t ~~e with in the regulations. I~ 3. Section F (Design GuideUnes). ~. bt... Subsection (1) - We would like to revise the building height requirement so -14 N.J~t f ~ ~ that it allows 25% of the building to have a maximum height of 30 feet. This (~fiO;'I..t' lJy 4~i ~ will facilitate loading of treated sludge into dump trucks by means of a tM11j\/J).. (MA.d f)~{J. c!Jnveyor system. . td 1: ~/",,~ ~O~\ Ao-o-wI. AL!VI'& b. Sl,fpsectio'1 @)- We would like to add "pre-cast concrete with an architectural I finish" and lIany other material or facade acceptable to the Town" to the list J,l o~ of exterior building materials. rob~~~ 3 1.. ýÿ , . . c. L Subsections (6) & (7) - The District does not object to inclusion of either ~ 1) plf Me noise or odor requirements. but the standards should be more objective (see ~ ' 'i below) and violation of the standard should be based on 8 complaint based " 0 . . system with independent verification of a purported violation by the Town or ~ I"~t someone of the Town's choosing and with an opportunity to cure the (\ft violation. . t- It)lV1~V~ (,- oP.J' i. Noise - Based on OSHA-related standards, and incorporating certain c;,C caveats related to the construction phase, we suggest the following: Q1cl I' ~o-rl' tjV 80 decibels (dBa) measured at the further of the property line &tlJ> } aft' ~~ of the mechanical wastewater treatment property or 25 feet away from the outside wall of any structure and 25 feet away ~*,(t' VV1\'~ from any mobile vehicle or equipment. The limitations set forth pIlL" r ~).. . above shall net apply to construction-related activities at the time the plant is built or as part of any modifications or ~ ~~ I additions made in the future. Odor - Based upon the CDPHE regulation applicable to odor ~ ii. emissions, we 8uggest the tOI/OVIIlng: "It is a violation if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with ten (i0) or more volumes of odor free air. Measurement of odorous emissions shall be made at the boundary of the portion of the property used for wastewater treatment in accordance with the Odor Emission Regulations adopted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment under the Colorado Air Pollution Control Act.1l Hi. Determination of a violation - "A violation of either the noise or odor requirements of this subsection (9) shall be determined only in the event that the Town has receIVed complaints from its residents. The Town or its designated representative shall investigate the complaints and make a determination of whether the standards set forth herein have been violated. If a violation is found, the applicant, at the Town's direction, shall take forthwith action to remedy or remove the condition causing the violation. The applicant shall have fifteen (15) days, Or such other period oftime as may be determined by the Town, in which to cure the violation in a manner acceptable to the Town. Failure to so cure the violation may result in assessment, in the sole discretion of the Town, of reasonable fines and penalties." d. Subsection (ID .. The proposed requirement for storage and removal of J treated sludge is generally acceptable; however, we should add language t. Dpt; pi tuch as 'under normal operating condilion$ . . .' or 'except in the event of an Iv vI ~Jcll~~ t!" ~ "./,,f,' J e r~~ 4 1()A'1~ · t ~'II''''I' ýÿ , . . . emergency condition constituting a threat to public health or the environment " . . . e. Subsection (9) - AeroMod has indicated that the treatment facility can be 1~~~~ operated without a cover, and the only reason that the District would install a floating cover is if we need to do so for temperature reasons. There is no odor issue raised by whether or not we use a cover. ReqUiring that all of the treatment facility be enclosed, even by a floating cover, dramaticafly increases the cost to the District. We therefore request that this requirement be removed. 4. Section G (Landscaping Requirement~). a. Subsection (2)- The current requirements set forth in subsection 2 appear to require the District to landscape approximately one acre of land (15% of ~1 ~l the 26% of the Diatrict's property that would be used for purposes related to W al \ vi' \ \ tf' the wastewater treatment plant), including placement of trees and shrubs in \)~~ \~~\Je:- a somewhat undefined manner. We should discuss whether it makes more l\vJ'-'1 ~ sense to broaden the landscaping requirement to a plan that is acceptable 1J; to both the Town and the applicant, but which has the stated and required vJ-"" purpose of obscuring, to the full extent possible, the treatment plant from plain view. b. SlIPsection (3) .. Rather than the District giving a guaranty of some 80rt, it M# W1 w' may make more sense to simply require the landscaping contractor to provide a guaranty and a two-year performance bond which names both the District and the Town. 5. Despite everyone's best intentions, there are bound to be things we did not think of or changes in construction or regulatory requirements that would reqUire the District to construct or modify the plant in 8 way that, on the face of It, would violate the new or existing zoning regulations. We would therefore like to add a general variance provision as follow: . k~ . .J.. 1- '') As part of an initial application under this subsection (9), or at any time after t) vIr;.}r. approval of an initialllpplication, the applicant may request a variance from .~ ~ any otherwise applicable requirement of the Town's Business District r \)~~ \ RegUlations. The Town Staff shall review the variance request and make a ~ vJ-'1 recommendation to the Planning Commission which shalf, in turn, make a t lJl;~ recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The Town shall determine ~\ whether and what type of notice of the variance request should be given to ~ ;~ ~ . k the public and whether a public hearing Is required prior to a decision on the \ f)M~ variance request. The Planning Commission or the Board of Trustees also ~", will conduct a hearing at the request of the applicant. \)0 ~tJ-' ~. V1 ,1'/) 5 ~~ \ vJl" ~ ,t~tJ : ~ ~~ ~"'I f' 0~ ~ . . . . We appreciate the opportunity to make these comments and look forward to talking with you later tOday and meeting with you on July 15th. Until then, if you have any questions, please give me a call. 182712.1 6 ýÿ