Contents:
Water authority to present study results Wednesday, October 2, 7 pm, LPHSThe September meeting of the El Paso County Water Authority, held in the El Paso County Hearing Room in the county office building, was attended by many people who thought the water in their private wells is in jeopardy due to possible misappropriation by the authority through their unseen draft of the water master plan. Most people attending this meeting had read Pam Zubeck’s article in the Gazette. Some of the water authority board members said they felt her article contained some inaccuracies and hoped a revised article would be forthcoming. The water authority took some actions. First, since they have no authority to effect change in land use matters, they changed the name of the document from the water master plan to the water study. Next, they finalized the details for two public meetings, the first meeting is to be held on October 1 in Widefield High School for those people who live in the southern part of the county and the second meeting on October 2 in Lewis Palmer High School for those people who live in the northern part of the county. Many of the attending public who live in the eastern part of the county and in the City of Colorado Springs wanted meetings held for them. They were told that their water providers, the Colorado Springs Utilities and the Town of Calhan, were not official members of the water authority even though both had been invited to join. County commissioner and water authority board member Duncan Bremer stated that the water issues in Colorado need statewide attention. Unfortunately, the state government has not fulfilled the needed role, but instead left these issues to be decided by water courts. This has led to numerous disputes between the various local and county governments. Many ideas have been advanced to take water from one region or locality and move it to other places to promote development in those areas. One such notion is the use of satellite well fields to pump water from less developed areas to support growth in high density areas. Some members of the audience deplored such tactics. ********** To enable Tri-Lakes residents to prepare for the public meeting October 2, OCN is publishing below the complete executive summary of the June 28 draft final water master plan. A copy of the full draft final master plan may be reviewed at Monument Town Hall, 166 Second Street. **********
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The El Paso County Water Authority (EPCWA) has prepared a Water Master Plan to assist in evaluating how water demands of the EPCWA members can be met to the year 2020. Current annual water demands in El Paso County (County) are estimated to be approximately 89,600 acrefeet (acft). These values include Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU), which is not a member of EPCWA. The estimated current annual water demand, without CSU, is approximately 19,600 acft. The future water demand for year 2020 is estimated to be 163,300 acft with CSU and approximately 30,000 without CSU. Therefore, this Water Master Plan looks at not only continuing to provide the current water demands of approximately 20,000 acft per year (acft/yr), but also expand that water supply to provide up to 30,000 aC7ft/yr by the year 2020. County Ground Water Resources Ground water provides much of the municipal water supplies in the County. Some of the County’s water supplies are nonrenewable in nature, while others are replenished annually. In the northern portion of the County, the principal aquifer resources are the sedimentary bedrock aquifers of the Denver Basin. These water supply resources are nonrenewable in nature, as they receive only minimal recharge to replace the water which is currently being pumped out of these aquifer systems. In the Denver Basin aquifers underlying the County, there is approximately 66,000,000 acft of potentially recoverable water. By state statute, this would make approximately 667,000 acft of water available annually. However, with the County’s 300Year Rule, the total annual volume of water available may be limited to a value of less than 667,000 acft/yr. Yields from Denver Basin aquifer wells generally range from approximately 50 gallons per minute (gpm) to 500 gpm. In the southern portion of the County, south of where the Denver Basin aquifers either subcrop or outcrop, the principal bedrock ground water resources are found in the Pierre Shale and Dakota/Cheyenne aquifers. The aquifers are generally lowyielding (15 gpm or less), but do receive some recharge on an annual basis and are considered renewable water resources. Along the western edge of the County, in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, the principal bedrock ground water resources are found in the preCambrian granitic rocks. This water resource is also fairly limited in terms of yield per well (1 to 20 gpm), but is recharged on an annual basis through precipitation events and snowmelt runoff and, therefore, is considered to be a renewable water resource. Throughout the County there are several major streams which flow over the Denver Basin, Dakota/Cheyenne, and preCambrian aquifers. Associated with these stream systems are alluvial deposits that carry significant volumes of water which are currently being used by County water providers. Some of the principal alluvial aquifer systems are associated with Fountain Creek, Monument Creek, Sand Creek, Upper Black Squirrel Creek, and Jimmy Camp Creek. The most reliable ground water resource in the County is associated with the alluvial aquifers. Not only can wells completed in some of the primary alluvial aquifer systems (such as the Fountain Creek alluvium) produce in excess of 1,000 gpm, but the water supplies are renewable in nature, being replenished by the stream flow. County Surface Water Resources The principal stream systems currently being used for irrigation and municipal water supplies are Fountain Creek, Monument Creek, Jimmy Camp Creek, Sand Creek, and Upper Black Squirrel Creek. Generally, the surface waters in each of these stream systems is governed by the Colorado Doctrine of Appropriation. In the Arkansas River Basin, there is additional regulation under the Amended Arkansas River Rules. Under Colorado’s priority system, an analysis of water rights within the Arkansas River Basin indicates that a priority date of 1874, or earlier, essentially will be in priority all of the time, while water rights with priority dates of 1890 or earlier will only be available for use 50 percent of the time, or less. Therefore, water rights that are more junior to an 1890 priority likely will only be available during wet years, or extremely wet periods of time. Since most of these early water rights (pre1890) were originally related to irrigation use, a change of water right is necessary to convert these rights for potential use for municipal purposes. While many irrigation water rights have already been converted to municipal use, such as shares in the Fountain Mutual Irrigation Company, there are still many irrigation water rights in the County which potentially could be converted to municipal use. In addition to the historic irrigation rights which have been developed (mostly on Fountain and Monument Creeks), there is a major transbasin diversion project, the Frying PanArkansas Project (Fry/Ark), which provides water for Southern El Paso County Water Providers. The use of alluvial water can be enhanced with surface storage capability. There are some existing surface water storage structures currently available to EPCWA members, such as Bristlecone Reservoir, Pinon Reservoir, Woodmoor Reservoir, and Monument Lake, which could be used to regulate direct flow rights with surplus storage capacity. In addition, CSU operates several reservoirs with significant storage capacity. The ability to develop additional surface water resources within the County is mostly tied to the development of historic water rights for municipal use, with the regulation of these water supplies through surface storage projects. Water Supply Shortfalls and/or Limitations There are two distinct types of water suppliers in the County, the Northern Water Providers, which rely on the nonrenewable resources of the Denver Basin aquifers, and the Southern Water Providers, which rely on renewable water resources associated with transbasin diversions and water associated with Fountain Creek and the Widefield aquifer. It is estimated that there is approximately 66,000,000 acft of recoverable water from the Denver Basin aquifers beneath the County, which would indicate a surplus of water. However, there are potentially significant water supply availability limitations. In the near term, this may be associated with providing peak day demands while, in the longer term, the issue may be the ability just to meet average annual demands. Ways to address this issue include water reuse, water conservation, development of satellite well fields, regionalization of water supply systems, and/or development of new, renewable water supplies. The Southern Water Providers currently rely entirely on renewable water resources, either local water supplies from the Fountain Creek system or transbasin supplies from the Fry/Ark Project. Both water supplies are renewable in nature, with the Fry/Ark water also having the additional benefit of being fully consumable, since it is transbasin water. When the estimated annual water demands at year 2020 are compared to the available water supplies, there appears to be adequate water to meet year 2020 demands for the Southern Water Providers. Some water supply providers also rely on the renewable water resources of the Upper Black Squirrel Creek, within the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Designated Basin. While a comparison of the water supplies available to these entities appears to meet year 2020 demands, water levels have been declining over time in the Upper Black Squirrel Designated Basin. Based on studies that have been conducted to date, there are significant differences in the expected useful life of the Upper Black Squirrel alluvial aquifer, but there is agreement that the water levels are declining and that the alluvial aquifer is being mined at the current time. Therefore, there could be a future need for replacement water supplies in this area. Water Conservation and Water Reuse Water conservation and water reuse are two ways to maximize the efficiency of use of limited water resources. Water conservation can take the form of voluntary inhouse water conservation measures and voluntary landscaping irrigation measures, as well as mandatory means to encourage water conservation, such as tiered pricing schedules and, ultimately, water rationing. Water reuse can take the form of indirect reuse, e.g. releasing wastewater treatment plant effluent, then producing an equivalent volume from the stream system, or direct reuse, e.g. taking wastewater treatment plant effluent and applying it to irrigated areas. While inhouse and landscaping water conservation measures can reduce overall water consumption and help to reduce peakday demands, the most effective water conservation is achieved through water pricing, i.e., where the price continues to rise with each incremental increase in use. One of the benefits of Denver Basin aquifer water use is that this water can be used, and reused, to extinction. An augmentation plan is the legal tool available in Colorado to allow water supply providers to reuse this water to meet municipal inhouse and landscaping demands. Based on standard consumptive use factors, 100 acft of firstuse Denver Basin aquifer water can achieve, through multiple uses, an additional 86 acft of water through an augmentation plan. Therefore, augmentation plans and the reuse of water can be critically important in achieving the most efficient use of this reusable water. County Water Distribution Infrastructure Options Because the water supply systems for the Northern Water Providers are distinctly different than the water supply systems for the Southern Water Providers, water distribution infrastructure options were evaluated separately for each water provider group. Infrastructure options for the Northern Water Providers generally included (a) development of additional Denver Basin aquifer water supplies through satellite well fields, (b) increase in reuse by utilizing available surface storage facilities, and (c) development of replacement renewable water supplies using available surface storage structures. Capital costs for these various options generally range between $6,200 and $9,575 per acft, while the annual unit costs to provide this water ranged from $2.75 per 1,000 gallons to over $6.00 per 1,000 gallons. The infrastructure analysis for the Southern Water Providers indicated that these entities are currently interconnected locally and there are also emergency interconnections to CSU through Cherokee, Colorado Centre, and Stratmoor Hills. Therefore, the Southern Water Providers have already implemented a regionalized infrastructure plan. Two additional infrastructure options that potentially could be pursued by the Southern Water Providers are (a) to provide better use of the reusable effluent from the Fry/Ark Project and (b) to seek additional surface storage so that these water supplies could be tapped in the event of problems with delivery from the Fountain Valley Authority Pipeline. Synergistic Projects With Colorado Springs Utilities The EPCWA has investigated whether there are possible areas where CSU and EPCWA can act cooperatively on water rights, water supply and infrastructure components. Meetings have been held with CSU personnel to discuss these possible synergistic projects. Currently, CSU is participating in the Southern Water Delivery System and EPCWA members have been provided the opportunity to participate in this project. However, the Southern Water Delivery System would impose a fee on water providers that would compensate the City of Colorado Springs for revenues lost as a result of development occurring outside the city. Currently, because of the fees imposed on this project, the only participant in the Southern Water Delivery System within EPCWA is the City of Fountain. Water Plan for Private Well Owners There are almost 22,000 individual residential wells in the County, with approximately 19,000 of these wells completed in the Denver Basin aquifers, while approximately 3,000 of these wells are completed in the eastern portion of the County in the Pierre Shale and/or Dakota/Cheyenne aquifers. While water use is low in these generally rural areas, the aquifers are still experiencing water level declines due to the pumping of others and, ultimately, it may be necessary to drill wells to tap deeper aquifers or to find alternate water supplies. As current water supplies decline at these individual residential wells, there are four potential options to maintain water supply availability, (a) drill separate, deeper wells, (b) install cisterns at individual homes and have water trucked in, (c) have either individual or collective homeowners’ associations finance the construction of a communitytype well or well field, and/or (d) participate in a regional water supply distribution system. Individual residential wells are currently the cheapest source of water, since residences typically tap the uppermost aquifer, which minimizes the cost of drilling and the power to lift the water from the aquifer to the residences. It is likely that individual residential wells will continue to be the preferred alternative for water supplies in rural areas until such time as these uppermost aquifers can no longer support individual residential use. At the time when deeper aquifers have to be tapped to provide residential water supplies, it may then become more economical to look at the communitytype well, which would serve multiple dwellings and provide limited, centralized water service. A communitytype well can provide an economy of scale by tapping a deeper aquifer with a single well, rather than several small individual wells. To serve a relatively large area of individual residences in rural areas would require a regional water supply system. Given capital costs of over $8,000 per acft and annual operating costs of approximately $5.00 per 1000 gallons, it is apparent that regional water supply systems would be extremely expensive to implement for individual residential use and it is unlikely that this type of system would ever be feasible in the lowdensity, rural areas of the County. Potential Water Import Projects The development of new, renewable water supplies in the County would likely require the import of water, as the Arkansas River Basin is fully appropriated and it is unlikely that significant additional water supplies could be developed locally. There are several potential water import projects that have been identified, although none of these projects is currently at a state of development where County water providers could reasonably assume that new, renewable water supplies will be available in the near future. These potential water import projects include (a) the marketable pool at Blue Mesa Reservoir, (b) the Baca Ranch Water Supply and Delivery Project, (c) the CSU Southern Delivery Pipeline, (d) conversion of agricultural water rights to municipal use, either in the Arkansas River Basin or the South Platte River Basin, (e) the Big Straw Project, which envisions a pump back system from the Colorado/Utah State Line, and (f) development of additional water supplies in the designated basins of Colorado. Optimally, the best situation for County water providers would be to develop sufficient renewable water supplies to serve all of its customers and maintain the nonrenewable water supplies of the Denver Basin as emergency water supplies in time of drought, since the Denver Basin aquifers’ water supply availability is not subject to shortterm variabilities in the hydrologic cycle. However, given the difficulty of developing new, renewable water resources, this is an unlikely scenario to develop at any time in the near future. Current County Water Supply Standards The County currently has water supply standards that seek to provide a "sufficient quantity to meet the average annual demand of the proposed subdivision for a period of three hundred (300) years." Purportedly, it was the intent of these regulations to allow minimal development of Denver Basin aquifer water to generate sufficient revenue to allow developments to then pursue the purchase of renewable water supplies as the ultimate water supply for that subdivision and/or to encourage annexation of developments that would otherwise be in unincorporated areas. Therefore, the 300Year Rule, as adopted, has two basic premises, (a) that Denver Basin aquifer water can provide an interim water supply (for up to 300 years if necessary), and that (b) revenues generated from the development of land based on Denver Basin ground water would fund the ultimate purchase of renewable water supplies as the long-term water supply solution. It is difficult to assure that Denver Basin aquifer water can provide a 300year water supply, since ground water is continually moving into, and out of, any specific piece of property based on hydraulic gradients within the aquifer. Most areas within the Denver Basin are susceptible to greater outflow than inflow in the underlying aquifers, therefore, the volume of water in storage can be reduced regardless of the use of Denver Basin water on the property. It has been estimated that approximately 3 percent of the water supply beneath the County will be lost over the 300year period just by virtue of water moving out of storage from beneath the County. The concept that developments could be initiated with Denver Basin aquifer water and generate sufficient revenues to purchase renewable water as a longterm water supply solution does not acknowledge the complex political, environmental, and water availability issues associated with the development of renewable water resources. It is not simply a financial transaction to obtain and develop renewable water resources. In fact, it is an extremely difficult process, which is evidenced by the fact that no major transbasin projects have been developed in the past 20 years. A numerical model was used to evaluate changes in water level which would result from various operating scenarios in the County. The results of the model indicate that there is little difference in water level changes if all water providers operate under the 100Year Rule versus the 300Year Rule, except within the centroid of pumping of the Northern Water Providers. Operation of a satellite well field in the County to provide future demands lessens the water level change in the Northern Water Providers’ area due to the spreading out of Denver Basin aquifer pumping over a larger area. Therefore, a satellite well field in northcentral El Paso County can be a beneficial concept to preserving water levels in the Denver Basin aquifers. Any large well field that is located in close proximity to the County, but at a lower elevation, has the potential for increasing water level changes in the Northern Water Providers’ area. Depending on distance, this impact could be relatively significant, with as much as 200 additional feet of water level change as a result of adjacent large satellite well fields. However, these changes would be under confined aquifer conditions, and water level changes would be less under unconfined conditions. The El Paso County Water Master Plan has been prepared as a guide to assist EPCWA water providers in water policy decisions. This plan represents work conducted from 2000 to 2002, and should be updated as water issues change and/or new issues arise. BRRTA plans Oct. public meeting on Baptist Road traffic study and improvements, forces inclusion of BrookhartsBy John Heiser At their regular quarterly meeting August 9, the board of the Baptist Road Rural Transportation Authority (BRRTA) received the Baptist Road Improvements Traffic Study as an element of BRRTA’s Baptist Road improvement project. The next public meeting on that project is planned for early October. The details had not been set as of OCN’s press time. Interested residents are encouraged to contact the authority and watch for roadside signs announcing the meeting. BRRTA also voted to include the Hay Creek Ranch, Total station, and Brookhart’s parcels into the district. The Watt family, owner of the parcels leased to Brookhart’s vigorously opposed the inclusion. The BRRTA board is composed of three county commissioners (Duncan Bremer, Chuck Brown, and Ed Jones) and two Monument board of trustees representatives (Mayor Betty Konarski and Trustee Byron Glenn). Baptist Road Traffic Study Maryam Babaki of BRRTA’s road improvement consultant Loris and Associates presented the results of the Baptist Road Improvements Traffic Study. TransPlan Associates, Inc. prepared the study. They looked at several prior studies of the three-mile portion of Baptist Road from the railroad tracks west of I-25 to just east of Tari Drive. Those studies included the 1998 Baptist Road Corridor Study, the 2001 Forest Lakes Traffic Impact and Access Analysis, and the 2001 Jackson Creek Development – Phase 1, Traffic Impact Study. TransPlan reported weekday average traffic counts along Baptist Road as measured in 1997 and again in December 2001. They also measured average weekday speeds in December 2001. The results were as follows:
The report calculated traffic levels for the year 2025 using two differing projected land uses. The first (Alternative #1) assumed the projected land uses from the land use map in the draft Monument updated comprehensive plan. The second (Alternative #2) assumed the projected land uses in the Jackson Creek/Regency Park development and rezoning plan dated March 2002. As seen below, the latter produced somewhat higher traffic projections. This dictated some additional turn lanes and longer turn lanes.
As part of their year 2020/2025 projections, TransPlan assumed Baptist would be connected though to Highway 83 at Hodgen Road, Jackson Creek Parkway would be connected north from Baptist to Highway 105 and south to connect to Struthers Road, and Furrow Road would be extended south to connect to Highway 105. It was also suggested that Furrow might be extended south to connect to Gleneagle Drive as shown on the 1987 county major transportation corridors plan. TransPlan also assumed that a "big box" (e.g., Wal-Mart) shopping center would be built on the southeast corner of Baptist and Jackson Creek Parkway directly south of King Soopers. The analysis was done with and without the extension of Mitchell Avenue south to connect to Baptist Road. The Mitchell Avenue extension impact was seen mainly at and west of the Baptist Road Old Denver Highway intersection. Minimal impact was seen on Baptist Road east of I-25. Summary of recommendations for improvements needed by the year 2025 West of I-25:
At the I-25 Interchange (assumed to be a diamond design):
I-25 to Leather Chaps Drive:
Leather Chaps Drive to Tari Drive:
The public meeting in early October will discuss these recommendations and solicit public preferences for improvements and sequencing. The goal of the project is to develop a preferred alternative and phasing of improvements including high priority projects needed to improve safety. Commissioner Brown stressed that the county’s major transportation task force and its technical committee should be involved in the selection of the preferred alternative. Babaki noted that Baptist Road has some steep slopes. There is a 500-foot change in elevation within a two-mile segment. Another consideration is that some areas have less than 100 feet of right-of-way. Unless additional right-of-way is purchased, that will constrain what can be done. In response to a question from Commissioner Bremer, Babaki said that cost estimates and level of service projections would be developed to aid in selecting the preferred alternative. In response to a question from Mayor Konarski, Babaki said information would be available in advance of the public hearing where the alternative is to be selected. Babaki reported that the Colorado Department of Transportation is expected to select a design alternative for the Baptist Road interchange by the end of September. Bremer said the BRRTA board should plan to pick the preferred alternative at its November 8 meeting. Konarski was tasked with working with Loris and Associates as to what is to be presented at that meeting. Inclusion of Hay Creek Ranch, Total Station, and Brookhart’s parcels Jamie Hull, representing the Hay Creek Ranch, said, "We are willing to be included in the authority in an equitable manner." No one representing the Total Station property appeared. The Brookhart’s property consists of three parcels. The Watt family owns two of them. Amy Costello, attorney with Dufford and Brown, representing the Watt family presented several arguments against inclusion of that property into BRRTA:
Mike Watt repeated some of the above arguments and went on to say, "This is being jammed down my throat. I am being brought into the authority with no say. My business is being impacted." He questioned why his property was being included when many others that have an impact on Baptist Road such as John Laing homes, "R" Rock Yard, Soc-N’-Roll, and Dellacroce Ranch are not. He said, "Something is fundamentally wrong. Why me now? When are they going to be included?" Bremer responded, "The [geographic] limits of the authority would be set by influence on Baptist Road." He added, "We are abiding by the statute. There is nothing we can do about it except talk to the legislature." BRRTA imposes development fees based on land use, such as $500 per house or $1.25 per square foot for commercial space. BRRTA does not have the power to impose property taxes and a vote of the residents within the authority, including all the residents of Jackson Creek, would be required to impose a sales tax. If a sales tax were approved, it would limited to a maximum of 0.4%. In light of all this, Bremer said, "There is no [financial] impact unless and until the property is developed." Bremer said, "Other property owners felt it was worthwhile to get a better Baptist Road." Commissioner Jones added, "It is ultimately a benefit to your property. It is making a better road for all." Trustee Glenn said, "Brookhart’s does impact Baptist. The neighborly thing to do is to contribute to the improvement of Baptist Road. I would like to look at inclusion of all properties adjacent to Baptist Road." Watt reiterated that he objects to the way the authority was formed by a vote of two people and that he did not get a say in it. BRRTA’s attorney, Matthew Dalton of Grimshaw and Harring, presented the position that state statutes (e.g., CRS 43-4-605) grant BRRTA the power to force inclusions into the district by a two-thirds vote of the directors. Dalton said this is analogous to municipal annexations and special district inclusions. He distributed copies of an April 2001 memo from J.M. Fritsche that concluded, "Case law holds annexations and inclusions as legislative functions not subject to a due process challenge. There is no constitutional mandate that taxpayers affected by an annexation or inclusion be given the opportunity to vote on the subject." He noted that, in any event, corporate entities such as own the Brookhart’s parcels are not allowed to vote. Konarski made a motion seconded by Jones to approve inclusion of the Hay Creek Ranch property. The motion passed 4-0 with Brown abstaining. Glenn made a motion seconded by Jones to approve inclusion of the Total Station property. The motion passed 4-0 with Brown abstaining. Jones made a motion seconded by Glenn to approve inclusion of all three Brookhart’s parcels. The motion passed 4-0 with Brown abstaining. Konarski said, "It is not easy, but this is one of the ways this community has chosen to build infrastructure." Next Meeting The next BRRTA meeting will be held Friday, November 8, 1:30 pm, at the Monument Town Hall, 166 2nd St., Monument. ********** Articles on prior Baptist Road-related meetings are posted at www.ourcommunitynews.org/top_stories.htm#baptist. There is also background info at www.elpasoco.com/Transprt/baptist_rd.asp and www.coalitiontlc.org/baptist_road.htm. To get more information and provide comments on the Baptist Road Improvement Project, contact:
View a picture of Mike Watt appearing before BRRTA County planning commission recommends approval of Greenland Preserve, tower, and Struthers Road siteBy John Heiser By a unanimous vote at the El Paso County Planning Commission meeting August 20, a preliminary plan for 51 single-family lots on the 55.6-acre Greenland Preserve development was recommended for approval. Formerly known as the Greenland Forest project, it is located roughly one mile east of I-25 on the south side of County Line Road [See map]. In July, the county commissioners rezoned the parcel to the R zone district that calls for single-family residential lots with a minimum size of 20,000 square feet. The developer on the project is Jack Wiepking of Wiepking Real Estate Investments, LLC. The proposal calls for the Woodmoor Water and Sanitation District to provide water and sewer service. Access to the development will be from High Pines Drive on the west and Silver Horn Lane on the east. There will be no direct access onto County Line Road. To preserve the forested character of County Line Road, a fifty-foot conservation buffer and trail easement will be maintained on the northern edge of the property. Adjacent Woodmoor resident Jim Cole and Woodmoor Improvement Association President Beth Courrau spoke in favor of the plan. Cole said there has been a lot of coordination, accommodation of neighbors concerns, and adjustments to the plan. Courrau described the interaction with Wiepking and his company as "a model relationship with a developer." Courrau added that the proposal is in accordance with the Tri-Lakes comprehensive plan and said the WIA board voted to not oppose the project. Wiepking noted that the site is heavily treed and in need of attention to address problems with dwarf mistletoe, mountain pine beetle, and wildfire hazard. The recommendation for approval included waivers to allow portions of the roads with curvature radii of 250’ and 285’ where 300’ is normally required, a road design speed of 30 mph instead of 35 mph, and permission for 16 lots on a cul-de-sac; the county limit is normally 10. Two other Tri-Lakes area projects were also unanimously recommended for approval by the board of county commissioners. The first was the request for a five-year renewal of permission for the 65-foot Voicestream communications tower designed to look like a tree. It is located on Monument Hill immediately west of I-25 and approximately half a mile south of County Line Road. The tower sits on a 600 square foot easement with a graveled access easement from Beacon Lite Road. The tower was originally approved for five years in 1996. Also, recommended for approval was a zoning change from RR-3, Rural Residential minimum five-acre lot size, to Planned Business District for a six-acre site on the west side of Struthers Road approximately 1/3 mile north of the intersection with Gleneagle Drive. The parcel is separated from I-25 by about 500 feet of U.S. Air Force Academy property. Commercial sites of 1.2 acres and 1.3 acres are proposed on the parcel. A detention pond to handle run off from adjacent developments will occupy the remaining 3.5 acres of the parcel. On the east side of Struthers are single family and townhome developments. The planning commission recommendations are forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. ********** For more information on these and other projects within the county, contact the planning department at 520-6300 or visit www.elpasoco.com/planning. View a map of the location of the Greenland Preserve project. Revised plan being prepared for Struthers RanchBy John Heiser In late August, landowners near the Struthers Ranch parcel were notified that an amended sketch plan has been submitted for that parcel. The parcel occupies 107.35 acres and lies east of I-25, south of the Chaparral Hills, west of Gleneagle, and north of the Academy View and Summer Glen Estates developments [See map]. It is currently zoned RR-2, rural residential, 2.5 acre minimum lot size. Background The prior approved Struthers Ranch sketch plan proposed 50 single-family lots, 75 multi-family units, 13.5 acres of office, and 30.19 acres of open space. On September 19, 2000, by a vote of 7-2, the County Planning Commission recommended denial of the Struthers Ranch request for a waiver from the County’s 300-year water availability rule. During the course of the hearing, Dana Duthie manager of the Donala District stated that the district might have as little as 30 years and probably no more than 156 years of water available to be pumped. On October 26, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved the request for a waiver from the 300-year rule. This action cleared the way for submission of the sketch plan. On November 21, 2000, by a vote of 8-1, the County Planning Commission recommended approval of the Struthers Ranch Sketch Plan. That recommendation for approval was subject to conditions and notations including requirements that a) Any residential lots on the north boundary must be a minimum size of one-acre and must include at least a one hundred foot setback from the common property line with the Chaparral Hills Subdivision, b) No access through platted road easements in Chaparral Hills will be allowed, and c) Residential lots on the north side of the drainage swale must be at least one-half (1/2) acre. On January 18, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved the Struthers Ranch Sketch Plan but added a condition that the lots on the north side could not be developed until an access north to Baptist Road was available. The latter requirement seemingly has stalled the project. The New Proposal The revised sketch plan has eliminated the 75 multi-family units. It calls for 188 single-family residential lots with a minimum of 6,000 square feet each and an average lot size of 7,000 square feet. It also includes 42.87 acres of landscape buffer, open space, drainage detention, and habitat conservation areas and approximately 9 acres of Planned Business Center commercial use. A community meeting on the proposal was held on Thursday, September 5 after the OCN press deadline. Information on the outcome of that meeting will appear in the October 5 issue of OCN. ********** The planning consultant on the project is David F. Jones, Land Resource Associates, 9736 Mountain Rd., Chipita Park, Colorado 80809, (719) 684-2298, FAX (719) 684-8413. For more information on this and other projects within the county, contact the planning department at 520-6300 or visit www.elpasoco.com/planning. You may submit comments or questions to the El Paso County Planning Department, 27 E. Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903. View map showing location of Struthers Ranch. |