Whitewater/Kannah Creek Plan Appendix

WHITEWATER/KANNAH CREEK PLAN

APPENDIX adopted July 8, 1999

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PLANNING PROCESS FUTURE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SOME LAND USE PLANNING TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR THE PLANNING AREA TRAFFIC MODEL FOR THE REEDER MESA, PURDY MESA, UPPER KANNAH CREEK, AND UPPER LANDS END ROAD SUBAREA Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SINCERE THANKS TO ALL THE PUBLIC WHO CONTRIBUTED THEIR VALUABLE TIME AND EFFORT TO THE WHITEWATER/KANNAH CREEK PLAN.

Technical assistance provided by:

Steering Committee Members Jean Moores (Planning Commission) Gary Hamacher (Planning Commission) Bud Bradbury Dan Brown Ed Gardner Don Lumbardy Austin Massey John Whiting

Technical Advisory Committee Members Katherine Abramson, U.S. Forest Service Rob Bleiberg, Mesa County Land Conservancy Rod Bonnell, Purdy Mesa Livestock and Water Company Bud Bradbury, Grand Mesa Reservoir Pool Paul Cavanaugh, Purdy Mesa Water Sue Gormley, Mesa County Facilities and Parks, Director Chris Hinkson, K-N Energy Don Lumbardy, Grand Mesa Slopes Austin Massey, Mesa County Cattleman’s Association Terry Mathieson, Colorado Division of Wildlife Harley Metz, Bureau of Land Management Jim Miller, Colorado Division of Wildlife Dave Reinertsen, Clifton Water Caryn Romeo, Mesa County Health Department Dale Tooker, Clifton Water Greg Trainor, City of Grand Junction Dwain Watson, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Mesa County Staff Kathleen Sellman, Planning and Development Director Keith Fife, Long Range Planning Director Tom Dixon, Senior Planner Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 3

(Mesa County Staff continued) Richard Goecke, Senior Planner Jeff Hoffman, Senior Planner Linda Dannenberger, Senior Planner Jo Millsaps, Zoning Administrator Michael Warren, Planner 1 Eileen Wamboldt, Planning Office Administrator Ken Simms, Traffic Planner (also Technical Advisory Committee) Cliff Davidson, RTPO, Administrator Tambra Dabbs, RTPO, Office Administrator Otis Darnell, Road Maintenance District Manager Kimberly Parker, Emergency Management Judith Sirota, Horticultural Pest and Weed Inspector Facilities and Parks Department Public Works Department Sheriff’s Department Waste Management Department Environmental Health Department

Other Agencies Grand Valley Air Quality Planning Committee Mesa County Agricultural Advisory Panel Rick Beaty, Jim Brite, Grand Junction Rural Fire Districts Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado State Forest Service U.S. Forest Service Grand Mesa Reservoir Pool Purdy Mesa Livestock and Water Company U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tri-River Cooperative Extension Service Natural Resource Conservation Service Colorado Department of Transportation State of Colorado, Well Commissioner, Montrose District Museum of Western Colorado Lands End Response Team Whitewater Postmaster Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 4

PLANNING PROCESS

CONFIDENTIAL INTERVIEWS

Mesa County Long Range Planning Staff conducted confidential interviews during June and July 1998. Area residents, staff from various county departments, service providers, and Mesa County Planning Commission members were interviewed with to identify issues and help establish a direction to proceed.

PUBLIC FORUMS AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOPS

Introduction of baseline findings to the Board of County Commissioners (August 19, 1998). The Long Range Planning staff briefed the Board of County Commissioners on the findings of preliminary investigation of the planning area. Policy directives for the plan and planning process from the Board of County Commissioners were presented and discussed.

Open House / Public Forum #1 (September 22, 1998) Presentation by about 40 service providers and government agencies with an interest in the area. A list of the service providers and government agencies is provided below.

Mesa County Environmental Health Dept. Natural Resource Conservation Service School District #51 Colorado Department of Transportation Grand Junction Parks and Recreation Dept. Lands End Response Team Ute Water Conservancy District Bureau of Land Management City of Grand Junction Utilities Grand Mesa Slopes Grand Junction and Grand Junction Rural Colorado Division of Wildlife Fire Districts Clifton Water Mesa County Agricultural Advisory Panel Department of Energy Colorado Division of Wildlife Mesa County Emergency Management Colorado State Forest Service Mesa County Horticultural Pest and Weed U.S. Forest Service Inspector Department of Energy Colorado Division of Wildlife Tri-River Cooperative Extension Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 5

Public Forum #2 -- Vision (October 13, 1998) The staff asked the public to tell them what the vision of the area should be –what types of development, what type of services were appropriate for the area. Steering Committee (October 20, 1998) The committee discussed character of the area and formulated a rough draft of a vision statement.

Public Forum #3 -- Refine Vision - Goals (November 10, 1998) Staff asked the public to refine the vision of the area and show on maps and described in words what: 1) the limits of Whitewater should be 2) rural means 3) is unique about their community 4) open space is 5) development is occurring and where will it occur 6) cultural resources are to protect 7) BLM land activities should be Steering Committee (November 17, 1998) Committee members recommended changes to the vision statement and reviewed a composite map derived from previous public forums.

Public Forum #4 -- Land Use Alternatives (December 8, 1998) Staff asked the public to refine land use alternatives and select planning elements they wanted in the plan. Steering Committee (December 15, 1998) The committee reviewed the results from the small group exercises, (plan elements), future land use alternatives and ranking of the alternatives.

Public Forum #5 – Character of Development and Visual Preference (January 19, 1999) Staff presented and reviewed 4 draft alternatives derived from the previous meetings, and 4 maps illustrating different types of character of development. Asked the public to identify the character of development that was or was not acceptable. Steering Committee (January 26, 1999) Members reviewed results of the visual preference survey and briefly discussed tools and techniques that could be used to implement the plan.

Public Forum #6 -- Implementation Tools and Techniques (February 16, 1999) Staff discussed different tools and techniques available to implement the plan and asked the public to select the most appropriate tools.

Joint Meeting between the Steering Committee and Planning Commission (March 4, 1999) Staff made a presentation to the Planning Commission of the findings and described the direction and outline of the plan. Planning Commission provided direction to staff for further public and steering committee comment.

Update of the plan to the County Commissioners (March 16, 1999) Presentation of Draft Plan to the County Commissioners. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 6

Public Forum #7 -- Presentation of Draft Plan (March 23, 1999) Comments on the plan and planning process Steering Committee (April 1, 1999) Members discussed public comments on the plan and presented official steering committee comments.

Planning Commission Hearing # 1 (May 13, 1999) Planning Commission Workshop (June 3, 1999) Planning Commission Hearing # 2 (July 8, 1999) Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 7 FUTURE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE # 1. Whitewater Rural Community. The boundaries of Whitewater lie within all of section 14 of T2S, R1E. The rural community is generally north of Whitewater Creek, east of the Gunnison River, and includes land on both sides of Highway 50. The center of the community boundary is roughly the center of the old Whitewater Townsite. (About 2 square miles)

A rural community is defined as an unincorporated small-scale settlement, often located in the remote countryside at a crossroads, containing diverse residential, commercial and civic land uses in close proximity to one another. A rural community may or may not have infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.) or services (police, fire, post office, etc.).

Generally, higher densities (1Dwelling Unit per /½ acre if MC Health Department Standards can be met) are encouraged within the boundaries of the rural community, with densities decreasing the further away from the Rural Community. Rationale for this decrease in density is based partially on the cost and availability of infrastructure/services. Cost of services is less expensive in areas of concentrated land use activities.

No commercial services are appropriate outside of the Whitewater Rural Community.

Concentric ring. This ring extends outward from the center of the Whitewater Rural Community for about 1½ miles. Maximum residential densities may be no more than 1 unit per 2 to 5 acres. Infill is encouraged.

5 to 35 Acre Density. Acceptable development densities range from 1 unit per 5 to 35 acres. At this density urban services are unnecessary and unfeasible. Infrastructure and services are typically costly, and in some areas are not provided (fire or water). Boundaries for this density classification generally lie below the 4,800 foot contour elevation where potable water is supplied by Clifton Water but also extend to the Lower Kannah Creek area.

35 Acre Plus Density. Development at a maximum of 1 unit per 35 acres is acceptable. At this density, urban services are unnecessary and unfeasible. Boundaries for this density classification generally lie above the 4,800 foot contour elevation where potable water availability is limited and reliance on wells or cisterns is common. Clifton Water will not supply water above the 4,800' elevation. Cluster development techniques are encouraged to reduce infrastructure requirements, costs, and maintenance (to the developer and to the county). Cluster development also helps to preserve open space and retain the rural character of the area. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 8

Alternative # 1

4800ft. Elevation County Roads State Roads Grand Mesa Slopes Plan Area Boundary Whitewater Rural Community Parcels Mesa County Property City of Grand Junction Ring 1 1DU/2 to 5 Acres Ring 1 addition.shp 1 DU Per 5 to 35 Acres 1 DU per 35 + Acres BLM Grand Mesa National Forest

Alternative 1 Buildout Potential (maximum)

Whitewater Rural Existing New 1/2 Total Buildout Community Acres parcels acre parcels parcels population 605 110 654 764 1 ,834

New 2 acre Total Ring 1 Acres parcels parcels 3 ,201 280 1,336 1,616 3 ,878

Existing New 5 acre Total 5 to 35 acre Acres parcels parcels parcels 10 ,970 367 1,777 2,144 5 ,146

Existing New 35 Total 35 + acres Acres parcels acre parcels parcels 16 ,732 452 192 644 1 ,546

Totals Alternative 1 31 ,508 1,209 3,959 5,168 12 ,403 Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 9

ALTERNATIVE # 2. Whitewater Rural Community. The same as delineated in the Countywide Plan and Alternative #1. Densities may be as high as ½ acre lots (if they meet MC Health Department standards) and may be as large as 5 acres. Infill development is encouraged.

Concentric ring. Similar to Alternative #1 with a larger ring. This ring extends outward from the center of the Whitewater Rural Community for about two miles and includes Lower Reeder Mesa Road and Whitewater Creek drainage. Maximum densities may be no more than 1 unit per 2 to 5 acres.

5 to 35 Acre Density. Same as Alternative #1. Acceptable development densities range from 1 unit per 5 to 35 acres. Boundaries for this density classification generally lie below the 4,800 foot contour elevation.

35 Acre Density. Same as Alternative #1. Development at a maximum of 1 unit per 35 acres is acceptable. At this density, urban services are unnecessary and unfeasible. Boundaries for this density classification generally lie above the 4,800 foot contour elevation.

Alternative # 2

4800ft. Elevation County Roads State Roads Grand Mesa Slopes Plan Area Boundary Whitewater Rural Community Parcels Mesa County Property City of G rand Junction Concentric Ring 2 - 5 A cre Density 1 D U Per 5 to 35 A cres 1 D U per 35 + A cres BLM Grand Mesa N ational Forest Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 10

Alternative 2 Buildout Potential (maximum)

Whitewater Rural Existing New 1/2 Total Buildout Community Acres parcels acre parcels parcels population 605 110 654 764 1 ,834

New 2 acre Total Ring 1 (elipse) Acres parcels parcels 5 ,483 395 3,225 3,620 8 ,688

Existing New 5 acre Total 5 to 35 acre Acres parcels parcels parcels 8 ,688 252 1,738 1,990 4 ,776

Existing New 35 Total 35 + acres Acres parcels acre parcels parcels 16 ,732 452 192 644 1 ,546

Totals Alternative 2 31 ,508 1,209 5,809 7,018 16 ,843

ALTERNATIVE # 3 Whitewater Rural Community. The same as delineated in the Countywide Plan and Alternatives #1 and #2. Densities may be as high as ½ acre lots (if they meet MC Health Department standards) and should not be larger than 5 acres. Infill development is encouraged. Areas Outside of the Whitewater Rural Community boundary. Development at a range of 1 unit per 5 to 35 acres is appropriate beyond the Whitewater Rural Community boundary. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 11

Alternative # 3

State Roads County Roads Grand Mesa Slopes Plan Area Boundary Whitewater Rural Community Parcels 1 DU per 5-35 Acres Mesa County Property City of Grand Junction BLM Grand Mesa National Forest

Alternative 3 Buildout Potential (maximum)

Whitewater Rural Existing New 1/2 Total Buildout Community Acres parcels acre parcels parcels population 605 110 654 764 1,834

Existing New 5 acre Total 5 to 35 acre Acres parcels parcels parcels 30,903 1,099 4,875 5,974 14,338

Totals Alternative 3 31,508 1,209 5,529 6,738 16,171 Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 12

ALTERNATIVE # 4 Whitewater Rural Community. The same as delineated in the Countywide Plan and Alternatives #1, #2, and #3. Densities may be as high as ½ acre lots (if they meet MC Health Department standards) and may be as large as 5 acres. Infill development is encouraged.

Concentric ring. The same as Alternative #1 . This ring extends outward from the center of the Whitewater Rural Community for about 1½ miles. Maximum densities may be no more than 1 unit per 2 to 5 acres. Infill is encouraged.

Areas beyond the Concentric Ring. Development at a range of 1 unit per 5 to 35 acres is appropriate beyond the concentric ring. Growth will occur as the market for development occurs.

Alternative # 4 (Steering Committee Recommendation)

Subarea boundary State Roads County Roads Grand Mesa Slopes Plan Area Boundary Whitewater Rural Community Mesa County Property City of Grand Junction Ring 1 1DU per 2 to 5 Acres Parcels 1DU per 5 to 35 Acres BLM Grand Mesa National Forest Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 13

Alternative 4 Buildout Potential (maximum)

Whitewater Rural Existing New 1/2 Total Buildout Community Acres parcels acre parcels parcels population 605 110 654 764 1,834

New 2 acre Total Ring 1 Acres parcels parcels 3,201 280 1,336 1,616 3,878

Existing New Total * 5 to 35 acre Acres parcels parcels parcels 27,702 819 4,062 4,881 11,714

Totals Alternative 4 31,508 1,209 6,052 7,261 17,426

* Total of all subarea densities as indicated in design policies and guidelines Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 14 SOME LAND PLANNING TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR THE PLANNING AREA

This overview provides the what, who, and how of some of the more common tools and techniques available for protecting important agricultural, natural, scenic, and open land resources. The tools provide options and encourage creative solutions to the difficult issues of land use and private property rights. Regardless of geographic location or economic status, the tools that work best are the ones that are voluntary and can be tailored to a landowners objectives.

Voluntary tools, regulatory tools, and cooperatives efforts make up the three sections of this overview. In each section the tool or technique is defined, identifies who enacts it, and explained how it works. This overview is not intended to be all inclusive but rather to provide a brief but clear explanation of the more commonly accepted and used tools and techniques.

The tools explained in this overview are not an exhaustive list of every one possible; that would be impractical. Rather this list contains the more common tools explained in a brief, concise manner. Many of the tools can stand alone in their ability to accomplish a landowners desired objectives, but others are used in combination to achieve specific objectives.

VOLUNTARY TECHNIQUES

Voluntary Rezone WHO ENACTS IT:The individual landowner or a group of landowners. HOW IT WORKS: A process by which a landowner voluntarily changes the zoning of the land. Typically changing zoning to a less dense land use is referred to as “down- zoning.” It is Mesa County policy to assist a group of landowners with a “bulk” rezone, by waiving fees and assisting in the administrative process.

Deed Restrictions/Covenants WHO ENACTS IT: The individual landowner. HOW IT WORKS: If a landowner determines that a conservation easement is not an appropriate technique, since the owner would prefer not to deal with government or a nonprofit organization, a deed restriction or mutual covenant may be more acceptable. Mutual covenants are made between adjacent landowners restricting the use or development of the properties. They are different from easements since they are enforced through other landowners, not a government or nonprofit organization. As a result, enforcement is optional and depends on adjacent landowners taking court action. They are not perpetual and do not necessarily provide any tax relief. Covenants may include irrigation system maintenance, types of structures permitted, outdoor storage criteria, fencing, outbuildings etc. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 15

Home Owners Association WHO ENACTS IT:Generally, the developer (or legal council) prepares the covenants and residents of the subdivision or condominium complex agree in writing to comply when they purchase a home or property. HOW IT WORKS: A private organization of homeowners (all within the same subdivision or condominium complex) that are responsible for adhering to guidelines set forth in covenant developed specifically for the subdivision or condominium complex. Generally, a home owners association is governed by a board of directors selected from among members of the subdivision or condo complex. The board of directors is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the terms of the covenants. Fees typically are used to maintain community systems and enforce covenants.

Limited or Protective Development WHO ENACTS IT:The individual landowner. HOW IT WORKS: A property with high visual, agricultural or natural resource qualities may be developed in ways that protect the conservation values. This "protective" or limited development allows for the sensitive development of a portion of the property in exchange for the protection of the remainder. Usually the undeveloped portion is protected through a conservation easement. The reserved development sites are located so as not to interfere with the agricultural operation, wildlife habitat, scenic or other resource values. The value of these limited development sites is enhanced by the permanent protection of lands adjacent to them. Limited development permits the landowner to protect the conservation values of a property while achieving economic objectives through the creation and sale of a few sensitively located residential lots.

Building Envelope WHO ENACTS IT:The individual landowner. HOW IT WORKS: A designated site, identified in a conservation easement or plan, where construction may occur.

Design Guidelines WHO ENACTS IT:A group of landowners. HOW IT WORKS: Design guidelines illustrate what acceptable development in the community should look like and can be published by citizens’ groups or governmental bodies without the need for state enabling legislation. Such a publication can encourage voluntary efforts to design new buildings and development , or alterations to old buildings, to be compatible with the existing site and surroundings. Voluntary agricultural design guidelines could be used for incorporating new structures into historic patterns or complexes in landscape sensitive ways.

Conservation Easement WHO ENACTS IT: The individual landowner, in conjunction with a private non-profit land trust (local, national, or international) or a government agency. HOW IT WORKS: A conservation easement is a voluntary and permanent restriction limiting development of a property in order to protect conservation values. The easement can either be Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 16

purchased or donated to a land trust or a governmental entity. The easement is a recorded restriction in the property deed and therefore applies to all subsequent owners. The conservation easement is a flexible instrument which can limit development as much or as little as the landowner desires. A conservation easement is usually granted to a qualified nonprofit land trust or governmental entity which has the ability of monitoring and enforcing the terms of the easement. An easement is individually tailored to fit each property owners needs and desires. There is no such thing as a blanket or general conservation easement. A land trust is either a local organization such as the Mesa County Land Conservancy or part of a statewide or nation wide organization such as the Colorado Cattleman’s Trust or the Nature Conservancy. Except to the fact that the development rights have been limited by the terms of the easement, the landowner continues to own, use and manage the property. Since the donation of a conservation easement is treated as a charitable gift, the land owner is entitled to a charitable deduction on their income tax equal to the difference between the fair market value and the restricted value of the property. Since the easement reduces the value of the property, it can be an important tool in reducing estate tax liability for properties which have appreciated rapidly. With the conservation easement, the landowner retains full control over public access and management of the property.

REGULATORY TECHNIQUES

Zoning Zoning governs how land can be used in a community. WHO ENACTS IT: Local government. HOW IT WORKS: A power of local government, granted to them by the States (police power), to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents.

Overlay zone WHO ENACTS IT: Local government. HOW IT WORKS: Overlay zones are laid over existing zoning regulations. Targeted resources are inventoried in the community. The resources are mapped and identified as protection areas. Standards are developed and may include such things as building envelopes, clustering, specific setbacks from sensitive areas, etc.

Right-to-Farm Laws WHO ENACTS IT: State and/or local government. Mesa County has a Right to Farm and Ranch Policy HOW IT WORKS: A county right-to-farm and ranch policy protects agricultural enterprises from nuisance suits and complaints related to their activities. It gives constructive notice to residential landowners that agricultural practices in the area will continue and may odors, land use practices and transportation impacts that may affect residential living. A significant portion of a right to farm or ranch policy includes educational efforts. These efforts are manifest in publications such as Mesa County’s “Code of the West.” Routt, and Larimer County’s also have developed similar documents. Further, Mesa County has established a Agricultural Advisory Panel whose function is to act as an Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 17 arbitrator between parties of conflicting interests. The panel is designed to help parties avoid going to court to resolve disputes. Routt County also has a similar panel. To date, Mesa County’s panel has not had to respond to help resolve any disputes.

COOPERATIVE TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

Technical Assistance Team WHO ENACTS IT:Local landowners in conjunction with local government and local land trusts. HOW IT WORKS:An alternative approach to protect agricultural land by combining the expertise of planning, agricultural, and conservation disciplines to produce innovative alternatives. The team explores the use of limited development options, and analyze legal tax planning and ranching options to assist farming and ranching families.

Agricultural Districts WHO ENACTS IT: A group of landowners in conjunction with a local government. HOW IT WORKS: Farmers or ranchers voluntarily participate in a program that is initiated through cooperation between landowners and a local government. Typically, eligible land must be devoted to agriculture use of a certain kind and of a certain size (agreed upon by landowners and local government). Participants usually sign up for and receive benefits from the district in return for agreeing not to develop their land for specified period of time. Currently Colorado does not have state enabling legislation which allows creation of agricultural districts.

Overlays Districts, Site Plan Review, Performance Zoning --Sensitive lands WHO ENACTS IT: A group of landowners in conjunction with a local government. HOW IT WORKS: An overlay district defining agricultural, natural resource, flood plain, or visual resources is defined with either prohibitions on development in certain areas or performance/site plan criteria for development in the areas. The performance criteria encourage residential development on land which did not contain these special resources or in a manner which responded sensitively to these resources. Overlay zones are generally laid on top of existing zoning regulations. Common examples of overlay zones include flood plains and historic districts. Overlay zones allows a community to isolate and protect specific resources that are not covered in existing zoning regulations.

Historic District and Historic Site Review To identify a farming or ranching area (typically with productive land) and develop a package of incentives that make it more likely that farmers and ranchers within the area will participate in efforts to keep the land in agricultural production. WHO ENACTS IT: A group of landowners in conjunction with a local government. HOW IT WORKS: Historic districts and historic site review are well-established techniques for protection that apply elements of design review to significant historic resources. The ordinance may require a property owner to obtain approval through a review process before taking any action to alter their properties through demolition, exterior alterations, or new construction. In some instances Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 18 commercial or business zoning for a portion of the historic district is tailored to the historic character. Areas immediately outside of the district are encouraged to use clustering techniques to minimize the impact of residential development.

Rural ClusterDevelopment A technique to protect important natural, cultural, recreational, or agricultural features of a landscape by easement or deed restriction, while allowing new development on a part of the property at a higher than normal density for the given zone. WHO ENACTS IT:Local government in conjunction with developers. HOW IT WORKS: Cluster development groups or concentrates development on one or more portions of a site to permanently preserve other portions of the site. Instead of large lots, the cluster concept encourages small lots off of productive agricultural, scenic, or natural resource lands. Common open space is created which can be used for agricultural, recreation, or other purposes. This concept can be combined with conservation easements to permanently protect the open land (at least 40 years), which is created by the clustering of development. Generally, a cluster zone requires that 60 to 80% of the site remain open and often a density bonus is utilized to encourage landowners to utilize this technique. Mesa County is proposing to offer a density incentive of up to 40 percent if certain criteria are met. BEFORE DEVELOPMENT Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 19

AFTER CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT

Source: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy 1989

Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) A means to protect important resources in the community by acquiring the development rights or conservation easements to the land. WHO ENACTS IT:States and Local governments may create enabling legislation. HOW IT WORKS: This technique is utilized in many states and counties including Routt County. Routt County could purchase the development rights to prime agricultural land in order to keep it in ranching or undeveloped. Development rights would be sold on a voluntary basis. The value of those rights usually varies from 30% to 80% of the fair market value of the property. The landowner is able to obtain the equity or development value from the property, keep the land in productive agriculture, keep it in the family and pass it on to the next generation, and make needed capital investments with the proceeds. When development rights are purchased, the land is permanently restricted. PDR programs are generally funded by real estate transfer taxes, property taxes, sales taxes or some combination. The Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund may be available to fund such a program. Locally, Mesa County, Mesa County Land Conservancy, and multiple property owners Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A20 in Glade Park created an agricultural conservation easement using a bargain sale, and purchase of development rights. Money to help fund the project came from a Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) grant.

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) A tool to guide development away from significant undeveloped areas of a community and toward areas that are better able to accommodate growth. WHO ENACTS IT:Local government in conjunction with local developers. HOW IT WORKS: TDR is similar to PDR in that the landowner receives compensation for the development value of the land. However, once the TDR program is established by governmental action, the system relies on the free market transfer of development rights from the open land to development areas as opposed to govern-mental acquisition with PDR. In order for TDR to work effectively, both "sending" and "receiving" areas need to be identified. The sending" areas are the lands which are to be protected and the development rights from those areas can be sold to developers in identified "receiving" areas. The developers would be required to acquire development rights if they wanted to develop at greater densities than currently permitted. The transaction would take place between a willing buyer and seller so that the price for the development rights would be negotiated. Once the system is established, it can work effectively to redistribute development rights from open land to more urban areas. Establishing this system is extremely complex. This is a great concept, but it would require a significant effort to get it effectively implemented and tailored to Mesa County. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 21

Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 1989 Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 22

OTHER COMMONLY USED TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

Donation Donation provides long-term protection for private land by donating it to a private conservation organization or government agency. WHO ENACTS IT: The individual landowner in conjunction with a private non-profit conservation organization or government agency. HOW IT WORKS: The landowner transfers ownership of the land to a non-profit organization or government agency and in return receives a charitable gift tax deduction on state and federal taxes, capital gains taxes, or estate tax benefits. A landowner may donate the land with a reservation to use and stay on the land for life.

Donation with Reserved Life Estate WHO ENACTS IT: The individual landowner in conjunction with a private non-profit conservation organization or government agency. HOW IT WORKS A landowner may donate land to a public entity, but retain the use of all or a part of it during their lifetime or the lifetime of the immediate family.

Bargain Sale Provides permanent protection for land by selling it to a conservation organization or government agency at a price lower than market value. WHO ENACTS IT: The individual landowner in conjunction with a private non-profit conservation organization or government agency. HOW IT WORKS: A bargain sale is a combination gift and sale of a property to a governmental or nonprofit entity. The landowner receives the benefit of both cash income and a charitable gift deduction for the difference between the fair market value and the bargain price. In some cases the landowner and the receiving entity may negotiate an installment sale in which the property is transferred over a period of time. In additional the landowner may be eligible for income and capital gains tax deductions on the portion of land value that was donated.

Charitable Gift Annuity WHO ENACTS IT: The individual landowner in conjunction with a private non-profit conservation organization or government agency. HOW IT WORKS: A landowner may wish to donate a property to a governmental entity in return for an annuity payment to fund retirement in lieu of cash sale. Such an arrangement may have significant tax benefits for landowners who have held property for long periods.

Installment Purchase WHO ENACTS IT: The individual landowner in conjunction with a private non-profit conservation organization or government agency. HOW IT WORKS: An installment purchase is simply a purchase spread over a term of years to benefit both purchaser and seller. An interest rate is built into each installment payment and one of the benefits of selling to a public entity is that the interest may be tax exempt, further increasing the sellers return. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 23

Rolling Option WHO ENACTS IT: A conservation organization or government agency in conjunction with an individual landowner or private organization. HOW IT WORKS: A rolling option is a series of options to buy portions of a property and thus extend the purchase over a period of years. Rolling options are frequently used by public entities that do not have sufficient funds for a fair market purchase, but can expect an annual appropriation for a portion of the sales price. Generally, the least attractive portion of the property is sold first so that there is incentive for the public entity to complete the full purchase once the rolling option period begins.

Bridge Financing/Land Trust WHO ENACTS IT: A private non-profit land trust HOW IT WORKS: A number of land trusts, such as the Trust for Public Land acquire lands for public entities and then resell to the public agency on terms which are beneficial to the public. Often a land trust can move quickly and creatively to acquire property, particularly where the owner must sell the property within a short time frame or the property is threatened with development.

Land Exchange or Trade WHO ENACTS IT: An exchange or trade offer may be initiated by an individual, private organization, or a government agency. HOW IT WORKS: Public entities often have surplus lands, which can be traded for private lands. The tax consequences of the land exchanges or trades can be very beneficial to the private landowner. They are also beneficial for the public entity since funds for acquisition may be in short supply. Land trades may become consuming and may require a high level of complexity, but can be extremely beneficial for both parties.

Cash Purchase WHO ENACTS IT: The individual landowner. HOW IT WORKS: Cash purchase at the fair market value is generally the preferred option for most landowners selling property to private non-profit land trusts or public entities. While in many instances obtaining cash payment yields the greatest return to the landowner, capital gains and other taxes may significantly reduce net return and make other types of transactions more attractive.

Estate Planning WHO ENACTS IT: Individual landowner. HOW IT WORKS: The combined impact of federal and state inheritance laws may require large landowning families to sell their ranch or property just to pay estate taxes. These taxes can amount to 55% or more of the value of the property and with the recent rapid escalation in land values it may require sophisticated estate planning to minimize estate tax liability. Proper estate planning can reduce or eliminate estate taxes and keep the property in the family. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 24

Purchase with Resale WHO ENACTS IT: A private non-profit land trust or government entity. HOW IT WORKS: A procedure by which a charitable organization or government entity buys an unrestricted parcel, imposes a restriction on it, and then resells or leases it.

Installment sale WHO ENACTS IT: The individual landowner in conjunction with local government or private non- profit land trust. HOW IT WORKS: A sale in which an entire property is gradually transferred to another owner. Also refers to a sale in which the price is paid in specific amounts over a period of time until the sale price is paid.

Land Banking A growth management tool used to protect environmentally significant lands by acquiring and temporarily holding land. WHO ENACTS IT: Local government HOW IT WORKS: A process by which a local government acquires some undeveloped properties in a community. Each property is “deposited” in a land bank where it is held until the local government decides to put it on the market. By timing the sale of the bank’s different properties, the local government officials can influence the rate, location, and type of growth. The land bank can also be used to help discourage speculation and keep down the price of land by preventing a group of private inventors from acquiring a monopoly on developable land.

Conservation Reserve Program WHO ENACTS IT: Individual farmer or rancher. HOW IT WORKS: Referred to and the CRP, the conservation reserve program solicits bids from farmers who volunteer to convert erodible crop land to permanent vegetative cover in return for annual rental payments from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Fields with a predominance of highly erodible land are eligible.

Colorado Natural Areas Program Special Designation A program to draw attention to resources of exceptional natural and cultural value by providing them with special recognition. WHO ENACTS IT: Individuals request or others may nominate/suggest a special designation of the State Department of Natural Resources. The individual retains ownership of the land. HOW IT WORKS: Exceptional natural and cultural features on public and private lands are identified and recorded. Any person or group may nominate a site for identification and recording. Mominated sites are referred to the Natural Areas Council for registration. From the registered sites the Natural Area Council selects some of the best sites for designation. Designated sites may receive technical or financial assistance or management support for the landowner. There are Natural Areas Programs in all 50 states.

National Register of Historic Places WHO ENACTS IT: The Federal Government (Administered by the National Park Service) in conjunction with the local landowner. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 25

HOW IT WORKS: The program is a NPS planning tool, and includes sites of local, regional or national importance. Sites are evaluated on their age, importance, and degree of integrity.

Natural Historic Landmark Program WHO ENACTS IT: The Federal Government (Administered by the National Park Service) in conjunction with the local landowner. HOW IT WORKS: The program recognizes, identifies, designates, and protects buildings, structures, sites, and objects of “national significance.” The landowner receives recognition but does not give up any right to his/her property. Public access is not required.

Land and Water Conservation Fund A planning tool to expand or improve public outdoor recreation opportunities, infrastructure, or facilities. The program provides funds for park improvements, or land acquisition. WHO ENACTS IT: The Federal government in conjunction with state and local governments. HOW IT WORKS:

Conservation Reserve Program WHO ENACTS IT: The individual landowner in conjunction with the Federal government. HOW IT WORKS: The federal government provides payment to farmers for voluntary agreements to remove highly erodible crop land from production. The result is conservation of soil and water and protecting or enhancing wildlife habitat. Colorado has almost 2 million acres enrolled in this program.

Farmers Home Adminsistration Section 118 Debt Restructuring and Conservation Set-Aside Program WHO ENACTS IT: The individual landowner in conjunction with the Federal government. HOW IT WORKS: Under this voluntary system the Farmers Home Administration forgives delinquent farm debt on wetlands and highly erodible land in exchange for placing conservation easement restrictions on the property. The easements prohibit plowing, draining, or splitting the land for non-agricultural purposes. For a farmer to qualify, the loan must have closed prior to December 23, 1985 (the date of the Food Security Act).

? Recreation and Public Purposes Act” Title 43 Public Lands § 869, 1-4 WHO ENACTS IT: The Department of the Interior (specifically Bureau of Land Management) in conjunction with local government or private non-profit land trusts. HOW IT WORKS: The Department of Interior transfers public land (sell or lease) to a qualifying entity showing the land has historic-monument purposes or recreational purposes. Leases may be for as long as twenty years at a nominal or reasonable rate and have the privilege for renewal for the same period. Public lands identified for sale or lease must be near a municipal corporation in the same state. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 26

Public Land Transfer Act forthcoming WHO ENACTS IT: HOW IT WORKS:

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficency Act (ISTEA) Pronounced “iced tea” WHO ENACTS IT: State and local government in conjunction with private non-profit land trusts, private organizations, or other groups. HOW IT WORKS: The transportation enhancement provision of the ISTES strives to improve the nation’s transportation system by providing special funding for scenic, environment, and historic preservation activities within the nation’s transportation corridors. The program reauthorizes the federal transportation program. The Act allocates funds to the states to expand and maintain the federal highway system and conduct other transportation planning and improvement projects.

SOME RELEVANT DEFINITIONS

Annuity A fixed annual payment bsed on an investment and duration of payments

Appraisal A professionally determined estimate of the value of a property based on sales of comparable property or a property’s income potential

Appraiser Qualified An IRS term for an appraiser who does appraisals for charitable deductions.

Basis An IRS term referring to the cost of property at the time of acquisition or when it is inherited, plus the cost of certain permanent improvements.

Beneficiary The person designated to receive the proceeds from a will, trust, or insurance policy.

Benefitted parcel land located near property subject to a deed restriction. The benefitted parcel is typically retained by the owner.

Building Envelope A designated site, identified in a conservation easement or plan, where construction may occur.

Bundle of Rights A term used to describe all of the rights of property ownership. Each possible right ( the right to mine, build, cut timber, use for a residence, transfer, lease etc.) often is compared to a bundle of sticks, each of which may be transferred to given up separately.

Charitable contribution the tax deductible transfer of money or property to a qualified organization or government agency.

Conservation easement a legal agreement, usually between a landowner and a conservation organization or agency, that limits the uses and land use changes an owner may make. Typically, Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 27 the holder of the easement agrees monitor the property and enforce the limitations.

Conservation plan A document outlining the goals, methods, and strategies for preserving a property.

Covenant (restriction) A written agreement contained in a contract, lease, deed or other form of agreement. A conservation covenant or restriction is generally written to remain in effect despite changes in ownership.

Current Use Classification A property tax category that assesses tax rates based on a property's existing use value rather than its potential use value.

Deed A legal document by which property ownership is transferred from one owner to another.

Easement A right that one has in the land of another.

Easement holder A nonprofit organization, charitable corporation, or government agency that assumes long-term responsibility for monitoring and enforcing a conservation easement.

Estate One’s property and possessions at the time of death.

Estate tax A federal and state tax imposed on assets transferred from a deceased person to his/her heirs.

Eminent Domain The right of government to take private property for public purpose upon payment of just compensation.

Fee Simple A legal term that means the owner has acquired unconditional control of all interests in the property. Frequently considered ownership.

Fair Market Value The price a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both being fully knowledgeable of relevant factors.

Forever wild a conservation designation that ensures that land will remain in its most natural state.

Greenway a term used to describe linked, open, usually linear space that generally consists of a trail corridor or river protection zone.

Highest and best use The most profitable legal use to which a parcel of land is likely to be put. Highest and best use often determines market value.

In perpetuity Forever. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 28

Installment sale a sale in which an entire property is gradually transferred to another owner. Also refers to a sale in which the price is paid in specific amounts over a period of time until the sale price is paid.

Land trust are local, state, or regional nonprofit organizations that directly protect land for its natural, recreational, scenic, historical, or productive value.

Leverage the term used to describe the positive effect of putting up a portion of a parcel's purchase price, or of negotiating a land gift, in attracting other funds or gifts to a land acquisition project.

Limited Development Building or development that does not interfere with a land's conservation value. Portions of a property that are not developed are typically restricted with conservation easements.

Open Land An undeveloped tract of land that provides scenic, ecological, or recreational values. It may in some cases/areas be a current use tax classification.

Option A legal agreement in which a seller of land gives a potential buyer the exclusive right to buy land at a set price for a period of time.

Partial Interest A deeded right or share in the ownership of land.

Public benefits the values; scenic, recreational, ecological, cultural, historic that people derive from protected property.

Register of Critical Areas Colorado’s official list of sites significant to the state’s natural heritage and whose owners have agreed to pursue voluntary conservation options.

Resource Inventory A professional analysis of a property’s flora, fauna, and valuable natural features.

Resource Management Easement An easement that permits specified traditional uses such as farming or timber harvesting while protecting the land's natural values.

Right of First Refusal A commitment that a landowner makes to offer a property to a specified individual or organization at the same terms as those in a future bona fied offer.

Scenic easement An easement that protects the aesthetic values of a landscape or viewshed.

Stewardship A long term responsibility for the care and management of land.

Tax Delinquent Land Land is acquired from tax foreclosure (tax payment default) Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 29

Trustee A person appointed to administer the affairs of a company, institution foundation or charitable entity.

Undivided Interest A percentage of the fee interest in an entire property owned jointly with one or more other parties. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 30

Traffic model developed for the Reeder Mesa, Purdy Mesa, Upper Kannah Creek, and Upper Lands End Road subarea of the Whitewater/Kannah Creek Plan.

The following narrative describes the traffic model developed for the Reeder Mesa, Purdy Mesa, Upper Kannah Creek, and Upper Lands End Road subarea of the Whitewater/Kannah Creek Plan. Included in this modeling narrative are the method, area and road segment descriptions, assumptions, and results of the modeling work.

This traffic generation study is founded on the conviction that transportation planning is inextricable from land use planning. Based on this belief, three alternative build out scenarios--low, medium, and high--were modeled. The results will provide quantitative measures of impacts from each of the build out scenarios. Modeling results will also provide measures that can be used to estimate potential impact fees, evaluate the need for future roads, or road design standards. Finally, the results will help the Regional Transportation Planning Office staff to evaluate the impact from multiple access points along State Highway 50.

The modeling site (the subarea) is approximately 225 parcels of private land totaling about 5,700 acres. There are five county roads that serve the area; Kannah Creek, Upper Kannah Creek, Divide Road, Upper Purdy Mesa Road, and Lands End Road. These five roads are classified as rural secondary.

The subarea was divided into zones based on three factors: 1) the best location on an existing road to project an Average Daily Trip (ADT), at build out, 2) the terrain in the area, and 3) the most logical route for residents traveling to and from Highway 50.

When available, existing traffic counts were compared to estimated traffic volumes to produce an approximation of impact due to new development.

A daily rate of ten trips per household, which is the same as the Urban Area rate, was used in the modeling. The rate could be more or less in the modeled area; however, without a area specific travel survey the figures provide the best available estimate.

Through trips were not accounted for in this analysis. Through trips are trips made by people traveling from Highway 50 to Grand Mesa via Lands End Road. It is difficult to estimate what that number will be in future years. If the road were paved, a lot more tourist traffic than we have today could be expected.

Extensive knowledge of the subarea’s topography, and road network was used to make estimates about travel that originated from specific locations and travel routes. A description of the roads and trip estimates originating in the traffic zones are as follows:

Kannah Creek Road Lower Kannah Creek Road begins where Lower Kannah Creek Road enters the subarea. Upper Kannah Creek Road begins at the split of Lower Kannah Creek Road and Lands End Road. Projected ADT on Lower Kannah Creek Road (west of intersection with Lands End Road), reflects a ten percent reduction from the total ADT generated by all households in the study area (all 8 Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 31 zones). This reduction accounts for the number of generated trips that never leave the study area (intra-area trips).

Reeder Mesa Road The projected traffic using Reeder Mesa Road is based on the traffic generated from properties in Zone 5. All these properties would likely take access from Reeder Mesa Road. Traveling to Highway 50 would be shorter via Reeder Mesa Road. An estimate for a token amount of traffic traveling to Reeder Mesa Road from Lands End Road was included in the model, but these trips are intra-area only. It is doubtful that many motorist from the Purdy Mesa/Kannah Creek zones would use Reeder Mesa Road to travel to Highway 50.

Divide Road Traffic originating from property along Divide Road can access Highway 50 via Purdy Mesa Road, the lower segment of Lands End Road by way of Upper Reeder Mesa Road, or the lower section of Upper Kannah Creek Road. Historic traffic counts on either end of Divide Road show some disparity in their numbers. In 1992, at Divide Road, 317 ADT were recorded, while east of Purdy Mesa Road in 1994, 103 ADT were recorded. It is possible that: 1) there is a lot more traffic traveling between Divide Road and Kannah Road than suspected, 2) when counts are low, it doesn’t take a very big traffic generator (for example a special event) to create such an anomaly, or 3) a traffic count was in error.

Lands End Road Lands End Road begins from a split of Lower Kannah Creek Road about one mile from the intersection of Lower Kannah Creek Road and Highway 50. Lands End Road is a primary access road to the top of the Grand Mesa. It is also closed seasonally (November 15 to April 15 to protect wildlife. Thru trips made by people traveling from Highway 50 to Grand Mesa via Lands End Road are difficult to determine with confidence without actual traffic counts. It is difficult to estimate what that number will be in future years. If the road were paved, a lot more tourist traffic than we have today could be expected.

Scenario # 1. Recommended build out densities for this scenario are 1dwelling unit (DU) per 20 acres except along Purdy Mesa Road and Lower Lands End Road where there is a potential build out of 1 DU per 5 acres (zone 7&8). The results of the modeling indicate that a total of 4,847 ADTs are generated (table 1), (figure T 1). Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 32

Table 1. Scenario # 1 Scenario # 1 Traffic Acres Zone per zone Acres # of Per 1 DU DUs ADT * 1 421 20 21.05 210.5 2 1420 20 71 710 3 700 20 35 350 4 416 20 20.8 208 5 729 20 36.45 364.5 6 643 20 32.15 321.5 7 687 5 137.4 1374 8 654 5 130.8 1308 Totals 5,670 484.65 4,846.5

* ADT equals the number of dwelling units (DU) times ten trips per day generated by every DU Existing Data on Average Daily Trips Year ADT Reeder Mesa Rd West of Lands End Rd. 1997 45 Kannah Creek Rd E of Divide Rd 1992 317 Kannah Creed Rd E of Purdy Mesa Rd 1994 103 Lands End Rd N of Kannah Creek Rd 1994 82 Kannah Creek Rd W of Lands End Rd 1997 385 Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 33

Figure T 1 Reeder Mesa, Purdy Mesa, Upper Kannah Creek, and Upper Lands End Road Subarea

Average Daily TripsTraffic Model

Reeder Mesa Rd. Existing 1997 45 ADT Buildout 100 ADT

Lands End Rd. Existing N/A Buildout 550 ADT 4

Purdy Mesa Rd. Existing N/A Reeder Mesa Rd. Buildout 350 ADT Existing N/A Buildout 400 ADT

5 3

2 Kannah Creek Rd. 7 Existing 385 ADT Buildout 3500 ADT Kannah Creek Rd. 6 Existing 1992 317 ADT 8 Buildout 710 ADT

Kannah Creek Rd. Existing 1994 103 ADT Buildout 2400 ADT

H County Roads w y State Roads 5 0 Traffic zones Upper Kannah Creek Subarea Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 34

Scenario # 2. Recommended build out densities for this scenario are 1 DU per 20 acres. The results of the modeling indicate that a total of 2,835 ADTs are generated (table 2) (figure T 2).

Table 2. Scenario 2.

Scenario # 2 Traffic Acres Acres # of Zone Per 1 DU DUs ADT 1 421 20 21 211 2 1,420 20 71 710 3 700 20 35 350 4 416 20 21 208 5 729 20 36 365 6 643 20 32 322 7 687 20 34 344 8 654 20 33 327 Totals 5,670 284 2,835

* ADT equals the number of DU times ten trips per day generated by every DU Existing Data on Average Daily Trips Year ADT Reeder Mesa Rd West of Lands End Rd. 1997 45 Kannah Creek Rd E of Divide Rd 1992 317 Kannah Creed Rd E of Purdy Mesa Rd 1994 103 Lands End Rd N of Kannah Creek Rd 1994 82 Kannah Creek Rd W of Lands End Rd 1997 385 Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 35

Figure T 2 Reeder Mesa, Purdy Mesa, Upper Kannah Creek, and Upper Lands End Road Subarea

Average Daily TripsTraffic Model

Reeder Mesa Rd. Existing 1997 45 ADT Buildout 100 ADT

Lands End Rd. Existing N/A Buildout 550 ADT 4

Purdy Mesa Rd. Existing N/A Buildout 350 ADT

Reeder Mesa Rd. Existing N/A Buildout 400 ADT

5 3

Kannah Creek Rd. 2 Existing 385 ADT 7 Buildout 2500 ADT Kannah Creek Rd. 6 Existing 1992 317 ADT Buildout 710 ADT 8

Kannah Creek Rd. Existing 1994 103 ADT Buildout 1248 ADT

County Roads

H State Roads w y Traffic zones 5 0 Upper Kannah Creek Subarea Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 36

Scenario # 3. Recommended build out densities for this scenario are 1 DU per 35 acres. The results of the modeling indicate that a total of 1,620 ADTs are generated (table 3) (figure T 3).

Table 3. Scenario # 3 Scenario # 3 Acres Acres # of Zone Per 1 DU DUs ADT 1 421 35 12 120 2 1,420 35 41 406 3 700 35 20 200 4 416 35 12 119 5 729 35 21 208 6 643 35 18 184 7 687 35 20 196 8 654 35 19 187 Totals 5,670 162 1,620

A comparison of the three alternatives is depicted in table 4.

Table 4. Cross comparison

Cross comparison Scenario # 1 Scenario # 2 Scenario # 3 Traffic Acres Zone per zone Acres # of Acres Acres # of Acres Acres # of Per 1 DU DUs ADT * Per 1 DU DUs ADT Per 1 DU DUs ADT 1 421 20 21 211 421 20 21 211 421 35 12 120 2 1,420 20 71 710 1,420 20 71 710 1,420 35 41 406 3 700 20 35 350 700 20 35 350 700 35 20 200 4 416 20 21 208 416 20 21 208 416 35 12 119 5 729 20 36 365 729 20 36 365 729 35 21 208 6 643 20 32 322 643 20 32 322 643 35 18 184 7 687 5 137 1,374 687 20 34 344 687 35 20 196 8 654 5 131 1,308 654 20 33 327 654 35 19 187 Totals 5,670 485 4,847 5,670 284 2,835 5,670 162 1,620

Reeder Mesa, Purdy Mesa, Figure T 3 Upper Kannah Creek, and Upper Lands End Road Subarea

Average Daily TripsTraffic Model

Lands End Rd. Existing N/A Buildout 319 ADT Reeder Mesa Rd. Existing 1997 445 ADT Buildout 75 ADT

Reeder Mesa Rd. Existing N/A Buildout 250 ADT Purdy Mesa Rd. Existing N/A Buildout 200 ADT

5 3

2 Kannah Creek Rd. 7 Existing 1997 385 ADT Buildout 1500 ADT 6 8

1 Kannah Creek Rd. Existing 1992 317 ADT Kannah Creek Rd. Buildout 406 ADT Existing 1994 103 ADT Buildout 500 ADT

H w y 5 0 County Roads State Roads Traffic zones Upper Kannah Creek Subarea