HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Correspondence,AJ-.!=>D 1tJ: UH FROM ICr4 GLEhII'OOD 9455-a48 P.A?
GARF, to%ou Nry su RVE'ET t orrr cE
AUGUST 23, 1995
D]RECTOR
PERTAINING TO T.TOUNTAIN MBADOJ{S AT PRINCB CRBEK.
0N Aucusr zj rges r RECEI\rBD A TETTER rRoM KEN r{rlsox. p,L.s. 0r ssIMUgsER, GoRDoN,t'tEYER, INc. STATING TI{AT As PART OF THE llPR0VAtr PRoCESs troR TtlB 480\rs nirfnCUCfOSUBDMSIoN I:IG couNTY PI.ANNTNG DEPARTMEHT HAS ASKED trOR rfy OPINION ON :TIIE Bfi,NDARYoF rHE PLAT ebmrcuous m rlrg cARuErD/prrKrN couNfy IINE. r{rrgour coNDUcrrNG AN
INDEPENDENT SUNWY. I WOULD SAY THAT T}IE INFORI,IATION PRESENTED BY KBN .}PPEARS TO BBSUFFICIXNT IN f,@ATING 1fi8 COUNTY LTNE.
I
sHouLD vou xevt ury OUBSTIONS, PLEASB FEBL
GARFIBLD COUNTT PLANNTNG D8PT.
109 EI6}ITH STREEf
ctnNt+ooD spRrn&s, co.81601 i
I
AT?N: MR.
RE: COUNTY
KlN'dILSON, P.:I.S.
118 U. Otf, Sr-i
GLElin'OOD SPRINGS, CO.
8160 1
SBN? VIA
EOUIiTY SURVEYOR FILES
AS G.IRFTELD COI,NTY SURVEYOR
Ccunty C:unhouse Btdg.
ri'? Ei,lrtr ': .:-
Somuel Phetps
Gomeii Ccunry Surveycr
Privole Office
./ iL - -,^>1-^ \t'Oa: \ic / I
-:-,. --^
TO GIVE ME A CAIL.
October 2, 1995
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Director
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek
Dear Mark,
I have reviewed the survey inforaation subroitted by Ken Wilson
of Schmuese,r Gordon Meyer on the above ref,erenced project. I agree
with their position as to the establishment and monumentation of
the Garfield-Pitkin County Line in the vicinity of this
subdivision.
If you have any questions, please
920-5206.
Sincerely,
Tim Mal1oy, Acti-ng Director of Community Development
Tom fsaac, Assessor
Pitkin County Public Works
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, Colorado 8.l6'l I
(303) 920-s3e0
Fax: (303) 920-5374
feel free to contact me at
Debbie Quinn, Assistant
Heather Jernberg DP/GIS
Stan Berrlanan, Director
County Attorney
of Pub1ic Works (w/o attachnent)
B.w. {1r/'r, ,,
HluRr I[rrLSoN 5, HA*O*r
ATTOHNEYS AT LAW
210 TENTH STREET
GLENWOOO SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE (970) 928-965s
FACSTMTLE (970) 928-9680
July 3. 1996
John R. Schenk. Esq.
Schenk Kerst & deWinter
302 Eighth Street
Glenw'ood Springs, CO 81601
RE:
Dear John:
Lots I -7 of Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision
I have been informed by my client, David Hicks, that his offer of purchase of Lots 1-7 of
Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision from Mrs. Allen has been rejected and that
negotiations in this connection have been effectively terminated.
In the circumstance and assuming that Mrs. Allen intends to proceed with development of
the property under the existing approvals of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County,
Colorado, i have been directed to advise you and the County staff of the fact that the drainage plan
comprising a significant aspect of this approved subdivision deveiopment requires an easement over
my ciient's property, which easement nor any right thereto does not exist and fuither, that the
proposed drainage plan , as it would affect the Hicks'property, is entirely unacceptable to them.
The Hicks obviously have no means of knowing whether Mrs. Allen has devised an alternate
drainage plan which does not affect, impact or require an easement across the Hicks'properfy, but
they do wish to reaffirm their previously stated position with respect to the drainage plan disclosed
for the subdivision as presently approved.
Yours very truly,
GERALO D. HARTERT
RONALD il. WILSON
THOtlAS J. HARTERT
Gerald D. Hartert
GDH/pc
xc: Mark Bean. Garfield County Planning Dept.
Donald DeFord. Garfield County Attorney
Mr. and Mrs. David Hicks
SCHENK, KERST & deWINTER, P.C"
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 310, 302 EIGHTH STREET
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (97O) 945-2447
TELECOPIER: (970) 945-2440
JOHN R. SCHENK
DAN KERST
WILLIAM J. deWINTER, III
July 10, 1996
Gerald D. Hartert
Hartert Wilson Hartert & Christensen
210 Tenth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision
Dear Jerry:
This letter responds to your letter of July 3, 1996. I have reviewed the contents of your letter with
Dr. and Mrs. Allen. They agree that Mr. Hicks' offer of purchase of Lots 1 through 7 has been terminated.
For your information, during the course of the subdivision approval process, both Dr. Allen and
Debbie Duley of Schmueser Gordon Meyer confirmed to me that drainage easements were available from
Mr. and Mrs. Hicks in exchange for a roadway access easement which they desired. It is obvious from the
tone of your letter that Mr. and Mrs. Hicks now object to any grant of any drainage easement across their
property and, therefore, the exchange of easements necessarily fails.
Schmueser Gordon Meyer will revise the drainage plan so that no new drainage impacts created by
this development will cross lands owned by your ciients. This will be possible by using the combination of
drainage retention on the Allen property and enhancement of other existing drainage structures on the
property owned by the Allens which do not flow onto the Hicks' property.
In connection with the due diligence process which you conducted for Mr. and Mrs. Hicks, I
delivered certain original docurnents, including *re ori.ginal Preliminary Plan Submittal. Please return'&ose
docurnents as soon as reasonably convenient. We wolld also inquire as to the location of the telescope which
was a part of the transaction, the possession of which was obtained by Mr. Hicks. We will endeavor to
arrange for its pick up as well.
Very truly yours,
JOHN R. SCHENK
JRS/clhcc: Dr. and Mrs" Wilmer C. Allen
Mark Bean
Don DeFord
Dean Gordon
JUL il 096
GAtrE-D 6rrrY
o
BrmaCanrounar,n &r, Fmn
July 11,1996
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Water Storage, Mountain Meadows a
Mark,
I have been contacted by Debbie Duley wrth
tank for Mountain Meadows at Prince Cree
recommended a 16,000 gallon underground
not a standard size, but 15,000 gallons tanks
aoceptable.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
I)rsrmcr
300 Meadowood Drive
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 963-2491
Fax: (970) 963-0569
Prince Creek
ueser Gordon Meyer regarding the water storage
During my review of the preliminary plan, I
She has advised me that 16,000 gallon tanks are
. I told her that a 15,000 gallon tank would be
wu"b-
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
cc: Debbie Duley, Schmueser Gordon
SILT
Flmno / lur
Jul y
Devld Hlckr
Crrbondrl cco 81623
REr Blopr 6teb111ty, Eart
Dlrar Davt d s
At your requcrt, I vllitrdyour cast to evalr-ratc what
Lampiris, Ph.D.
TrN(i GEOLO6t5T
o. BOx 2
81552
'rr"-aoo,
(74 HouFS)
, 1?96
dtry of Rrnch
out IOO to ll0 feat of your frncro control run-off h,ttrr from much of
ht rntry roed towerd thclr Lot U 1rI toward tht: rotrntlon fltturrl at
hr lra nerr thr nrr+ drvrl opmrnt to:fast thr new wrtor rctantlon frrturrheva. Ar you l<nox, a lox four foqtncar your boundary ltnc rnlgh
9a" has brcn plecrd atonlItnc in ah apperent ettnmptthc cubdtvt:ion.
It appeers thet xatcr fronb:lng ctptured and dlrect
wcl I lt ruater f ram other prrto b: no outlet for thirpereolrtlon. At pranent Ioxp;ctad to acsuoulata ln ttha tnglnecrlng ftrm hes thlend har drrlgnod rccordlngly
Thlr hevlng bcen rald, I muror fallure of the den willHowev;rr parreletlon o{ en"pond' go slo:e to yourthere coulc, tcad to unstsblovorlying material 1r gilt:rivar tcrrace. UnderEvaporite, elthourgh I couldtha hlllside above your lerllkely to be romctlhere arthc brrc of thr httlrtdc.
Vl ri bi I { ty ert3 poor duc to tor reccnt rlunptng war {
c af tht rubdivirion. Thrre .ppiaraxltrr, othlr then evrporrtlon rndno drta on thc emount of waterr r.tcntlon itructura but f rrrunldate for tho IOO yeer run-off ,yrnt
ettuflrr that overtopplng of thG drmnot occur 11 the drlign l: corrrct.txclg; anolrnt of yntar from thitrnd thc rdJaccnt rt;rp hlllslde
rnrponslbln lrrtgation pracficlds of thr pretrnt dnvclo:rturetlon of the=a typcr ofcrn crcete unrtebl: glopir.{actg known to mc rt prceenta euprrsaturetton of thrthrrcby ltadtng to potrntlrltlumping downslope. Thlt coueftrr extenel ve irri getlon.lrrge Ella Irrlgatton nftch n
conditlonr on that htll!ldr. Thesandsl end cobblcr trf e Ouatorn.ryir probrbly tht Eeglo Vel ltyfincl outcropplngr o{ thtt untt onlrrlgation d1tch. Thtt contrtrt lrhelf r.ry to naerly ell thr ney to
vrgrt:tlon but no ercel ef ectivcTht; probably ettortr to hlctorlciccr ai not ovcr-lrrlgrtlng thernt, becaute fiy rxprrlancr ir thrtrrlal 1n thte topogr:phlc rrttlngTho por;l bi I I ty rx I rtr, wl thl n throf thr retpntlon ttructurt caurlnglnconlol l datrcl drperl tr brl sur 1t rlnrtrbility and porrlbla tlldlng ord occur a{ter e wet aprlng or rvrnrlump would negetlvcly affrst thr
{ft,'. :,
l0d 100
thr ber o{ thr rlopr.
l0:01 ea-J0-S66i
C
t
I
I
I
I
At thlr polnt I do not k whrt the altarnrtlvar err but theymay lncludc dlrecting thirrxit point rultablr to allduc to conrtructlon o{ lopor
ag roldt, homllr .tc. r th
turcd rater by ditch to a rafrr
OncGrncd. lt nhould bG notcd thrt.
ll rrlrt ln tho drwrloprornt rr.rchrun-cr++ ur{ I I bc arerttr by so,nepercentage, whtch the ongl t can dirclort to you.
Although ovortopping of thr ir thcorrticrlly pooaiblr I donot thlnk this i- likcly aLrre the engtneerr have, I .flr rura,
Ity rnd hrvt r rcrronrblr frctor ofvo thlr rlpcct vGrl.fltd yourrelf tf
crl cul etad f or thl s poml bt
tl. Florc ltkcly ic tha potrntialfor rrturrtion of thc rollt,dapcndlng on prr-cxt.ttng qonditiont
r by conductlng e frctor of refrtyenal yrl r. I f th.rre rre f ur quastlont coflt.ct {nt.
Sl ncerel y,
N!,cholal LamFtrir
Conrultinq Bcologlrt
sefcty built lnt you rnGyyou Hlrh by chrcking thair
of rrrtnesr of thc mrterlgaotechnicrl flrn cGn Gv6ttf lt hri not rlrlrdy becn
rc / /t b
Ie f u'-^
, rnd cubroquent inrtrblffty. A
tc thlr porlblllty qurntltatlvrly,
54 / 4aoal
)ta c/€
(/c {a f f/-, ,t
t-<,7/ C->-r /4h,
/ 7 -'-,-,r.n /,Lo/ La
t5o'tr2
lz>
)-f { f o'" I
,l
Lc*. 1/t 'z / c
/lu
,/* / //+ r(l )*
/.<- L< 4, ,,a 29fh,g L/ L-{grqrtraaP
L\ /L(z " Li 4< l?t
,)
a0d t00 ts0:01 ea-l0-9661
oo
I$,8ffi
JI-tyy*]f,.
GAtrlEl_D COuhrrY
_
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
Garfield County
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
August 2, L996
Dear Mark,
AE the reguest of David Hicks, I am writing this letter regarding the
retention pond being built by Dr. & I'irs. William Al1en on the MounEain Meadows
Subdivision. This pond, if it..t.n{" wat.er, and it appears that it wiI1, may
contribute directl-y to the loss of tHe EIIa Ditch Ehat runs along the hillside
to the west of it. In the past, irriJation water from the pond area has
contributed to t.he slumping of the hlgh side bank of Uhe EI1a Ditch. This
sliding of material from above into dne diEch has as times in the past dammed
up the EIIa Ditch, causing it to *."{ o.rt it's lower bank and wash material
into my fields be1ow. This resulted in lost production and irrigation u6age
from the E1la Ditch by all it's user{. This slumping or sliding was the
result of water coming from the fiel$s on the old Arbaney place just above.
If these fields were over-irrigated {t all or if recent rain caused the fie}ds
to sat.urate with water, the waler would percolate down Eo the bank of the EIIa
and cause this damage.
I believe that building this tention pond is not a sound idea due Lo
sort of damage when it catches waterthe fact that it may cause this same
run-off from the Mountain Meadows S vision. I urgenEly request that you
take some action regarding this prob em as soon as possible as the pond is
being built. at this time.
I owned this ranch
problem several times. I
location due Eo the past
past.
many, many years and have seen this
to any sorE of pond or lake at this
If you have any questions feel
Thank you,
property f
would be
experiences that f have seen in this area in years
free to contact me.
/-'--\,4
_/-/,/
a -L-r'//za*ri'i";.; ;. ce
9 53 -2534
CC:Mrs. Marion Smith
Mr. Bucky Arbaney
Mr. Arnold Mackley
Mr. David Hicks
970 963 2t40. ^a $v. JUUJoeu
?r lw
PhilitrtOqrtut
ffiddCounttCobrdo
109 tth SEt ct
Olsr,odsFirr$ CO tt60l
Atmioo: MEIIIE
ht&.8cu
Ar yan rr rclrrlr I o tc o*trr DAf sd$6 to drcsly db llormir
IttdsrraPrbolCbclsubdivi-c. As Ir rb rr-r, I pw*nrly ot{coib tb &&1:
dr orytlrytFof tugotrd &E thc tcrca 6r ctnaslbliou of rbo
liruictlly tlltlcc dniqle Am ib FpGt, m d ru ry lEoFty wrdd br/cpmUy drri0crc drsre 6crr qpoa Fotrrt, rodfa lb firfurrlorLlr&ger/r
oflt r$divida ip D crraarfurtlc drriorjr aor my poopcrty.
tbmrE arybaiafuodtrtr o?!r i!d. to rrYir tb prrvbudy
P-Olt, c
fiE tb. nDd'virbiuo ro ffiiE tcLotio
tbow boutdrt ofeprcprtis lhrv"
r b liD6olr Lnnirir 6c frlcis rctril*
bf DEGvlh-Ddc{bcrrc!ut od otr Elb Ditt rfricL crcr Ey Forat,nd:traod.ad srr ldro$D.d by Tm luftbull.od
Ir&. t$rtLrporiUnsitbr rqcr othir cnluaba oftb ponfuI.ft.o
of b rtlhd tiDrjl pln o rI pupcny tu Ftb DtrjL d I dfor . 6gt of& rqcr
fuf,qrffiia Tlrilrqotarbh rbr fu r:rird hirfc ela eoptifuctathri&cmfi1trcbry;rlFttuOiaf pnr illq D cldiDlb filricrl
dtb.Elbffirhaob3lqrb rgp:ora duccAoUc drrh8t pb
Ir ir oUuitxn ilr dl &dnl[B srudod tc raabs .tuctrtB int* b driPcd ty r
cotiartb of rrycdcn od pcolnio EyFEPCtty.
lo ddtio F EY otil'vrinr Ea t tqpa1 l hrvc rtireslal thc rimrb wilh
qdl fuilir uirh & .dtdt of kit&Fl.wadrob Ccltc ha3riil ldjoti8
of fu fopaty rcr, c+tfrlrhj tb ThcC.rir3b6rucdu of prr enw of
rlrryirj of ry ldllti& d oognr of tb Elh Dit h oD ooetdc uA- th
TFrnGd&rbrypho mtrdrtcgrgt Ct-d Uy mlEtioo of r b:nn
pmOy otrrra tb oauto of thc
rllrdivldrFopcqf rr otr-intid, liie
brellod rrUct k{o t ELG of
rgpltlrt rwi*d rftdivirim &rilry
ocaalEEtr rgi&lr ;"tfrtioa qyLEt s-
n. Arfar vfcuir rtc rlaio suctlc.od
ccit' o&d ibc orist'E ?h* tt rllr !d t
PRINCE CREEK-.r-.[.-YY.!
72:48P PRINCE CREEK
ur!,u ll {Y Il{ oU, lliusul'l
970 963 2140iAi r,lu, ji]JUbEU T3
Estion of ufrrfbsr damrgc to Ery pmpcrty Ed thc Ells Drtcb u,ould occtu hrt ncrel,v onc of whcn
ii llould occur. His yrodiction rmas tLrr it could occrn with eny sirnificrgt rain ot eny cvetlt \rrhich
put urrr.( into thc r@td@ saucDrt- Mr, Ccrisc dso infomod mc that by his obtcrvaioa thc
racoriou ilta bd bB dacecoca sinco Mr. t-urpiris' crlir inspcctim, dowr to a depth cxporing
"riwr cobblc' ufri:b, if co,rncct, uoutd oaly incrcasc tha me ofpcrcohion to end qrdff my hillddc.
It is my uodcrstrnding tlrt Bi$er orboth Flavca Ed John Cais. will providc yoru o6cc u'ith a
lcrtsr cxpragiqg thc furcgout.
wbco I hst coDctcd lorn ol[cc for infomruion cooccraing e rsr'ised &EiD'slG ptar5 I was
infonrcd rhr no subuision of a rwisod &ain4c Ph tt d bc.o t€ocivd by you from thc &velopct
or 11gr cqghccrs. If oy srh submisEron bas iitec bsr Erdc, I would approciarc bcing iEformcd
of srdl fsct so I ca obtain a copy for qty o*D walrrrcim- I do rpt rdcrstrurl h,ow arod rcdcriEt
of a ve4y sig1ifsanr fstturE of the suHivisioo, i.c., thc dniDrge plao, cen bc udcrtr}cgr by thc
dovclopcr U pcrcrnea by thc Couory wirhout rc-suburisrion to thc hrring ptooas!, prrticulrrly
u/tcrp 6c nlrisim bai arGry tilelibmd of brning a seriour advcsc iropcct on ro a{ioiring proPGrty
or popcnics. Soctim 610 of tho Subdiviriou Rcguhiors pcruir sorlecti@s to tpProvcd plsts
oliy .;b"* tbe cryrcctioo ir conrisot u'ith thc lDerolrcd prclirairrry plro Here 6c app'tovod
fncii6rrv pfra asd to ogiaccrd &drugc desip arc appctrnly bciag mrryletcly abrudoood end
igoor.d and so frr as I Inow thso bas sot cven bccu subitted o $c Corrnty ra eltccn$3 dEsiSL
My rtading of Soctim 4.80 of ec subdivisioa reBtdsti@s jl rhlr 16 dninegs plut
dirlosing-v.rior5 roquirod infqaadoo mur bc submittcd roa rpetoved by tht Corrrrty is bo& thc
pnf,irt -t rnrl fnd plaa apporal paoccsrrs. If rhc previors Plso has now bccn sbaudoacd and
Do rwircd plrs trs Ucla lrbmitto( this ruquirrocot is obviously boing iglomd by both thr
&vclopcmd thc Counry.
I q,ut{d rlgo.dd &!t to ay uodcrrtacnling theracatioa $usturc is oow opcrefioorl lod if
ir rcoci\63 sigifcrut drrhrgp or rur osin tbo ncr firo.rc, thr potcotiel for damagc ro my proPcrty
od rb difh-luy bsgae e rcrtity. I thcncfon rcqucst yoru ienodiai? rttatim ad rtrpoar to
thir lcttsr. irrffiiry aa indictioa of wbotk firrtbcr h:uings rvill be ltqubd by tbc County to
coridcr r val tigrifi6rtt dsviatios from tbc approvcd prclimiD.ry aad finel plaos'
This lctcr will scrrc t9 trrr frs Borrd of Counry C;onnicsiools! on notice thd if lhc tbovc
cirEuE iioccs aG coEgst in flsl tsd rf it pcrairs tba dcvelopment of rbc subdrvirion to procccd
1gdsr tScsc cirermstmccs and dmegc r.orttr to rnyplopaty t t coultqlEncc, I will lookto 6c
County es trell rs tirc dcl'cloper fur rodresa
Yours vcry tnrly,
Q"Yfir-,/M
F,ncloslc;
xc: Board of Couaty Coarissioocrs of Grrfield County, Cotorado (with enclosure)
P. Ol-o7 -96'/-yb
1IEffi
I+;,i::''y-IU
GAtr*:LI] C&JFJ.ry
Mr. Mark Bean
County Planner
Garfield County
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
a8107196
Dear Mr. Bean,
It has come to my attention within the last week that a runoffretention pond is being
constructed within the Mountain Meadows Subdivision on County Road 111. This construction
is the direct result of the failure of the responsible parties to seek and obtain the proper drainage
easements required to meet the original Garfield County approved subdivision requirements. In
other words, it appears to be a poorly thought out patch to attempt to heal the failures of the
owners of Mountain Meadows subdivision. After discussing my concerns regarding this ill-fated,
GarCo mandated pond with adjacent landowner, Mr. David Hicks, and reading the report
presented by Nicholas Lampiris, Consulting Geologist, I would like to respectfully offer the
following commentary.
As one of the prior owners of the adjacent ranch property presently owned by Mr. & Mrs.
David Hicks, I believe I can offer some insight regarding Mr. & Mrs. Hicks' concerns regarding
this pond. While the Cerise family owned this property, I witnessed several instances when the
native material on the East upper side of the Ella Ditch sloughed offinto that ditch. On some
occasions, I saw this material effectively dam the waters of the Ella Ditch, causing the banks to
erode and the water to overflow into the hayfields below, causing considerable foreign material to
be washed into these fields. As you might imagine, this caused loss of production to our ranching
operations, lost irrigation usage from the Ella Ditch to all users resulting in subsequent production
losses, and expensive repairs to the affected areas of hillside and the fannlands below. It was
determined by all parties involved, following each incident, that these catastrophic events were the
direct result of water infusion from irrigation actMties in the hayfields directly above this hillside.
The adjacent landowner above us was forced to minimize his irrigation of that area, at times
resulting in lost production to his operation, to prevent further occulrences of this nature. It
became evident that even the slightest over-irrigation of these fields above this hill, which at times
were aggravated by rain, would saturate this loose cobble hillside and cause it to displace tons of
material into the Ella Ditch directly below.
I am concerned for the stability of the Ella Ditch bank, the crop producing areas directly
below and for the hillside topography itself Based upon my considerable experience as a former
owner of the Hicks property, I would anticipate the geological failure of this hillside when, not iq
the retention pond in question accumulates any amount of moisture from rainfall, snowmelt or any
,!n t
Page 2
other source. It is evident to me that Garfield County also is anticipating that this pond will catch
water from some source or the County would not have insisted that it be constructed within the
scope of the Mountain Meadows Subdivision. I am not in opposition to the Mountain Meadows
Subdivision per se, but only to the irresponsible occurrence of damage to adjacent landowners
that this catch-basin will certainly cause in the future, and to the County mandated creation of an
eyesore. We do not need a breeding place for more mosquitoes or a potential place for a
drowning should this man-made basin be allowed to exist as a rubber-lined stagnant pond in a
residential area.
With these concerns in mind, I respectfully ask that Garfield County act toward the
reduction of, rather than the addition to, the potential damage to the land, to your future
budget(s), and to the current adjacent landowners, Mr. & Mrs. Hicks, who stand to face the most
severe damage of us all, that being the potential decimation of their land. Surely there is a way to
allow the construction of this subdivision without the potential ruination of other Ella Ditch users
property and contributing to their financial losses by this irresponsible creation.
Respectfully,
cc:
{)*il*P,Ou-*
John K. Cerise
1205 County Road 1l I
Carbondale, CO 81623
963-2795
Mrs. Marion Smith
Mr Arnold Mackley
Mr. Bucky Arbaney
Mr David Hicks
Thomas R.Tumbull
s-D
A
;;;' e r*6 Four Bar Ranch
P.O. Box 686
Carbondale, Colorado
81623
(303) 963-2888ugust 16,1996
Mr. Mark BeanGarfield County Planner
109 8th Street
Glenrrood Springs , CO. 81601
Dear Mark:
fwould like to make a couple of comments pertaining to
the approved A1len subdivision on Prince Creek.
First, with regard to the onr site waste water containment.Significant grading was done on the lower end of the property
channel,ing all potential run-off water into an approved dry well
which is located on a steep hillside directly over our main
irrigation ditch from the Crystal River. Historically, when
Arbaneyrs flood irrigated the lower end of those fields uhich
now encompass the A1len subdivision, and particularJ-y thesection where the dry well was placedr we had significantproblems with the slides off the hillside into our ditch.After the fact, f spoke hrith Schmueser Gordon Meyer represent-atives to see where potential liability might lie and to date
have been "stonewalled".
Secondlyr with regard to the approved access off thePrince Creek road. Before the commencement of the project the
county road had an historical 1egal fence constructed along itst
right of way. Now, there is a forty plus foot wide gap and
when f asked about potential gates for livestock controlr Ijust got shrugged shoulders. There are still aboub five
hundred head of cattle moved along that county road and iU
appears to me to be entirely unnecessary to burden the ranching
community vith that kind of potential hassle lawnsr gdrdens,
flowers, landscaping, trespass etc.
Hopefully these comments wil-l be of use in future pre-
approval subdivision applications because clearly they areapplicant problems which are otherwise going to be borne by
those of us sti11 involved in the agricultural traditions of
land use.
Sincerely r
TUrnbull Herefords
I
-I
I
rl'
Eo*ururD couxrl
Building and Planning
September 4,1996 HAND DELIVERED
Anneliese Allen
C/O John Schenk
302 8th St., Suite 310
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Final Plat
Dear John:
Please considqr this letter to be written notice of a public meeting to be held by the Board of
County Commissioners to consider whether or not the changes made to the Mountain Meadows
at Prince Creek SuMivision are substantial enough to warrant revocation of the Final Plat
approval. The public meeting will be held on Monday, September 9th at 4:30 p.m-.
Ifyou have any questions about the information provided to the County in support ofthe request
for reconsideration, feel free to call or write to this office, at your convenience.
Sincerely,
'-t '""tr4rf-''
Mark L. Bean, Director
Building & Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-82121285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
o
SC
e
P.C.
JOHN R. SCHENK
DAN KERST
WILLIAM J. deWINTER, III
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
Garfield County Courthouse
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
HENK, KERST & deWINTER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 310, 302 EIGHTH STREET
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (970) 94s-2447
TELECOPIER: (970) 945-2440
September 4, 1996
' .i .;
.
, -{,,
* i; .'-
HAND DELTVERE,D
'.+* ri r: I r, 1 ;5.r1"'='
Re:
Dear Mark:
Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek
Today we received your letter on the Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Final Plat. No
substantial changes have been made to the Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision. No
violation has occurred in any of the conditions of approval of this subdivision. The final plat
need not be amended to comply with the present change in circumstances. The adjoining
neighbor unilaterally withdrew his prior consent for a drainage easement to serve the
subdivision. This has necessitated the construction of a water retention area in the subdivision.
This area will serve to collect storm waters from an event which is projected to occur only once
in every 25 years! Thus, only an additional easement on Lots 4 and 5, as well as a small water
retention area on the balance of the property owned by Mrs. Allen and not in the subdivision
will be required. None of the other easements will be changed in the balance of the subdivision.
We believe this unilateral action on the part of the County is unmerited. Engineers and
other design and construction experts will be available on Monday to respond to the allegations
which have been made. The on-site retention technique proposed by Schmueser Gordon Meyer
is a standard practice for the mitigation of any additional potential flows created by the
subdivision. To suggest that this reasonable mitigation creates any basis for revocation of the
final plat is outrageous.
truly yours
JRS/clh
cc: Dr. and Mrs. Wilmer C. Allen
Debbie Duley
SC
ENGINEERS
(e70) e45-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
SCHMUESEA
GORDON MEYER
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
, $EPle1ts6
September 1 1, 1996
GAi*b].$ GOI,IhJTY
Mr. David Hicks
1051 Prince Creek Road
Carbondale, CO 81623
RE: Allen Subdivision (Mountain Meadows at Prince Creekl
Dear Mr. Hicks:
The purpose of this letter is begin corresponding directly with you, with copies to affected and
interested parties, to expeditiously and efficiently develop a drainage plan that meets the
County's standards and minimize the likelihood of injury to you and other owners who might
be affected. Before you leave the country on October 3, I would like to have established not
only a drainage concept to be used, but the construction details of the associated facilities
agreed upon. Between the time you return to the country on October 22 and the next Board
of County Commissioners meeting on November 4, I would hope to finalize the drainage plan
so, at the Commissioners meeting, we could have final agreement.
At the September 9, 1996, Commissioners' meeting, there was concurrence that the historic
runoff pattern from the property should be re-established. My notes indicaie that that was
the only plan that did have concurrence. Flavin Cerise and John Cerise were able to establish
that, historically, there was a tailwater ditch constructed along the western edge of the Allen
property and located generally along the western edge of the irrigated lands and along the
eastern edge of the slope down to the Ella Ditch. That tailwater ditch then merged into the
ditch system on the old Cerise property, now currently owned by yourself, where the
properties abut north of the Gaddis lot. You stated at the meeting that it was both desirable
and acceptable to you to have the water delivered to this point on your property. I am
anticipating that the tailwater facility wil!, by necessity, be a combination of tailwater ditch
and culvert.
The routing currently available between the Allen property and the ditch system on your
property would utilize an easement of approximately 3OO feet on your property immediately
west of the Gaddis lot. As John Schenk discussed at the meeting, there is the possibility that
access is available across the Gaddis parcel by virtue of the reservation of an easement
created by the CCRs for Mountain Meadows, but until that aspect can be resolved, I am
proceeding under the assumption that the tailwater ditch/culvert would be by easement on
your property.
My intent is to next develop the specific design criteria to be used and to transmit them to
you in written format. Before developing those specific design parameters, I am assuming
concurrence with the above concept. I am asking all parties to call my office immediatelv if
-
'$fr ,
September 1 1, 1996
Mr. David Hicks
Page 2
there are any additions or comments to the discussion above.
those comments through my office to all parties.
Thank you in advance for your prornpt review of the above.
Respectfully submitted.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
lf necessary, ! willre-distribute
DWG:lec/95OOBAO1
cc: Dr. and Mrs. Wilmer C. Allen, 1215 County Road 1 1 1, Carbondale, CO 81623
Mr. Flavin Cerise, 1217 Catherine Court, Carbondale, CO 81623
Mr. John Cerise, 1205 County Boad 111, Carbondale, CO 81623
Mr. Tom Turnbull, P.O. Box 686, Carbondale, CO 81623
Bob Emerson, Esq., 86 South 2nd Street, Carbondale, CO 81623
Ms. Marion Smith, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Mr. Bucky Arbaney, County Commissioner
Mr. Arnold Mackley, County Commissioner
Don DeFord, Esq., County Attorney
Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County Development Director
John Schenk, Esq.,302 8th Street, Suite 310, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dr. and Mrs. Gary Knaus, 1592 Greystone Drive, Carbondale, CO 81623
Mr. and Mrs. Brian E. Gaddis, 1215 County Road 111, Carbondale, CO 81623
Finley Properties, 121 1 County Road 1 1 1, Carbondale, CO 81623
UESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
FRoi, : Eager-&Jsociadosat
n0\E iO.: 3',76 5 ?2 17 5€P. 6 19S 1A:59Fr'l P1
Soptcubcr 5. t996
Devid Hickrl0!l County Ro.d tll
Crrtoldelc. Coloredo
n623
RE: Rctcrdon Poud
Nlcholas Lonqlrls, Phd.
bx 2, Srtt, Colorudo
81552
(rtot 8ths10o
SirccrclY.
Dorr Mr. llicll'
I em rory rbrc I cra Eol bo $ thc CoronigiooCr'r mcclag oa MoOdry'
S.ptcni* g, f996. - I l& out cf thc couutry, io Mcrico uodl rbout ScDtcnbcr
15.:-' I h1o, rubrcryont to lgy gtuviour lctlcr. rtrd rhc btg fron Mr' Ccrirc
"oo*.ainf srto, rcirrca insref,itiltior in
-
your .hitlridr rborc thc irrif$go
ditch. Hc docsmJ-.f.r t hrd rurpcrd-rad is wilfbl u, thos ac old rlury
rrcer ghicL *crc iot ,itibtc durin;- ay :ig[t iargcctioo duc to thc dourc
uodcrjrorrh.-Tto racodoa oond ir porcaily ia phcc, c'tt conrioly lcrd to rimilet
inrtebititicr io oc 1ail. -r'6"." ilc o6et qucedont, plarrc do oot bcritrc
to coo3lct l!4.
Niobolu LroPirir
CottultbS 0cologirr
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
ENGINEERS
CORDON I,,EYER
-
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
October 3, 1996
Mr. David Hicks
1051 Prince Creek Boad
Carbondale CO 81623
RE: Allen Subdivision (Mountain Meadows at Prince Creekl
Dear Mr. Hicks:
This letter is to foltow up our tetephone conversations and meetings over the last couple of
weeks regarding the design parameters to be used for the drainage plan for the above-
referenced project. This follows up my prior correspondence to you of September 1 1, 1996 in
which the overall design concept was discussed.
The conceptual plan is still applicable, utilizing the historic tail water or wastewater ditch
system on the Allen property and your property. We were able to find the old tail water ditch
from the Atlen property, located just east of the northwest corner of the Gaddis lot. Since that
ditch has not been in use for some time, it has silted in from its original shape and as part of
the work, it will be necessary to reestablish the ditch in either its current position or in a
relocated position to be used as part of the drainage system. The ditches located on your
property appear to have been well maintained and further appear to have maintained their
original shape or a cross-section for continued use for caring of either drainage or irrigation
water.
We will use a 1O0-year storm event for catculation of run-off from the Allen property. We
discussed whether the appropriate quantity to design for would be the historic lO0-year run-off
rate or the run-off rate as a result of the construction of the single-family residences. You
indicated that your primary concern was removing the run-off water from the property as
quickly as possible, and therefore we agreed that we would design for the 1OO-year flow rate
after development; this woutd eliminate the need for detention of drainage water on site. While
we have not calculated what the run-off flows will be using this drainage approach, we
anticipate that the drainage facilities required to contain the flows will be equivalent to an 18"
to 24" culvert pipe or a ditch section that would need a total depth of 24" or less.
We will have a draft design completed by the time you return from your trip to France. At that
time, I would like to finalize that design with you so that it can be distributed to the County
Commissioners prior to our early November hearing.
October 3, 1996
Mr. David Hicks
Page 2
Thank you for continuing to work with me on
property.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
resolving the drainage issues on the Allen
cc: Dr. and Mrs. Wilmer C. Allen, 437 E 1730 N, Orem, UT 94057
Mr. Flavin Cerise, 1217 Catherine Court, Carbondate, CO 91623
Mr. John Cerise, PO Box 712, Carbondale, CO 91623
Mr. Tom Turnbull, P.O. Box 686, Carbondale, CO g1623
Bob Emerson, Esq., 86 South 3rd Street, Carbondale, CO 91623
Ms. Marion Smith, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Mr. Bucky Arbaney, County Commissioner
Mr. Arnold Mackley, County Commissioner
Don DeFord, Esq., County Attorney
Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County Development Director
John schenk,Esq.,302 8th street, suite 31o, Glenwood Springs, co 91601
Dr- and Mrs. Gary Knaus, 1b92 Greystone Drive, carbondale, co 91623
Mr. and Mrs. Brian E. Gaddis, 1215 County Road 111, Carbondale, CO 81623
Finley Properties, 1211 county Boad 111, carbondale, co g1623
Nancy Emerson, Mason & Morse,0304 Highway 133, carbondale co g1623
DWG:st/95OO8AO1 .1
ESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
DnlrNnv & Ba,r,coMB, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DRAWER 790
Gt rlrwooo Senrllos, Colon,loo erooe
November 4,1996
t,+ROBERT DELANEY
KENNETH BALCOMB
(OF COUNSEL)
JOHN A. THULSON
EDWARD MULHALL. JR.
SCOTT BALCOM B
LAWRENCE R. GREEN
ROBERT M. NOONE
8I8 COLORADO AVENUE
TELEPHON E 945-6546
TELECOPT ER 94s-4902
AREA CODE 97O
in"';r::'.m:
Mr. Mark Bean, Director
Garfield County Building,
Sanitation, and Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek/Revised Drainage Plan
Dear Mr. Bean:
This letter is to inform you that I represent Brain and Sandra Gaddis, who reside at l2l5
County Road 111, Carbondale, Colorado, in the Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision.
I have been advised that the developer of the Subdivision is in the process of seeking approval of a
revised drainage plan for the Subdivision which will require the approval of Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis.
I have spoken with John Schenk, Esq., representing the developer, who has told me he will
be submitting a new revision of the drainage plan for consideration by Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis, whose
property is most directly impacted by the proposed modifications. I also understand that the hearing
scheduled for Monday, November 4,7996, for consideration of the drainage plan revision will be
continued to enable the developer to amend the plan. As the review proceeds, please place my name
on the mailing list for copies of all communications concerning this matter pending final approval
by Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis and the commissioners.
Very truly yours,
DELANEY & BALCOMB, P.C.
By
RMN/spa
cc: Brian & Sandra Gaddis
John Schenk, Esq.
Robert M. Noone
SCHENK, KERST & deWINTER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 310, 302 EIGHTH STREET
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2447
TELECOPIER: (970) 945-2440
JOHN R, SCHENK
DAN KERST
WILLIAM J. deWINTER, III
November 4, L996
Garfield County Commissioners
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Allen/Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is written as a summary of actions taken prior to the continued hearing on the
revised drainage plan for the Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision in Garfield
County. Attached to this letter is a scenario of the various actions which have been taken from
the last hearing until today's date. The Applicant has diligently worked with all parties to reach
an ideal solution. Due to various time constraints, the final proposal is not ready for
consideration by the Commissioners as of this date.
As you will recall, at the meeting of September 9, 1996, it was the general consensus of
all concerned that the water flowing from any surface drainage caused by a storm event or
otherwise should be returned to its historic place of discharge. That place is in the fields now
owned by Mr. and Mrs. Hicks and located immediately north of the two (2) exempt lots and Lot
8 (presently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis). This flow is presently directed to Lot 5 where
it is retained. There are three (3) solutions to move this drainage water from Lot 5 to the Hicks'
property. Those solutions are:
1. Restore an open tailwater ditch across Lot 8;
2. Install a culvert system as designed by Schmueser Gordon Meyer on October 30,
1996; or
3. Extend the berm swale system presently on Lot 5 along the west boundary of Lot
8 into the Hicks' property as necessary so as to return any collected water to the Hicks' fields.
The final solution was proposed by David Hicks last Friday morning on a site visit and
appears to be the most practical and aesthetically desirable of the solutions. Both Mr. Hicks and
Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis had voiced concerns with regard to the culvert system and although Mr.
Hicks had no objection to an open ditch, the Gaddis' have objected to that solution. Mr. and
November 4, 1996
Page -2-
Mrs. Gaddis and Mr. and Mrs. Hicks have not seen a design for the berm system, since none
could be prepared since last Friday. Thus, Mr. and Mrs. Hicks and Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis
clearly reserve their rights to review this redesign, which we would propose to bring before the
County Commissioners two (2) weeks from this date.
The general concept for the redesigned berm swale system would be as follows:
1. The excess material presently on Lot 8 constituting the present berm swale would
be placed along the westerly boundary line of Lot 8 to form a berm swale.
2. The dry well on Lot 5 would be filled and otherwise closed.
3. The berm swale along Lot 8 would be designed to provide adequate protection for
the calculated drainage flow.
4. Any trees affected in the berm swale area would be relocated at the developer's
cost and a two (2) year guarantee of their survival would be provided by the developer.
5. The storage shed on Lot 8 which would be impacted by the berm swale would be
relocated to a site selected by Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis or rebuilt to equivalent or better construction
at the developer's cost.
6. The fencing on the west side of Lot 8 would be replaced as necessary with
equivalent or better fencing at the developer's cost.
7. The berm would be revegetated with sod in areas where existing grass was
affected and reseeded with native grasses in areas in a natural state at the developer's expense.
8. Any impact on the existing sprinkler system on Lot 8 would be repaired and
restored at the developer's expense.
9. No charges for this work would be assessed to the homeowners association.
10. The current trtter of Credit remains in effect for the full amount of the cost of
construction, although most of the work for the subdivision outlined in the Letter of Credit is
completed. The engineer's calculation of the cost for this additional work would be added as
an amendment to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement and the ktter of Credit.
11. The additional work will be completed, if possible, during the current season or,
if not possible, as soon as possible in the spring of 1997.
12. Mr. Hicks would be conveyed a driveway easement as previously described across
::::":::
the porrion of the Pitkin countv parcel owned bv Mrs' Allen'
November 4, L996
Page -3-
Based on these general guidelines, we would request continuance of this matter until
November 18, 1996. This morning, Robert Noone telephoned me to advise of his representation
of Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis in this process. I advised him that the Applicant would seek a two (2)
week continuance of the matter in order to prepare a further revised plan. He authorized me
to advise the Commissioners that the two (2) week continuance is acceptable from the
perspective of Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis. I am authorized to advise you that Bob Emerson has given
his approval to this continuance as well. Thank you.
JRS/clh
cc: Dr. & Mrs. Wilmer C. Allen
ll:\RS\ ll-llN\GARC(). 5
Date Action
9 Sep 96 Meeting with County Commissioners
11 Sep 96 Dean Gordon - Letter to David Hicks with copies
12 Sep 96 John R. Schenk - Telephone conference with Mr. Gaddis
27 Sep 96 Site visit - Dean Gordon, John R. Schenk and Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis
3 Oct 96 Dean Gordon - Design concept letter to David Hicks
15 Oct 96 Dean Gordon - Meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis
25 Oct 96 Dean Gordon - Culvert design letter to David Hicks
28 Oct 96 John R. Schenk - Telephone conference with David Hicks on culvert design
30 Oct 96 Dean Gordon - Revised drainage letter to County
1 Nov 96 Site visit - Dean Gordon, John R. Schenk, David Hicks and Mr. and Mrs.
Gaddis
4 Nov 96 Meeting with County Commissioners
ll:URs\Al-L[N\CMCo.5
r t'.'
'NowJ 13-96 05:29P PRINCE CREEK e7o ?6s
,ritt_i
2140 P -O?
Ngvcmbcr 13, 1996
Mr. tv{ark B€ar1 Director
GerEeld County Planning DcPt.
109 to. Sure€t, #303
Glcnwood SprinSE, CO 81601
Dcflr lYIr, Bean'
I rm oot rGf,dy to pqrticiFctE itr th€ I l-18-96 nreeting with th. County Commireioncru to dircure thc
rtrolutlon of Irrloutrtah lvlcsdolr8 rt Prire Crek'e drainegS problcms. t haw mt tccn ptwidcd edoquate
inform$Io1 to dalc to sllow EG to sf,eets tbc colution tlrat is beinS considsr€d. I bclisrc th8r w€ arE Etill
tpaded towardr a solution but that morc tiros ir n€edEd to finalize the desieF afld docurrinlatron.
I spokg wilh Iohn Sclrerk Wednesday a&crnmnr ll-13-96, Ed hE corcurrEd that rrcrc tirnr would bc
rtquircd trd thst hc would cnnbstyur ald/or Orc Commiesioncrg about rwchcduting thc rccting.
I woutrd prspocc thtt tha nr*tiry with thf County Commissionen be *t for D€cefiber 96 or 166. Tltic
wi11 givc ru at lcart one wee* lrr Doccrubcr to revics thc finAI design and docurrcntatjou eince I will be
out of town the lsst week dNovember.
ptcasc fore,ard this lener ou to wbocvcr sctr \c dstEs snd agendas for moetingp with tha County
QSmminsiotsls.
ffiJ tl /t#iu/
D8Yid W, Hiclic
l05l CountvRoad lll
Cartondale, CO E1623
963-r602
SCHENK, KERST & deWINTER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 310, 302 EIGHTH STREET
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2447
TELECOPIER: (970) 945-2440
November 15, 1996
JOHN R. SCHENK
DAN KERST
WILLIAM J. deWINTER, III
Mark Bean and Eric McCafferty
Garfield County Planning Department
Garfield County Courthouse
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
HAND DELTVERE,D
Re: Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision
Gentlemen:
The field work on the revised drainage plan with the berm swale system has been
completed. A drawing of same has been prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer. This drawing
has been shared with Mr. and Mrs. Hicks and Mr. and Mrs. Gaddis. It is clear that we will
need a few more days to reduce an agreement to writing and satisfy all remaining issues. It
appears hopeful that the parties are close to agreement. Nevertheless, we would request a
continuance for two (2) weeks on the County Commissioners' consideration of this amendment
to the Final PIat. Thank you for your attention to
Ve ly you
.IOHN SCH
JRS/clh
cc: Dr. and Mrs. Wilmer C. Allen
Dean Gordon
Robert Noone
David Hicks
11
LaYri r'ue r
l7lfr la6
II:IJRS\ l-[:N\lll]AN 6 0 tr'/s-
Ieaurry 15,lW
lrfr. Ioha Sct!o&, Ae.Ey
3O2 f $rG!t, StriE 310
RE: Ltnl@ia filcadm I Prim Crcck rlnilagp o.ti.
DcrrMr. SchcdS
I rm wririry thir LG o rc-iults in mitiry rhd re disrrd tltir Dfftrins o ttc phoc. Atehd ir
tho dmrm eiling colr ftt mlngkn of thc dnimgc itnmrt3 rupitcd lo rslv€ thc &rioege
prcblcorthtorrcdycxiftltouotrintvlcrdosrdPrinscrcck thcenrfluaodrmiardn'ost
ire a.Ar.A q SOmris Oatmlds,,Gr Ir. in Oiiii prcliiiiury' ,trfr drsl Norrdcr et, lgae rd itr
rhcir rurlisd plu thet pr $mGd b re ycudry. Tb mrt L fifihcr dcfitrd by uy curtruim m
crinrr rhrr I hffc uctod (s prgpr I thmrtt { end pagrr 5 thluu! 9).
I tu rquiring rt{ PdE gccl. Conngicn, ry mrEI, .o.rrDt* dl rrut er ffincd Sovq Ary
wolt nd ligt ia thc mtctiol Gdire rr rnrctcd witl d bc onddcrtd Pris Gtct Cor0tEkn'r
rc*ontUitity. fOaiOmrtly, ery ptaat vititity rlrltroe thrt hrr Dm or& lo GrdL b thc Allco'r
rc*on*iUty.
I u dro rcquiriog tts t tr ogrrnt"qrcC &. dt d6c blbrciqs iuol (ircoid @ pr3p t dttc rtrrhod
dmrrcu): Ey I b d&r ry tima O d&, uy forc litiltr, itr d..lin3 xill lhc drrinsts til.t lhd
wi[ bc cooccor8t d at Cbdfu' D.thrcc prcpcrty cuDrr, od thc l.nd lod r bcrns rud ditclc. thd sill
bc rcquirod b irplmt ib $orc mioood dtlirsp dcrign
l}c pcoccerc o ooodtb ttp rymt ir rfllorr:l. All dmlm rrc nodi$d in er&e s,rth ib MilT thl rt hrd silf, Gcnldllrrtcrt
fla{ry erlm. All doqmr wi[ bc mil$lc fa twicw aE hillr pic b dtniqt
2. Eittcr rll o&cr p.rtipr siI 5.6 ;gred ttc rc&d doormtr fic b uy revicr c thsy vill b.
la dcodrre r ttc cbdrg io qftict dl dmtoco rill bc dglod.
3. PriE eocf Comgir1t sill bc pvidod r omulrct to on{nrt dl teinrp ingu'e'ncntt
6rd $orc ftr ttc pris dt39,9L1.23. Thc firldr o owt ttir mdnEis will tc hcld in
mor wi& I tmrovc{ goup.ry i dcinf fb cuw ryru eill rlh ftr im
dirlurrle Ttc finr b$t S20,0m.fl) I ttc *en dcoolrucdoo A IGIE fi08 Prir CI!t&
Coostnrction to tlc cacnqF oopeny rtrtiag lid thc mcnEdm hrr bcgu silt Dc nficitu b
rmuc tbc rdas of 6c$s 820,(nO.0O. Ttrc wd end finrl diiurcl will bc Er& .t
mptaioo dtbc onmfu rod rceontio xnt. Tb fnrl mru d3l9,9la.23 will bo
dcrrod ftm tto sur so rpm rrdgt by ttc aor ryy dr lacr aon rry e*
orrtifod Prolhdmrl E{iE rlio; ert 6c w.trr dacr&cd$otc hrba coqld"
l. I eill be Fid in crti6c{ Mr tu dl igot liiod q pcgr 5 dtbc Uctod dmtm. Thcr
ddlr rmmr nry wrll ifupUura mI rod thc clo.iqs dila mcy ourtd ctE& banrc d
eddiliood tire c urey M I Lrrl b Td Dsin b dodry Ttry cuild dto cnugE if .ry
pqtimdthG c[e[trrcif tlcdninrgcdcd8trciutp1
tl.. ;rr,
$;'
Jv t'.
.iJ 1..
*a l,lmlllb lla&ra $tbdividolemrry li.lW Prccl
.i;
I rn rsry fa l,ur cmfrrlim $d rvtdhcr I wqrH bt ch.rSinS tb Alts br ry ffi irurcd in
dto'rhstlt*&ria$*rtErtobcdivcrtdtothcpropordlstllrorryPmpcily. SiEItcitcrc
bco.6t tou thc pmpod dnin j: iuprorrcmr I fccl tld it lr oly 6ir thrt I bc cmpcod
r@rdindy fr ry cxpcr*r ud lG.
Siucrcly,gJ,N
Dnid W. Eictr
f05l ConryRo.d lU
Crftodrlc, S t1623
963-1502
q Gcrrldllrrctt
l
,r.
bu
h
r.it
t
ll,
Iru,ry li,l$n Bc: Irrhrntrb Madon $bdivirb hG2
Dninage Easement rnd lmP.
CoSl for Ld E .nd Hlcks'SGM unil cosils usad in Mouilain Meadows Subdivlsion
Unit
/Ass
Cosit
270.00 c.Y.
3e0.00 L.F.
1,000.00 Ton
240.00 Ton
13,700.00 Sq.Ft.
0.17 Acrr
0,400.00 Sq.Ft.
a0.@ L.F.
305.00 L.F.
5.00 Eaclt
60.00 L.F.
1.00 Eadt
1.00 Eecft
2.00 Eedt
$..s rc.Y.
gl.Es rL.F.
t7.25 /Ton
312.50 /Ton
10.05 /Sq. Ft.
12,050.00 /Acto
10.30 /Sq. Ft.
31E.00 /L.F.
03.50 /L.F.
S25O.(n rEectt
tr5.00 /L.F.
rym0.00 /Eecrr
t600.00 /Erdt
3,150.00 /E.dr
Totsl
$e3t.50
$3i11.50
37,250.00
13,000.00
166s.00
3501.50
11,9i!0.00
1720.00
si,0G7.50
El,250.00
$900.00
s200.00
t600.00
1500.00
-
u0,69E.50
Excrvdion
Typc ,A'Dilch
Struotunl Fill
Topcdl
Socd & Sotl Ptop
Hydro'saedine
Sod
Romorc.nd RcCaGo Eoad Fence
Rsmorro rnd Replace BarbWitu Fenco
Relocets Trecs
Extend Hict6' lnigation Uno
Rcmove rld Relnstrll Hickl'lrigatlon Risor
Spdntler RgprF
EnglnoGtlne lnspsctione
CostsforLots{&5for
210.00 L.F.
330.00 L.F.
300.00 c.r
23,000.00 8q. n.
0.00 Act!
450.00 L.F.
1.00 Erctt
$0.85 rL.F.
s1.00 /L.F.
s5.00 rc.Y.
to.05 rsq. Ft.
$2,950.00 rAcru
33.30 rL.F.
12.500.00 /Esctt
Total
tt7E.s0
s080.00
31,500.00
tt,300.00
J1,7A3.Zl
fi,575.00
E2,500.00
-
111.E70.72
Type'A'Dftclt
Swsls grr<l Berm
Sirudural Fill
Sccrl Prcp
Flydrlseoding
Ronorc end Replecc Brrt lMre Fcncc
Removs D0,ugll rml Compad Flll Bsd(
Costs forPitkin County Lot fordminagc impmvements
Unit
550.00 L.F.
300.00 c.Y.
17,0i15.00 Sq. Ft.
0.t11 Act!
t.fil Eactt
Go$
-81.-
Unit Total
Srvrle and Berm
Strudunl Flll JorPold
Scql Pnp
Hydrc-roedng
Re-compect Elsrtrlc Trsndt
13.00 /L.F.
t5.00 rc.Y.
t0.05 rsq. n.
12,950.00 /Actu
t350.00 /E crr
Tolsl
81,050.00
11,5m.00
lEE125
ll,l962c
3350.00
-
$7.3:10.01
Totel coc for all dminage improvem"*E@l
Page 4
Unit CoC Unitrr
Dnlnegc Essament rnd lmp.
CoS to punfirr drln{p G.scmqt
Anoto bocotm unseUs
Arar of aoogs crsgmsil
A$rm€d ftfruru llrbllity
Cocls hcrntrd to drilc
(rrr bclort)
GosB lnclfirgd to Datc
0.t15 Acr€o
{.2,t Acrss
1.00 Erctr
1.00 Esah
$0,000.00lAcro
E40,000.00 /Acte
t15,000.0O rErdr
116,001i.@ /Erdr
llE,t)00.00
-33.600.00
315,000.00
tt6.005.00
@
@
@o
t!
-
I
a
Tot l
-
33e,a05.00
Unlt
125.00 Hoult
6.00 Hous
2.00 Hour
{.00 Hotm
1.00 E ch
3.00 Hours
Cort Unlt Totsl
MyUme
Dlsrnerills/ttlove Telescopc - 1 Baclrhoe & 3 Men
Load Telarcope - 1 Eecldtos
B.ctfill rnd lnstril Thrid Bloct.l ltrlgrtlon Pump
Goncrtc ErThnd Elockd ldgstloo Pump
S[rIr nmp. rnd Dltlg. rnv. oomers ur'steol T po6f!
$5.00 /Hour
Sl25.0O /Hour
St5.00 /Hour
t05.00 JP{our
gt0.00 /Esdr
gl5.00lHour
Totd
19.375.00
1750.00
1r30.00
1260.00
$0.00
$55.00
-
110,005.00
Pagc 5
Iunry ll,lffit
Mr..IohtrScbcof, Ilcmrry
302 t'Smr, $dE3l0
@strood Spriljr' CO tl@l
RE: Itbuuteia lt&rdoryr A ftire Ct* rbrir1gE itsu
DcuMr. Schot(,
I rmwritiry rht IGElrto rdvirdl oo€old ^r+tIrE rq1uidry thurtcqurcatdc-gn bcre4tedby
dl F tic. m obcf,oe Jruuy 3l'o thr rt FuaE aa eltcroniw rlcdgu Ttr rlcrndc oaifn mriO
putlbccatircdlsitqgErtnEtr€mttryDmDcrty,obviorlyrtturcbhittcrcocbtbNbas" Thit
dlcmJcdcrigD wqdd dpclirineA rny vinrel ptui,onth{ tbbccninthccurrctrr dtrign.frrdl
G.dia
Thc dlcmlr &iSn ult be loocpod by fdru.ry 2tt or I will tlrc tD ru1s dtlc Gu6ctd CuraryCmidmr thd thc pll fu lt&untrin t{crdowr bc racrtrd rod thr I tc dbuird to rcanrE dl
dnirqp within thc l,iqrnteia fvlcedowr $tdivieioo io it hidosic p.[cril. Thfu rurld irlutc fitlirrt
uy ul rll rtly mmrclod ditcha, trItrlS tbc b.r ditch doot thc ffi Dddoiryryhrscs rqild bG
rccGrrry to coem tll th slcr cu f,of,' l[rinllF&d m ttc l[d (ttu tEUlry dl ffisE folr,. b
thdr hiloriol $d ffi). Tb Gqucr b tbc Cmireiwr mdd dD irlu&. rt$Ecftr
@Dcodo b olrcr dt d$c rcontiw Do*. This Erycosat'm oqrld re frrou r dnw lgriarr
Allcn'! tsoEdmdit
I em hoping 'l* ttis lcocr witl bdng to rtadion tbc tr ed to dqpdy dcal Tith 6c dniaryc wu
bcfosc !ilry l' ntcn tDc hcrvy Trirt ninr qild duugp my propaty rnd rhc Ellrr dirch if thc cuncnt
&rim;: lructrrcr rc rllound to Eorin i! drca
Sinercly,
Dw[W. Ei&
l05l Coutynod llt
Ctoudrlc, @ tf623
963-1602
e: lilr* Bcu, l,lrtfu SmitL terylvtcCo*:o, ,ohn f,Aftin, nobcrt l{@, GGr.U IIutGrt
, "'
January 29,1997
Mr. Ivlark Bean, Director
Garfi eld County Planning Department
109 8o'Street, #303
Glenwood Springs, CO 8f60f
Dear Mr. BearU
I am responding to the letter by John Schenk on January Un ttrat was copied to Mr. Don Deford (the
letter was faxed to me on Jan. 22d). lt is Mr. Schenk's contention that my letrer to him regarding
settlement of the drainage issues at }vtrountain Meadows at Prince Creek contained two new requirements
that were not discussedL our meeting at Gerald llartert's office on January 146. In the following
paragfaphs I will address both oflvtr. Schenk's contentions, the facts that led us to the current situation'
and my suggestion for a obtaining a final solution. First, I would like to remind all parties that the county
has no right or jurisdiction in financial negotiations between private land owners. Mr. Schenk should be
reminded that the County, the Allens, and/or Mr. Schenk do not have the rights of eminent dornain to
solve these drainage issues by forcing me to accept a solution tlat I am not ageeable to. Now on to
disputing the altegations in Mr. Schenk's letter of January l7e.
I disagree with IvIr. Schenk's contention that the requirement to use my company, Prince Creek
ConstructiorL to complete the berm construction is a new requirement. We discussed in that meeting as
well as in wery other meeting, phone or otherwise, that I wanfed my company to do the berm
construction. i\s a point of facq I was told in the January 146 meeting by Mr. Schenk that IvIr. Schenk
and the Allens were both *amenable to" Prince Creek Corstnrdion berng the contractor. The requirement
that my companybe the contractor hardly seems to be a "significant new requirement". What I am sure
that IvIr. Schenk meant was that I would not agree to a solution where they were'amenable to" using my
company, but instead I insisted that they be "committed to" using my company for the berrr construction.
On numerous occasions I told Mr. Schenk that *I want to be the contractor for the drainage restoration
and berm constmction". How Mr. Schenk could have mistaken that to mean "I want to be the contractor
for the drainage restoration and berm construction if everyone is asreeable to it" is inconceivable to me. I
have suggested that my company be the contractor for the following reasons:
l. It allows me to release the Allens to sell lots at the time of signing the agrcements. If another
contractor were to build the drainage improvements I would ask that the Allens not be allowed
to sell lots until the modifications are constncted in a satisfactory numner. This is of major
importance to me since I witnessed the building of the current berms. The current benns were
not compacted at all and were built by dumping loads of dirt end to end and then shaping the
unacceptable for a berm to retain water. We havc built reseryoirs all over Colorado
and Utah and are inti familiar with the State and Federal standards as they relate to
earthen darns. :
2. It would be cheaper for the
I:
since I would require compensation for inspection of any
other contractors work to
water to the agfeed upon
that the resultant earthen dams will convey the drainage
without fear of the berms failing.
3. If I build the berrn" I would iously build it to provide me the best protection possible. It is
doubffirl that any other c would brrild theberm in a manner that would ruximize my
protection. Timeliness also be a rr,ajor concern to me as opposed to any other @ntractor.
disputed my cost estimates for building the new berms. In myThe Allens and Mr. Schenk have
estimates I used SGM's unit cost
SuMivision as are listed in the
for the original construction of Mountain Meadows
Improvements Agreement.
Mountain Meadows SuMivision
uAll 5 t leeT
ettrELD C0{-F{TY
Jarruary 29,1997 Page I
I also dispute Mr. Schenk's claim never discussed that there would be a monetary side to the final
October or November that there were two main considerations in
mitigate their drainage problers. The first consideration is a
The second consideration is the monetary impacts of the design.
Mr. Schenk's confision may have ari from the factthat we did not explicitly discuss that monetary
impacts include both the costs to the new design as well as the costs that I have incurred and
will incur accepting their drainage at a non-historic location. The costs that I have incurred stem
from the fact ftat I have designed two solutions for the Allens. The first desigt involved
building aberrn on my property and second desrgn involved building a berm on both the Gaddis'
property and on a portion of my
location on my property where I
. Both solutiors would channel the drainage water back to a
accept it (even though it had not historically been collected at that
point on my property). We had all
was the least costly and most
ofEce I believe that we finalized the issues with regards to the Gaddis' drainage design @rior
to that meeting Dean Gordon of my design draftd to provide documentation of the design). On
settlement. I told him explicitlyback,
reaching an agreement on any design'
design that is acceptable to all parties.
for this reason that I could not have'
(the very next day after our meeting
Ilartert called lvIr. Schenk to further
Gordon; legal and geologic rwiew; r
are not limited to, compensation for
Consulting Engineers that collected
boundary of the subdivision. There
historic location on my property. I,
I can not calculate the monetary impacts associated with it. It is
.ided cost figures to h[r. Schenk before I did on the 156 of lanuary
costs and ttre indirect costs of constructing the drainage
that is lost to drainage improvements and compensation for
drainage water at a new point on my property (i.e. what
ed to purstre the second drainage desip as described above since it
to all parties. In our meeting on January l4e at Gerald llartert's
January 15o'I calculated both the
improvements. Prior to the futal
Gerald ffartertl. Also, on the morning of lanuary 156 Gerald
rry that I would be requiring that my company do the berm
construction and that I was both the direct costs and the indirect costs associated with the berm
constnrction. Direct costs are not to the cost to construct and repair the drainage stnrctues. In
r oxp€nse incurred in: getting the County to requirc a newadditiorL direct costs include my time
design; meeting on numerous with the Commissioners, tlte Allens, Mr. Schenk, and Mr.
designing the new drainage structures. Indirect costs include, but
my future liability in accepting the
structures will I have to build in the to guarantee that this collected drainage water will not impact
I also claim that a reasonable person would agree that I shouldany furtlrer development on my
be compensated for all of my direct indirect costs ftat result from their redirecting historic flows to a
new location on my property. I not have incuned any ofthe expenses had it not been for the
Mountain Meadows Subdivision and lack of a legal drainage desrgn. The cost breakdown that I sent to
Mr. Schenk on January 156 is
breakdorvn only to show that I have
letter to Mr. Deford. I would also to allow the Commissioners to evaluate my indirect cost
calculations and suggest changes, if ; that thsy thinlc would make them reasonable. I agree to be
bound by their decision. I think that proves that I am not the party that is being unreasonable.
I would now like to re-iterate the that led to our current situation (i.e. a suMivision in which
that are not approved by the County and those drainagedrainage improvements have been
improvements severely impact
Subdivision was approved and
as well as dl users of the Ella Ditch). First, the Mounain lvleadows
based on a drainage design by Schmueser Gordon Meyer
so tlrat you can see how I detennined the costs. I include the cost
hing to hide or be ashamed of as Mr. Schenk tries to imply in his
directed the drainage water to two locations on the westerly
never an eas€ment to allow this water to be redirected to a non-
the directly impacted adjacent property owner, was not aware of
this until after the final plat had As a point of fact Mr. Schenk and the Allens have been
waiting to record my ac@ss as is shown on the final plat, as a way to force me to give them the
easement for the drainage water tllat
shown as an access easement for the
had neglected to ask for (the easement I am referring to is
property owner on the final plat). The Allens and Mr.
Schenk both represented to the during the final plat process that the suMivision was in
conformance with the County Regulations wen though they knew they lacked a crucial
drainage easement. In May, after I aware of the drainage design, I had a meeting to try and
resolve the drainage issues as they to my property and the Ella Ditch. The participants in that
January29,1997 Page2Mountain Meadows SuMivision
meeting were Mr. Schenk, Nancy
attorney), Dean Gordon andD$bie
myself. In that meeting I explained
rcasons:
l.
2.
3.
The bulk of the water would
Prince Creek without causi
I would not allow them to
flowed into Prince Creek
regular basis. I would not
And finally,I would not
Creek because ofthe visual
I then listened to suggestions from
l. Redirect the collected
Meadows SuMivision.
Response: Iwouldnever
reasons. First ifthe pond
down my hillside and drode
on many occasions due to
the hillside. when the
below the hillbecome
more sloughing to occur.
installed a sprinkler i
satuating the substrata.
2. Pipe the collected water to
Response: I will not accept
the full flow of the
Potentially plugging the
I then offered the only solution that I
toward my fields directly north of
building aberm on my ProPertY such
becoming obstnrcted and impacting
design to be acceptable was that after
drainage water impacting my ranch
Allens' hay field impacting my
drainage had been redesigned with
any doc-umenation on this redesign
next was that the Allens hired M &
improvements. It was at this time,
involved a retention pond in the
almost exactly the design that I had
They had installed a drywell in the'
the hillside faster than the collected
never run overbut also grraranteed
pond collected water. I then hired
retention pond on my hillside.
slouglr, see the attached letter.
owners of my ranctr, stating that
hillside to slough and plug the Ella
his concerns with the retention pond
Ditch is washed out or plugged due
Commissioners heard testimony
aware that when his grandfather
sloughing of the hillside and
to soak in too long. The
January 29,1997
(Allen's neighbor and real estate agent), Gerald Ilartert (my
(from SGlvt, SGM desigped the drainage improvements), and
the platted drainage design could not work for the following
nearly impossible to contain in such a way that it would reach
damage to my hillside.
the drainage water into Prince Creek since it had never before
Prince Creek alrea$ floods my lower pastures and fields on a
them to further burden Prince Creek.
the new channels required to get the drainage watsr to Prince
to my surounding proPerty.
Gordon about the following redesign options:
water to a retention pond in the north-west qorner of Mountain
there to be a pond that collecrc the drainage water for two
too small to hold all of the collected water the excess would run
Secon4 I would iiever allow itbecause tbat hillside has sloughed
ion water that was allowed to soak in tm long and supersaturate
sloughs the Ella Dirch becomes plugged and then my hay fields
Putting all the drainage water into the substrata will only cause
Allens knew of the historic sloughing problems long ago and
system well before I bought my ranch to reduce the risk ofover-
location on my property that was acceptable to me.
solution that includes a prpe. If the pipe wer plugs or can't carry
water then the excess would run down and erode my hillside.
Ditch and flooding my hayfields.
been able to think of. I suggested that the water be directed
Meadows. The redirection would be accomplished by
there would never be the possibility of the drainage way
ranch adversely. I maintained that my main criteria for any
improvements are built I should not have to worry about the
more than I had to worry about the drainage water from thc
After this meeting I was told on ilrmerors occasions tlat the
impact on the adjoining land ovmers. I was never provided with
spirc of my repeated requests for information. What happened
Construction to constnct Dean Gordon's redesigned drainage
July 1996. that I determined from inspection that the redesign
oorner of Mountain Meadows SuMivision. This redesign was
most adarnant about refirsing, only it had one modification.
of the retention pond to ensure that the pond would drain into
would enter the pond. This guaranteed tlut the pond would
the super-saturation of the hillside would occur wery time the
Larnpiris, Ph.D., a geologisg to waluate the impact of the
He
Ial
that the pond could cause the hillside below the pond to
ined letters fromFlaven Cerise and John Cerise, the prior
seen over-'saturation by means of surface irrigation cause the
Tom Turnbull also contacted the County Planning Stafrabout
it uas builtbecause of the potential impacts to his ranch if the Ella
the hillside sloughing. In September of 1996 the County
all of the above data. Buckey Arbaney related that he was
and farmed what is now Mountain Ivleadows SuMivision that
the Ella Ditch occuned due to irrigation water that was allowed
Marian Smith and Buckey Arban€y, then required the Allens to
Mountain Meadows Subdivision Page 3
(,
could sell any additional lots. We ha''
Schenk's letter of January l7e shows
fixthe drainage problems in a was acceptable with the adjoining land owners before they
been working toward an acceptable solution since that time. Mr.
there is reluctance on the part ofthe Allers to pay for the
drainage system re-construction and costs. Today Steve Pawlak of HP Geotech was core
drilling in the vicinity of the existing ion pond. I can only assume that the reason was to try to
establish that the existing drainage ctue will not impact me or any of the users of the Ella Ditch since
at any time in the past year. Instea4 they waited until they foundthis core drilling could have been
and are now looking for a cheaper way out. I would suggest
the hillside mav not slough should be ignored by the County
outthe costs of solvingthe drainage
that any new expert testimony shting
since it is a historic fact that the ing and subsequent damage to the Ella Ditch has occuned many
times in the past. I also believe that
their money trying to slip free of the
is just another example of how the Allens would rather spend
problems by legal or technical means instead of
acknowledging the problems andfixi them. Why should myself and the other impacted land owners be
forced to accept a solution that may
their suMivision at a lower cost? I
may not cause problerns in the future so that the Allens can develop
't believe that they should be allowed to profit at our expense.
When I questioned Mr. Schenk todaY why they had decided to do core drilling and soils tests now,
the reasori ivas to determine if there exists a more immediateat the end ofJanuary, he assured-ine
need to solve the drainage problems
Geotech today about whY he thought
I want to make it clear ttut the
Meadows SuMivision drainage
d by the retention pond. When I questioned Mr. Pawlak of HP
Mr. Schenk and the Allens had decided in January to do soils
testing and subsurface analysis, he that Mr. Schenk and Dean Gordon had made it clear to him in
their two hour meetingwith him that tlrey wanted to deterrrine the immediacy of solving the
drainage problem causedby the pond.
retention pond can notbe considered a solution to Mountain
for the following tlree reasons:
l. The retentionpond has a in the bottom of it that serves to expedite the flow of water out
of the pond and into the
hillside to slough. This
runofr, thereby reducing
This direct sahration of the substrata will cause the adjacent
was installed so that the pond could be srnaller, as in hold less
dwelopers' cost of constmction.
2. If the drywell inthebottom the retention pond can not drain the runofrwater fast€r than it is
flowing into the pond then the excess will flow over the top of the dam. This could
happen if the drywell was
obstructed with the debris
incorrectly or if the drywell becomes partially or totally
that always accompanies nrnofr. When the water in the retention
pond is forced over the toP the earthen dam several problems arise. First, when an earthen
dam is forcpd to spill water an uncontrolled manner, catastrophic failure ofthe dam occun
within minutes. This will dump the entire contents of the retention pond down my
hillside and into the Ella
retention pond had been
excess water, the Allens
causing massive erosion and damage. Secondly, even if the
to meet State requirements with a spillway that can handle the
no easement to direct this water onto my property (exactly the
problem with the final plat necessitated all of the drainage qystem redesigns).
3. And finally, consider the io where the retention pond fills and then takes several days to
seep out into the soil. This is a variation of the situation described in item number
two above. The drywell
retain all of the nrnofr.
partially or totally obstnrcted with debris flow but the pond can
forces the water to leach out slowly into the surrounding soil. This
exactly duplicates the ofover-saturating by prolonged irrigation that has historically
caused the sloughing in hillside below the relention pond (as an interesting note, the largest
of the numerous sloughs is below the retention pond).
Any one ofthe above scenarios can harm to my property and potentially to all users of the Ella
Dirch. Therefore, unless all three of above problems are addressed the potential exists for damage to
my hillside and the Ella Ditch. I included 151s anatysis to show that the only acceptable drainage
desrgn is the one that all Paties been negotiating toward for the past five montls. The County
should not allow Mr. Schenk or the to distmct their attention from all of the problems that exist
with the drainage at Mountain Subdivision.
Morurtain Meadows SuMivisionJanuary 29,1997 Page 4
5.
The following is a list of Garfield Subdivision Regulations ttr,at have been ignored by the Allens
Gordou Mr. Schenk):and their development team (SGlvI,
l. Section 4:41 states "The Plan submittal stull contain an application forrn, map(s),
and required additional and
applies to the drainage of the preliminary plan submittal is defined in section 4:80 (see
item 3 in this list as it addresses section 4:80). This infonnation was not provided for
preliminaryplan orfor plat.
2. Section 4:50 paragraph H that the preliminary plan map contain information on
irrigation, ...'. This information was not provided on tle
preliminary plan map or on plat rnap.'
3. Section 4:80 defines the infonnation required concerning the drainage plan for
preliminary plan submittal.
A drainase ola[ at the scale as the Preliminary Plan and prepared by an engineer
registered in the State
written fonn:
shall depict the followine infonnation in graphic and/or
A. Existing water and lakes;
B. Limits of tribttary where practical
tributary flows; andC. Computation of
and to prevent
major damage or of residences in a one hundred (100) year stomq showing;
f. Are:N subject
2. Location and
inundatiory and
ofproposed culverts, bridges, ditches and channels.
Neither the original design,
locations onto my property,
drainage ditches were shown dumping runoffwater at two
the redesigrr, the infamous retention pon( satisfies paragraph
D of section 4:80.D requires that the designed drainage facilities must prevent
runofrin excess of historic "entering, danuging or being canied by existing drainage
facilities". Not only do designs neglect this requirement" they are designed to create new
standards for land survey plats, as requiredby
Colorado state law, and by the County Surveyor and shall include at least the
followine information i the format described:
fhe final plat does not the created drainage channels at all.
drainage ways in locations
Section 5:22 requires: ,
Section 5:31 defines the
states: :
alu,.., t
I
The only portion of this
for the on-site drainage
the Allens do not own easements.
information requircd for submittal with the Final Plat. It
simultaneously with the Final Plat and at the
same scale as the Final where applicable:
for streets, drainaee facilities, water
that was submitted with the Final Plat was a cost estimate
tlut led to my property. They did not even include ttrc costs to
ditches on my prop€rty that would convey their drainage waterconstruct the required
into Prince Creek @rince has never canied the runofffrom the Allens' property.)
As can be seen, the Allens and their team have systematically and completely ignored all
county requirements that the draf waterbe managed in an appropriate and nondestnrctive rnanner.
How the Allens and the dwelopment
county guidelines is a mystery to me.
team can justiry continuing their non+ompliance with explicit
: Mountain Meadows SuMivisionJanuary29,1997 Page 5
...". Supplemental infornration as it
D.
A.
:i
I suggest that the County
completed or that the drainage is
plaf vacation process now to show Mr
allow this disregard ofcounty
ofrer to evaluate my indirect costs
The Allens should also be asked to
rcalize that the County should not
but this situation warrants special
the Mounain Meadows Subdivision.
easements and right-of-ways required
the drainage problems as they were
Cerise, Tom Turnbull, and Nicholas
prior to the Cornmissioners stopping
been sold. The County has since
$cupansy in a subdivision that is
to ensure that there is a timely
of my letter to Mr. Schenk on
agreement to be reached.
I want to emphasize that all of the
drainage problems caused by the
afrect€d land ormen. It only serves
Gordon should have been required to
can not guarantee to the County that
the adjacent land owners then they
At this point Ibeliwe I have
the drainage problems caused by
this matter.
Sincerely,
<$4)',v
David W. Hicks
l05l CountyRoad 111
Carbondale, CO 81623
963-1602
cc: lvlarian Smittt, LarryMcCowerq
Gerald Ilartert
January29,1997 Mountain Meadows Subdivision Page 6
do two things to guarantee tbat the drainage modifications are
to its historic flows by May lr,1997. The first is to start ttre
Schenh Dean Gordon, and the Allens Urat the County will not
to continue. The second is for the Commissionea to accept my
make adjustments, if they feel that my numbers are not reasonable'
the cost figures that the Commissioners decide are reasonable. I
play the role of mediator in private land owner negotiations,
ideration because of the Coun$ staiPs mistakes in the handling of
the County stafrdid not veri$ that the Allens had all of the
build their suMivision. Secon( the County stafrchose to ignore
in spite of communicationfrom myself, Flaven Cerise, Iohn
After the warnings from all of the concerned parties and
sales of lots in the Mountain Meadows SuMivision one lot had
this owner to build a house and receive a certificate of
. I think for all of these rqlsons it is in the County's best interest
,to these lingering drainage problems. I have also included a copy
15\ outlining all of my requirements that must be met for a final
and reconstnrction work that is contemplated to solve the
in lv[eadows SuMivision provides no garn to me or any of the
prot€ct us from future harm, as the Allens, Mr. Schenk and Dean
all along. If the developers and their development tearn
Allens' subdivision will not cause immediate or future harm to
not receive approval for their suMivision.
all ofthe issues as they existed and currently exist in relation to
Meadows Subdivision. Thanks for your continuing help in
N[artfur, Don Defor4 John Schenh Dr. & Mrs. Alleq
,,I T
',1
HrpwoRrH-Pawrnr Gs
February 28, 1997
Dr. Wilmer C. Allen
437 East 1730 North
orem, Utah 86057
Subject:Subsurface
Dear Mr. Allen:
As requested bY John
Subdivision,nty Road 111, Garfield County, Colorado.
Ntcet, INc.s020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81501
Fax 970 945-8411
Phone 970 945-7988
Job No. 195 208
oration for Dry Well Design, Mountain Meadows
k, we drilled an exploratory boring in the existing retention
ision for design of a dry well. The pond is located next to
was to dispose of the design flow into the pond to below
pond on Lot 5 ofthe subdi
an escarpment and the inte
encountered at the time of ilting or when checked 5 days later.
final depth of 76 feet on February 19, 1997 . The base of
:t belowthe ground surface at the boring. The'.'nr:ng
subsurface conditions encountered are shown cn -':;s. 1
mainly of gravel, cobbles and boulders in a silty sand
er was found at 37 to 45r/z feet. No free water was
depth of about 60 feet is recommended for disposal of 'he.
lul,t b. perforated in about the lower 15 feet anci ita','e striid
,e sand and clay layer to the ground surface. This will
the coarse granular subsoils and not perch on the sand and
well should then be mainly downward and not seep out
dry well is used, we should conduct analysis for sizing
if we can be of further assistance. please let us know.
CAL, INC.
the base of the escarpment.
The boring was drilled to
the escarpment is about 60
location and graPhic log of
and2. The subsoils consi
matrix. A sand and claY I
A dry well that extends to
surface runoff. The well I
casing from the bottom of
allow the water to flow i
clay layer. The flow from
of the escarpment face. If
and provide deuils for
If you have anY questions
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH.PAWLAK
Steven L. Pawlak,
SLP/ro
cc: John Schenk
Dean Gordon
[i,!.'m
1s222 i*
t/-/rz='-+i ,
&,lt',W
aa
a
o4c4.<
ao,K/,
I
t
l,
/J
t5l
/*=o'
APPROXIMATE SCALE1'= 5O'
LOT +
-
I
-L
--
I
ALLEN COURT
I
I
&,4;
il
Ir
ll
l/,n' \
f/ I
i-..\{Il!IIIIIIII
LOT 5
JgDnr)',,-
-r
I
)
I
r^r;'- ^'vtl UAtD
''.,/f'-'
1,,1.;
,o*,*\
X\
'Yt:ti':
,rY,,'.,,
t.L"r'
ta,
\
i
\\IL
7/)
Vi
195 208 HEPWORTH _ PAWLA
GEOTECHNICAL, IN(LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig, 1
i\lirirl
q)
q)
t-r-
I
-c+)o-
0)o
NOTE
ORING 1
[^*o.,u.,) +*o\ -zoercI tJ--z+
l..:'='
+t(l,
(uL
I
-c.+,C(,a
onotion of symbols is shown on Fig- 3.
195 208 HEPWORTH PAWLI
GEOTECHNICAL, IN(
K LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig. 2
LEGEND:
a
r.3
lfrYtrt
EF]
ffi
TOPSOIIi orgonic sondy cloy.
SAND AND CLAY (SC-CL); silty. grc
bronrn. low plosticity.
GRA\EI.. COBBLES AND BOULDERS (
Relotively undisturbed drive somple;
Drive somple: stondord penetrotion
F
F
L7 /1, Drive somple blow count indicotes'-''- required to drive the Colifomio or
ffi
lndicotes thot slotted PVC PiPe
NOTES:
1. Explorotory boring wos drilled on Jonuo
flight power ouger ond 6-inch diometer
2. Locotion of the explorotory boring wos
3. Elevotion of the explorotory boring wos
4. The explorotory boring locotion should t
5. The lines between moteriols shown on I
between moteriol tlpes ond tronsitions
5. No free woter wos encountered in the I
Fluctuotion in woter level moy occur wi'
7. Loborotory Testing Results:
WC=WoterContent(Z)
DD = Dry Density ( p"f )f4 = Percent retoined on No. 4 sieve.
-2OO : Percent possing No. 20O sieve
LL = Uquid Limit ( Z. )
Pl : Pldsticitylndex ( Z)
velly. skotified. stiff to dense. moist to rrery moist,
!M): silty sond motrix. dense. moist, brown. rounded rock.
2-inch l.D. Colifornio liner somple.
test ( SPT ), 1 3rl8-incn l.D. split sPoon somple, ASru D - 1585-
thot 45 blows of o 140-pound hommer folling 30 inches were
iPT sompler '12 inches.
instolled in the boring to the depth shown.
ry 29 ond Februory 19, 1997 with o 4-inch diometer continuous
b-aex cosing, respectively. The ouger boring refuseo ot 7 Feet'
'eferenced to the existing drytell shown on Fig. 1-
not meosured ond the log of explorotory boring is drown to depth.
e considered occurote only to the degree implied .
he erplorotory boring log represent the opproximote boundories
moy be groduol.
loring of the time of drilling or when checked 5 doys loter'
:h time.
195 208 HEPWORTH PAWLI
GEOTECHNICAL, IN
K LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
u.s sr llunD sEnES clE n sqrlSE oFomE
118 f, S.t' T-n+0
o
LJ42.
F
lrJE,si
trJ
C)
tE
LJ(L
60
.s .@ 1.t! 2:5 /t75 r.5tz5'tg0 5ir5 7LZ 1;9 I
OF PAR]ICLES IN MILUME]ERS
CEES
SAND 60 Z SILT AND CLAY 40 Z
PLAS'IICITY INDEX 7 %
FROM: Boring 2 ot 4O FeetSond
ITE REAM6
24 fiR. ' Hn
,15 54. 'tJ Ll{. GO lf,.10 IIL /+ M. I loL FEts
r
(,Zooa
U'
L
L2s0
lrJ
C)u
lrJ
TL
,lO
. r .o .ota .o:r, .ar1
CI.^Y TD AT
GRAVEL O Z
UQUID UMIT 2+ Z
SAMPLE OF: Silty Clop
GRADATION TEST RESULTSHEPWORTH _ PA
GEOTECHNICAL. IN
s
D
rA
CIFo*EtoE
Ua
E
C(oq
o)
oE
=a
Ec(Eo
c,
oE
=U)
-aS=2At
6HE8OBFz=q
JO
0
E
=og
U6GUFF
9,gEE F
OL
=L^d=t +e{
h(,oz26q
H3;*o$o(o
2o
tr
Ea
o_Zr<g6
o(o
J4>:<+
o
o
i:
iEEE
o
rEp<=zEJU.PESE<oozEo
Nd
F
q
c,
F
zIF
ooJuJq
E
q
ioU:
orf,tr)sf,
(,z
Go6
.i
@oN
ro
o)
ciz
6]o-)
2?J\-
JJ3H
=,_E,A(JFrulFF\-oaLll -ofn [Il r-Y )t-Y e>
J'm
=1o- lJ-io
E,E
==A4.EH-,
Oct-12-94 12:38P Roaring Fo
Octobct 12,1998
Garficld Coun$ Commisuiwrs
FAX: 945.1-767
RE: Morrnain lvlcadols athiffi
rts owffi ofpropcaty ud a hourc intb!
prqocod drrinsgc PltL I ftBl thrfi this
$rypo(tlhatda&
ThaDtt.
Sinccrely,
qilu-
Gary D. KEuq tvlD.
GDK:dw
t ts4o STATE HWY.
TELEPHONE
Fami l:u PhYs t-97g-963-2954 P. 01
oARING FORK FAMILY PHYSICIANS' P.C.
RICHARD A. HERRTNGTON, M.D'
DIPLOMATE' AMERTCAN BOARD OF FAMILY PRACTICE
GARY D. KNAUS, M.D.
DIPLOMATE. AMERICAN BOAFD OF FAMILY PRACTICE
Klr*eRuu J. SPENCE, D.O.
PTPLOMATE, AMERIGAN BOARD OF FAMILY PRACTICE
DrrimgePlao
lv{erdows Subdivilioo, I hrvc rwicqrcd tb
a rcasmablc sohrtim to thc currcm sitntio'o, rnd I
93 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 4t623
Fax 970196e-2954
GARFIELD C UNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE
DEC. 16, 1998
AffN: lm. HARK BBAN
I'IRB TOR, GARFIELI)
109 BIGEIH SI.
GLEXTOOD SPRINGS, CO.
81501
PLAI NAIIB: AI{EMED PLAI Of
DATE OT REVIEII: I,EC. 10, 1998
PLAT REVIBIIED BY: SAI{ PflBLPS,
DBSCRTPTION OF SIRIIICES:
PIAT REVIBII IT{VOICB
PLAilNI}IG DEPT.
I,iOITNIAIN I,IEADOI{S At PRINCE qR3ffi
COT'IITY SURVEYOR
REVIEII PI.AT SUBI{I TEI' TO
1 rrR. e s4o.oo P/H t40.oo
soul.D You EAVB Al{I QIIBSTI , PLEASE PEBL EREB TO CONTA T HB AT YOTIR CONVENIBNCB.
County Courthouse Bldg.
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 94s-s1s8
Samuel Phelps
Garfield County Surveyor
Private Office
1001 Grand Avenue, Ste.205
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
PH: (970) 928-8233 FAX: (970) s4s-8565
AS GARFIELII COUITil SIIRVEYOR
JOHN R. SCHENK
DAN KERST
WILLIAMJ. deWNTE& III
CAROLYN M. STRAUTMAN
KERST & deWINTER, LLP
OF PROFESSION,\L CORPORATIONS
ATTORNEYS AT L,q,W
302 EIGHTH STREET. SIJITE 3 IO
SPRINGS, COL()RADO 8I60I
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2M7
TELECOPIER: (97 0) 945-47 67
1.
2.
J.
November 19, 1998
Rick McClellan
M & M Construction
P.O.Box2299
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Re:
Dear Rick:
Mountain M at Prince Creek Subdivision
After a long andbumpy we have finally obtained the County Commissioner's approval
,untain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision. A copy of thatof a revised drainage plan for the
plan, revised through October 22,1 8, is enclosed. Dr. and Mrs. Allen are in Guatemala, but will
be back in December. They wou like to complete this work as soon as possible. It involves
primarily enlarging the retention installing four (4) culverts, reshaping the berm that was
placed two (2) years ago and cons ting two (2) small berms to protect the Emerson residence.
Please call me at your first opportu
tasks are as follows:
ity so we might discuss timing of construction. The specific
On the Harriman exempt lot veway north of Lot 7, install a 10" ADS in-line drain with
N-12 outlet @ 1.0'min. cover. Bevel end to conform to6" ADS 90" bend and 6"
slope. Install expanded
field determined.
grate over outlet (to keep animals out). Drain location to be
6.
4.
5.
Between Lots 4 and 5, fill
On Lot 5, install solid co
Remove a portion of the
cover with joint gasket to seal off drywell.
berm on Lot 5 as shown. Regrade to historic conditions.
Reshape end of remaining
On the Emerson exempt lot
Encase pipe in concrete ani
th of Lot 6, install 261.f. 12" CMP @ I% rvith end ::.:ctions.
t"all @ 6" cover.
On the Emerson exempt lot h of Lot 6, construct a 1.0't high berm to direct overland
fluv,r away fi'om pump ho
grate in construction of the u drywell to be constructed on land south
Reuse frame and
ofLot 3.
I:\l\ALLENMcClcllm I
regrade Drainage Ditch "B" to historic conditions.
Page I of2
7.
{'
1.0't highberm to direct overland flow away from buildings onOn Lots 6 and7, construct
Emerson exempt lot.
8.On the subdivision road,Court, at the trvo (2) locations shown, install
CMP @ 1% with end secti ns. Encase pipe in concrete and install @ 6" cover.
26 L.F. t2"
Restore road
9.
10.
ln addition to the work
area of Aiien Coun.
JRS/clh
Enc.
cc: Mrs. Anneliese K. Allen
Mr. Robert B. Emerson
on the plat, repair the damaged road surface in the cul-de-sac
Very truly yours,
JOHN R. SCHENK
Mr. Dailand Allen)
and patch chip and seal
Clean roadside Ditch B.
Excavate retention pond to C.F. as shown in area located south oflot 3. lnstall drywell
using frame and grate
Clean Ditch A.
existing drywell on Lot 5.
11.
t2.
l:\l\ALLEMMcClcllu I Page 2 of 2
JOHN R. SCIIENK
DAN KERST
WTLLIAM J. deWINTER, lll
CAROLYN M. STRAUTMAN
Dean Gordon
Schmueser Gordon M
1 18 West 6th Street, S
Glenwood Springs. CO
Re:
Dear Dean:
Thanks foryour
homeowners. It would'
for Mountain Meadows
homeowners associati
office will hold the
We also need a
the drainage imp
referenced. Mark has
completion.
JRS/clh
Enc.
cc: Mrs. Anneliese
Mr. Robert B. E
Gary Knaus, M.
Mark Bean
Mountai
SCHEN KERST & dEWINTER, LLP
AP,RSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
302 EIGHTH STREET, SUITE 3IO
NWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8160I
TELEPHONE: (97 0) 945-2447
TELECOPIER: (97 0) 9 45 -47 67
January L2,1999
', Inc.
200
1601
Meadows Prince Creek
in resol ng the final issues forthe Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek
most help l if we could get five (5) sets of the plans and specifications
Prince C , as amended. Two (2) of the sets will be delivered to the
one (1) wil be given to the County, the Allens will keep one (t) and our
copy.
rtification Schmueser Gordon Meyer as to
My er to Mark Bean is enclosed with
telephoned and needs a "stamped" engineer's
the partial completion of
the various documents
certification of partial
Allen
Yours very truly,
JOHN R. SCHENK
I$Fnrilrffi
JL'* ':j11
GAII,:Itr,LD OULT{-I
& RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
300 Meadowood Drive
Carbondale, CO 81623
(s70) s63-24s1
FtuX (e70) 963-0s6s
. or Anneliese K. Allen
Road 111
co 81623
REnilr,Eil
.,A I'l ;' 2 l$38
Ans'd.
RECEIPT
Received from:
lmpact fee
Received
hy Simon
ministrative
Carbondale &
of $1856.00 for Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek.
Wilmer
in the
15,1996