HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report PC 7.12.95PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PC 7n495
M ountain Meadows at Prince Creek
Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Anneliese K. Allen
A parcel of land located in a
portions of Sections l l and 14, T8S.
R88W; located approximately one
(2) miles south of the Town of
Carbondale, offof C.R. 111..
17.893 acres
Central water system from a well
I.S.D.S.
County Road lll
A/R/RD
A/R/RD
REQUEST:
APPLICANTS:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSTYE PLAN
The subject property is located in District C, Rural AreaVMinor Environmental
Constraints as shown on the Garheld County Comprehensive Plan Management
Districts Map. The Carbondale Urban Area of InJluence is within one (l) mile of the
proposed development, which is considered a transition zone between rural and urban
densities. The recommended density for transition zones is one (1) dwelling unit per
two (2) acres.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Dercrintion: The property is adjacent to County Road 1l l, on the Crysta1
River side of the road. The parcel is irrigated cropland that slopes gently from
the south to the north. There are a number of large cottonwood trees along the
road. The applicant's house is the only structure on the property at this time.
Adjacent to the north side of the proposed subdivision are three houses on lots
approximately two acres in size.
Project DercriFtion: It is proposed to split the 17.893 acre site into 8 singl+
family lots ranging in size from 2.000 acres to 2.324 acres in size.(See plan
enclosed) There are seven (7) new lots that will have water supplied by a central
water system fed by a well on the site, while the existing house will continue to
have water provided by another well that has served the lot since 1975. This
same well serves two of the existing houses that are adjacent to the proposed
development. Sewage will be treated by the use of individual sewage disposal
systems. Access will be provided from County Road I I I via a 40 ft. wide and
930 ft. long road that ends in a cul-de-sac with a 50 ft radius.
Fireprotection will beprovided by a 10,000 gallon cistern to be located nearthe
cul-de-sac. Water irrigation is proposed to be provided by an underground
pressure irrigation system.
History: In 1984, by Resolution No. 84-211, the Board of County
Commissioners denied the approval of the Preliminary Plan for the Mountain
Meadows subdivision. The reasons for denial were based on the density being
incompatible with the lesser residential and agricultural densities within one (1)
mile of the proposed development ; lack of water management mechanisms ; and
an inadequate road servicing the area. AII of these reasons led to a
determination that the subdivision was premature for development. The
decision was upheld by the District Court in subsequent litigation, based on the
applicant's failure
"to provide for the creation of a legally appropriate entity to control and
manage the proposed central water system with adequate powers to
enforce the provisions of any contract with the Basalt Water
Conservancy District ... (and) to provide for an appropriate legal
mechanism to manage the existing underground pressurized irrigation
system, as well as adequate safeguards to protect existing wells on
surrounding areas."
one of the reasons for denial, due to the lack of an adequate county road to
service the subdivision, was not upheld. Thejudge's coulment was as follows:
"The concern was the increase in traffrc on the county road that would
be caused by the subdivision. The increased traffrc is solely as a result of
the increased land use density. Density is a function of Tening. The
property in question is zoned for two acre residential use. The proposed
subdivision is in conformance with the existin gzoning. If the defendant
believes that the allowable zoning results in too great a density the
remedy is to change the zoning, not to attempt to control it through the
subdivision approval process. "
The County has tleen working on a modification of the Comprehensive Plan,
that would eventually recorlmend land use densities for new zone districts.
[I. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Agency Comments:
1. Division of Water Resources: The Division recommends that no final
approval be given to the pdect until a Court decree for an augmentation plan
B.
C.
--Z -
B.
C.
is approved. Additionally, the Division questions the adequacy of the water
supply, based on thelack ofdocumentation submitted with the application. (See
letters oes. )
2. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: The District has no problem
with the proposed cul-de-sac length, but feels that aminimum of 16,000 gallons
of storage for fire protection. The District is also requesting $232per dwelling
unit as a part of the fire impact fees approved by the Board of County
Commissioners last year. (See letter pg. _)
3. Division of Wildlife: In general the Division is satisfied with the proposed
covenants, but they would prefer that the covenants be converted to deed
restrictions, so the County can enforce them. They would also like to see a
restriction on construction workers bringing uncontrolled dogs onto the site.
(See letter pg. )
4. Colorado Geologic Survey: They generally do not have any geologic related
objections to the proposed subdivision. They do recommend that each site be
investigated by a qualified soils and foundation engineer. (See letter pgs.
-)
Zoring: The A/R/RD zone district requires a minimum of two (2) acres for
each lot created as a part of a subdivision. Each of the proposed lots has two
acres of area and is in compliance with the zone district requirements.
Road/Access: The roadway proposed to serve seven of the eight lots is classified
as a semi-primitive roadway and is required to have at a minimum of a 40 ft.
ROW, with eight (8) ft. driving lanes and two (2) ft. shoulders and a gravel
driving surface. The application proposes two l0'asphalt surfaced lanes, with
two ft. shoulders. This roadway will have to be dedicated to the public for use,
but be maintained by a homeowners association.
Cul-de-sacs may be permitted, provided they are not over 600 ft. in length. The
proposed cul-de-sac is approximately 930 ft. long. The Board may approve
longer cul-de-sacs " for topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire
protection and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer
design." The applicant has a favorable recommendation lrom the Carbondale
& Rural Fire Protection District.
County Road 111 has not been upgraded since the last application, but the
courts have stated that the County must have a "rational nexus" between the
proportionate impacts of a development and the total impacts from all
development on the road. At this time the County has no method of assessing
road impact fees on this project.
FireProtection: TheCarbondale &Rural FireProtection Districthasrequested
a 16,000 gallon water tank for hre protection. The applicant has proposed a
10,000 gallon water tank. The State Forest Service has not commented on this
proposal, but they have recommended in other applications that wildf,re
problems can be minimized by lollowing the recommendations for construction
of homes contained in the CSFS publication "Wildfire Protection in the
Wildland Urban Interface" and "Model Regulations forprotecting People and
Homes in Subdivisions and Developments".
D.
I
Lot Layout: During the previous subdivision review proress, the location of
houses in the view plane of the neighboring houses was an issue. The application
has proposed building envelopes to protect the neighbor's views of Mt. Sopris..
Pitkin County: While no response was received from Pitkin County, stafffeels
that it is important to understand that any Garfield County action to approve
a subdivision, will by default create a legally separate parcel in Pitkin County.
As a part of the previous review of the subdivision, a recornmended condition
of approval was that aplat note be created that states that "any parcels created
by Garf,reld County action will, in no way, obligate Pitkin County to approve
any building permits without compliance with the appropriate Pitkin County
Land Use Code requirements and procedures. " Additionally, it was required of
the developer to make sure the Garfield/Pitkin boundary line be legally describe
and accepted by the Garheld County Surveyor prior to any final plat approval.
Water: The Division of Water Resources has expressed reservations about the
proposed legal water supply plan. While they do not mention it in their letter,
they have taken a position on the Round 2 Reudi Reservoir augmentation water
that questions the long term viability of the augmentation source. The Division
is requiring that all decrees using 25year BOR contracts for a water supply have
some specific language that puts owners of that water on notice that the water
supply is only good for 25 years and there is no guarantee that it will be renewed,
thus leaving a water owner without a legal water supply. (See specific language
in letter pgs.-) Recently, Judge Ossola, District Court, ruled that Bureau of
Recreation contracts for 25 year lease is not a legally adequate source of
augmentation water. Staffsuggests that at aminimum that the language noted
in the State Engineer's letter be made a plat note and included in the protective
covenants of the homeowner's association.
VI.SUGGESTED FINDINGS
C.
That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required
by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission; and
That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested
parties were heard atlhat hearing; and
That the proposed subdivision of land is in general compliance with the
recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated
area of the County; and
That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County lsning
Resolution; and
That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the
State of Colorado, and Garfield County, have been submitted and, in addition,
have been found to meet all requirements olthe Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations.
G.
E.
F.
A.
B.
D.
E.
_4,r.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL, subject to the following
conditions:
l. Allrepresentationsoftheapplicant, eitherwithintheapplication orstatedatthe
public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be considered conditions
of approval unless otherwise state by the Planning Commission.
All proposed utilities shall be located underground. Atl necessary appurtenances
for individual service connection shall be provided by the developer. Utility
facilities shall be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement.
The applicant shall establish a Homeowner's Association. The Homeowner's
Association shall be incorporated in accordance with the Colorado Revised
Statutes. The protective covenants, articles of incorporation and other
Homeowner's Association documents including by-laws will be submitted for
review by the County Attorney prior to the approval of the Final Plat.
The water allocation contract shall be transferred from the developer to the
Homeowner's Association. The Homeowner's Association shall enforce
individual compliance through covenaats. Further, that the protective
covenants contain the language recommended by the Division of Water
Resources regarding the acceptance of a 25 year contract for a water
augmentation supply.
The applicant shall pay $200 per lot in School Impact Fees prior to the approval
of the Final Plat.
The restrictive covenants shall provide that there will be no resubdivision of the
lots.
Prior to the submittal of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide adequate
written verification from the Division of Water Resources documenting
approval of the domestic water supply and comply with any recommendations
made by the Division.
The applicant shall provide a 16,000 gallon water storage tank per the request
ofthe Carbondale and Rural FireProtection District forfire protection as apart
ofthe submittal of a Final Plat and pay $232.00 per dwelling to the District prior
to submittal of a Final Plat.
All roads including the proposed cul-de-sac shall be designed and constructed
in accordance with minimum County standards.
The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all roads, bridges, utilities
and drainage structures prior to approval of a Final Plat.
The applicant shall demonstrate that procedures are established for the
maintenance of all bridges, roadways etc., including snow removal, through the
Homeowner's Association.
3.
4.
5.
7.
9.
r0.
11.
12.The applicants shall provide a modihed water allocation contract from the
Basalt Water Conservancy District to provide adequate water to accommodate
the lack of recharge for non-discharging wastewater systems prior to review by
the BOCC if no modification to the contract is required, then the applicant shall
provide supporting documentation prior to the preliminary plan review by the
Board of County Commissioners.
That the Final Plat for the subdivision include the following:
a. A legal description of the Garfield/Pitkin County boundary line that
is approved by the County Surveyor
b. That the following plat notes be included on the plat:
(l) The state engineer shall curtail all out-of-priority diversions,
the depletions fromwhich arenot so replaced asto preventinjury
to vested water rights pursuant to section 37-92-305(8), C.R.S.
(1990). Further, the applicant and its assigns understand that the
lease supply is only lor a period of 25 years and if such lease
should expire, fail to renewed, is terminated, or an alternative
sufficient sour@ of replacement water is not included in this
decree by proper amendment prior to such expiration, curtailment
of all out-of-priority diversions will occur.
(2) The approval of this subdivsion action by Garf,reld County
will, in no way, obligate Pitkin County to approve any building
permits without compliance with the appropriate Pitkin/County
Land Use Code requirements and procedures.
Q) trrru P/ac* rt-s/ne-/r*r
t) DdA' /at.+S /tr-'/lil
13.
g)
w
4,r h5l/,y sAe-/t /c d/rue/d la,,ila/d
tLA{ / rl dar/ fu su"l 41) //E t rn
4 ?/ 3 7 , -g/a// aP/ a/u/?t u/(L"*
a6 Uflil. sA/*"*^/
,tlo dar/du^aV(t";
7
--6a-
LORADO
o
" STA|E OF CO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGTNEER
[)ivision of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1 l.l 3 Sherrnan Street, Roonr B1B
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (]03) 866-35t]9 . rr,. ( l:li r .i J i ,,1 .-t,,t i"l ' :"
KM/km
mountainmed.sub
cc: Orlyn Bell, Div. Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
May 24, 1995
Roy Ronrcr
Covernor
lanres S. Lrx hhca<i
Executive Direr krr
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision
SW 1/4 Sec. 11 and NW 1/4 Sec. 1 4,T. B S, R. BB W, 6th P'M'
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
We are in receipt of your subdivision preliminary referralto subdivide approximately '17.68
acres into B residential lots. The proposed water supply will be by one or more new wells that
will be connected to a central water distribution system'
please refer to our letter dated March 3, 1995 by Mr. Jeff Deatherage of our office. A
copy of that letter is enclosed. The comments that were made in that letter still hold good. We
recommend that final approval of this development not be granted until a Court decree for
augmentation plan, to compensate iniury to other water rights, is issued.
We are unable to comment on the adequacy of the water supply. As outlined in the
statutes, Section 30-28-133(3)(d), C.R.S., the applicant is required to submit adequate evidence
that a water supply that is sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability will be
available to ensure an adequate supply of water.
lf you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office or
Mr. Orlyn Bell of our Division office in Glenwood springs at 945-5665.
Sincerely
,4trfl,,ill,,
Mr. Kris Murthy
Prolessional Engineer
n
d
STAIE OF COLORADO
EFICE oF THE srATE ENCINEERT.-, t, " -{' }.' ,t t..4r'.1 :tlit fi
-rvision of Water Resclurces , J 1,, 'Jir ,, t r'-', I :i il
Department o[ Natural Resources , , ,, f : ii
tlll"'ltffiHll",il,[flu'u '}, ';' I ii1 J 1 I She rman Stret,t, Room 618 ] ll t i t
Denver, Colorado 80201 It " i
i, ' i;
:lii:Jlia'.::f;i"'' : il'". , . , .. :.- j-^^.: '
,.'Uft"'** d) (r lt$''Roy Romer
Crtvernor
llmes S. Lrrlrhe.rd
fxecutive Diretlor
Hal D. Simpson
State En6iner
March 3, '1995
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Sketch Plan
SW 1/4, Section 11 and NW 1/4, Section 14, T B S, R BB W,6th
P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Dave:
We have reviewed the above referenced subdivision outlined in the sketch plan submittal
by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, lnc. dated February 6, 1995. This proposal will create eight single-
family lots on approximately 17.68 acres. The proposed water supply for this development is to
be provided by one or more new wells that will be connected to a central water distribution
system. The well(s) are to be operated pursuant to a water allotment contract with the Basalt
Water Conservancy District (District) and the District's substitute water supply plan. An existing
house on lot B and two other nearby houses are served by an existing well, permit no. 80997.
According to information in the submittal, the water requirements for household use for
this development will be approximately 1O gpm. Other wells in the area are reported to produce
between 10 and 15 gpm, so one well is expected to serve the entire development. A second well
is proposed if production of the first well is found to be insufficient to supply this development.
Water for irrigation is to be provided by an existing underground distribution system that obtains
water from the Crystal River by way of the East Mesa Ditch.
Based upon information in the submittal, the State Engineer's Office offers the following
opinion pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1XhXl), C.R.S., for your consideration regarding material
injury to decreed water rights and the adequacy of the proposed water supply:
It appears this office previously commented on this development in a letter to Garfield
County dated July '12, 1984 (copy enclosed). Our comments for the present development are
as follows:
,
Mr. Dave Michaelson
March 3, 1995
Page 2
1. The applicant will need to obtain a well permit for the new well to serve seven single-
family dwellings. While the applicant does appear to have a valid contract with the District
for 3.3 acre-feet, it appears the location of this development is outside of the area
approved in the District's substitute water supply plan. lt is unlikely a well permit could
be issued without a plan for augmentation approved by the Division 5 Water Court.
2. lf the existing well, permit no. 80997, is connected to the central water distribution system,
a new permit for the expanded use of this well must be obtained. lf the existing well will
not be connected to the central system, but will be used to serve three single{amily
dwellings, per.r-nit no. 80997 should be amended pursuant to our policy # 93-4 to reflect
this use. A copy of this policy is enclosed.
3. Although general inlormation was provided in the submittal regarding adjacent wells, we
are unable to comment on the adequacy of the water supply without an engineering or
geotechnical study documenting the physical availability and dependability of ground
water for the proposed uses at this site. As outlined in the statutes, Section 30-28-133,
C.R.S., the subdivider is required to submit adequate evidence that a water supply that
is sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to ensure an
adequate suPP|Y of water.
It is our opinion that material injury to decreed water rights may occur if diversions are
made without a court approved plan for augmentation. The filing of a plan for augmentation and
the subsequent judiciai review and final decree should provide adequate terms and limitations
to protect decreed water rights.
Should you have further questions or comments regarding the water supply for this
project, please contact this office at the above address.
Sincerely,
l\\tt,l)) !-/.,t./-.t -J i,"
Jeff Deatherage
Water Resources Engineer
Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
Steve Lautenschlager, Assistant State Engineer
mountmed.sub
.? q_
i,+J,1 i:
i
il
I
Carbondale & Rural Fire ProtectionI r tr'{l't 3oo Meadowood Dr.
Carbondale, Colorado 81 623
Phone (970) 963-2491
FAX (970) 963-0s69
District
May 26,1995
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planner
109 8th st.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Preliminary Plan
I have reviewed the preliminary plan for the Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek subdivision and
have visited the site. I would offer the following comments regarding fire protection
Access to the subdivision appears to be adequate via the proposed subdivision road and cul-de-
sac offof County Road I I 1. The new subdivision road should meet county road standards.
Water supply for fire protection would initially be provided with water carried on fire apparatus.
I would recommend tirat the applicants install a centrally located underground storage tank for
fire protection. The tank should hold a minimum of 16,000 gallons and meet the
recommendations of the N.F.P.A. 1231 standard on water supplies.
Response time to the subdivision is approximately l0 minutes with first response coming from the
Carbondale station.
The District will require the payment of development impact fees in the amount of $232.00 per
unit as approved by the Garfield County Commissioners. This payment is due upon final plat
approval.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincere[r7, /) , ,4--.-
bJ(H"@
Bill Gavett. '
Fire Marshal
., .i j ,)
u j,l: '"! t r, 't) ''t ,t
le# ,i ''
ur
nft f' l€1. ai
40 -.
REFER TO
ffi
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEi'ABTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYEF
Perry D. Olson, Director
6O6O BroadwaY
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (3()31 297'1 192 For lVildlife-
For People
5-L2-95
Garfield
109 8th
Glenwood
County PlanningSt., Suite 303Springs, CO 81601
Dear Dave,
f refer you to my 2-L4-g5 letter to you regarding wildlife
irnpacts for the Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision
which was inctuded in the preliminary plan submittal. Included
in the pretiminary plan weie protective covenants which addressed
wildlife Concerns. ff these covenants are maintained, not
changed over time, and are strictly enforced they should help
ninilnize impacts to wildlife and I commend the proponent for
their efforls. I am somewhat hesitant as my experience with
covenants is that over time they are not enforced and wildlife
suffers as a result. It would be better if these conditions were
deed restricted and conditions of approval so the County could
enforce them as necessary.
In addition, I would also recommend that construction workers not
be allowed to bring their dogs on site durinq construction.
Generally when thia happens the workers do not keep control of
their dogs and they run loose and chase deer/elk.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
questions, please give me a caII.
If you have any
Idlife Manager
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, KCNNEth SAIAZAT' EXECUIiVE D ECTOT
wILDLIFE COMMlssloN, william R. Hegberg, Member . Eldon w. cooper, chairnran ' Felix chavez, Member ' Rebecca L Frank' Member
Louis F. Swift, Member. George VanDenBerg, Member. Larry M. Wright, Member Thomas M. Eve, Member
,- // -
sinc/ery,
{NtDistrict
Carbonda
a
STA|E, OF COLOKADO
COLORADO CEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and CeologY
Department of Natural Resources
'l 313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-261 1
FAX (303) 866-2461
June 16, 1995
,.1.
{rf,' '
I)EI'AI{|MENT OF
NATURAL
I{ESOURCES
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner 'n"..
Garfielcl County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 103
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Proposecl Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Subdivision --
of the Intersection of C.R. 111 (Prince Creek Road) and the
County Boundary, Garfield CountY
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
Roy Ronter
Covernrtr
l.rnres S. Lochherrl
Execulive Direr:lor
Miclrael B. Long,
Division Direclor
Vi< ki Cow.rrl
Stale (;e()l0Aisl
rnrl l)ireclor
Immediately Northwest
Garfield County-Pitkin
At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35 (1912), we have reviewed the materials
sub;itted for an<l made a field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision
indicated above. The following c<lmments summarize our findings'
(1) The geologic conditions of this parcel are essentially identical to those in the Prince
Cieet EJtates Subdivision which is i short distance to the north of this proposed one. A
copy of the review-response correspondence for it is attached and our recommendations are
essentially unchanged also.
(2) The most significant difference between the conditions at this site and Prince Creek
irtut", is that ihe surface and subsurface drainage of this parcel is better and more
conducive to residential development. We still recommen<t that foundation drains be used
for all structures with basementi. The slopes of these lots and the absence o[ active drainage
channels will probably minimize the possibility of surface-runoff and erositln problems.
In summary, we have no geology-related objection to your approval of this subdivision
proposal.
5-.0.,-(-.-
hgineering Geologist
encl.
ffi''oorr-0013
-/z -
STATE OF COLORADa
COLORADO GEOLOCICAL SURVEY
Diririon of Minerals and CeologY
Deoartmenl of Natural Resources
l3i3 Sherman Slreet, Rm.7l5
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phens (303) 866-261 1
FAX (301) 866-2461
March 22,1994
m
DEPARTMENI OF
NAIURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Covernor
Ken Salazar
Execulive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State CeoloBist
and Director
GA-94-0011
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfietd County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 103
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Proposed Prince Creek Estates (Sub<Iivision).Preliminary Plan ---North of the
Intersection of prince creek Road (c.R. 111) and the Garfield county-Pitkin county
Boundary, Garfield CountY
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
At your request and in accordance with S.B' 35 (1972), we have reviewed the materials
submitted for and made a field inspection on March 14, lgg4, of the site of the proposed
residential subdivision indicated above. The following comments summarize our findings'
(1) The general geology of this site consists of okler terrace gravels zrnd other alluvial
(stream-depositeci) *u?"riot, deposited by the ancesrral crystar River which overlie tire
Mancos Shale and possibly other bretaceous se<Jimentary rocks- The thickness of the stream-
derived materials i, prouuury variabre, but exceeds normal founclati.n depths [9, typigll
residential structures with basements. Although these surficial materials typically exhibit
good to excellent foundation-stability characterlstics, they can vary in composition and grain
size greatiy in short distances, both laterally an<l vertically' Because of this variability' we
recommend that gagb building site be investigate<l by i qualifiecl soils alrd foundation
engineer before r.l.aion of foundation type(s) ancl design(s).
(2) Because of the irrigation in the. vicinity and the resulting possibility that shallow perchecl
water table(s) could clevelop on clayey ,tn", in the ancieirt alluviutn, we recoll.lltlencl tltztt
foundation drains be installed in ali structures with basernerlts. The slope of these lots is
such that these drains can outfall by gravity flow'
-/3 -
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Marclr 22, 1994
Page Z
(3) The proposed individual septic sewage-rlisposal systems probably will be entirely feasible
for all of the lots. However, it is possible that percolation rates can vary greatly from place
to place which may necessitate use of "custom" leach-field designs.
(a) The grading and drainage plan presented in the Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Inc., map
ihoulO be adequate to controi surfice runoff across the lots. Flowever, the gulch that will
carry offsite flow that is shown dividing I'BASIN #1" from "BASIN #2" in their report (rnap)
snoda be studied further to determin-e if erosion in it coukl become excessive. Depending
on actual offsite flows and the contributions to runoff caused by impervious cover on the
lots, it may be advisable to protect this gulch area from erosion by active means such as
riprap placements along it, etc.
In summary, we believe that this subdivision proposal is entirely feasible if the reasonable
precautionary measures recommended above are taken'
Sincerelv.,r;?,,s-,a<
(Jy'mes M. Soule
Engineering Geologist
-/4 --
tlRY 16 ',95 07: 38Flll r IEiQFLOIn ,,. .P.1
,fqFu"5'
4
$TATE oF cel.oBAno-,
uTFICE OF TI{E 5TATE ENCINEER
Divisiorr of Water Resotrrc($
tleprrtlncnt oI Natttral Re"ources
I J I I Strrrrun fueu, Rrxrnr 81 I
t)rrner, Colorado 60101
phoclc 00ll 866-1501
r^r ooll 066-1589
IIowever,
Tltctefor:c,
Rrry Rmrtx
C.owrnor
lrme: S. tcr:hho.rd
Irr:< rtjre Olrttor
I Lrl [], Sirrrr{'o(t
SLrta Ir€i[ccf
$UBJIICTIACCtrPTANCEoF2s-YEARUTd*SE,AI]GIYI]u.ITA'I'I0NSU1'I,LU}5
Daslqjer-Psliey.
1'e Buranu of Reclauratiorr has starcd ftat art uew cortracrs for augucnt'j'Liotr watcr will ortly
bc on tr 25-yca1 lc.ase with no glaranfee4 option t'o rcilc;' E-xistirrg lcases'lhat coruc tlp for
rsncwal will also only be giverr ur* sa'u" x-r*lease optiorr' l-lte state EngiLrccr is vcry
conccrscct about trri.'ru-.rfte.r, l*s"l>i} i' u"' it1tli*s a greal burdert on the water
usens rntj our oluce in our aueupts i,i'"rr"r" o.^:Iiabic suppty of augmenLarion walcr,
-tpJ,*V wheu clealiirg with dorncstic usos'
vnrious cutities Iravo bccn iri neg'riarious rvitrr tho Burcau irl an attc,lpt t'o lcnglller tlro
conr,oct 1>oriod *oa ,ro siut, rneineil *dl-iiior* cfforts. The Srare Engineer lrclicves
r'ar it is crirical to obtain long-t..,rr.L,;;ilro,ir,r srrpplics t0 erlsLlre viabre rr.rnestic nrrd
urnuicipat rrrr" ur"Jil;;;tecL tirc i*.tol Y/atcr rig6t's of orltcrs'
defcrnrine<l to mr.kc llte25 year contracL policy n rotlity'
the neerl for p<llicy by thc Statc Engiltccr is rcqtrircd'
Ircbmary 24, 1995
I']QLICY I\iITflVIOITANDIIN'I 9 5- 1
cffcclive itmue<lialcly arrcl cxn only bc ruodi'flred or revokcd in vriting'
This policY bccomes
Ile&v
1. Walcr Couit
i
TIre statc lJrrgineer will accept 125-yut BttrcaU o' Ir'rciarrurrion conlracts as I source
of augmentation *n,", ,oiit *uctr ti'rc u, "rroru,
to increesc the cxrntract lertgtl artd/or
rcnewal options * ,u"."*r[ul. Irr o''rli i" u"ttpt sltc1 a nrlrply' a]l clecrccs for
augnrent'r'tiou pt'ni;;'l"itit
'ypc
of co'rtract nrust includc the following lauguagc:
,fhe st.ete engineer shall curtail all out-ofr:ill! cliversions, tlic dcpleriorts
'frourwlrichuunorsorqllacedastollttveli!*ju'yt,,ovestetlwatcr'rigtrls
purruarrt t" Jtirr'rz-9,305i;i,"i:R''i' (1990i' iiurther' t,e aprplicnrrt arrd
-/5 -
@
_ I,lRy 16 'g5 07:3gr:rl,l LEr:r'.,'lll Mf, ,*a*,,,r,-''
TOI-ICY IYIEMOI{ANDUM 95- I
FebruarY 24, 1995'
I,agc 2
im nssigns trnclcrstancl thnt thc lcase srrPply is only for u 1rcriu-l of 25 ycars itnd
if suc' lcasc s'ou,,t "*piic, lail to be icrrcrvert, is tcrnrinalf ' :t art altct'rtntivc
suf{rcicrttsourccorrepl,..".ilolltwatcrisrrotinclrrdctlintlrisdccreebylrropr
&rnendrnent prior ,o ,,,.i,-J*iriro,irn, oudilfuitenr oI itl] out-of-prioriLy
diversions rvill occ'ur' n
2- Subdivisiou Revicvr
il a subclivision rcvi.cw is l}clore t.tre state Ertgirrccr thnl proposcs to clcpond on a 25-
year. leasc oi Iru*nu of lteclalrrntion watcr f.i its ntrgnre,tation sult,ly' the Statc
Il,girrecr w,r crcariy i^f.nrr.ttie co,oty oilr-is.onrJnr ovcr r-hc su,ply nnd s[al'o thitt
rvlilJe^*,c ucccpt thc supply, i,i, ,rr" ,,r,.', position that if the lcllsc- sltotrtd cxpirc,
fait to be reucwed, be renr:.il-,"r;^;;;;r atrJrnative sufficicnr sourcc of rephccureul
wttcr is not otrtaiucrj prior to c*piratiun of lhc.1T'*' cuttd]nrent.ll nx out-r:fllriority
rlivcrsions wi* occur. r,,rrur.r-nrl*,'^ r.grl cntity srrourd be r:.stalllis'etl tcr rr"ltrcserrt
tlre iromeowners sttclt as :r rvlter clistrict' irr ltortteot^'ncts associltLit-rrt'
.4
Date<l tte l*L1day of Fcbrttarl' 1995JMital u. simpson
State Engineer
.('
")/6-