Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.03.2002Exhibits for Clark Subdivision Public Hearing held on September 3, 2002 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Letter from Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District to Kim Schlagel dated March 23, 2002 B Letter to Garfield Planning Dept. from Kenneth Knox of the Colorado Division of Water Resources dated March 20, 2002 and June 11, 2002 C Letter to Garfield Planning Dept. from Celia Greenman of the Colorado Geologic Survey dated April 1, 2002 D Referral Comments from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept. dated April 4, 2002 E Memo to Kim Schlagel from Kelly Wood of the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated March 29, 2002 F Email to Kim Schlagel from Steve Anthony of the Garfield County Vegetation Department dated April 24, 2002 G Letter to Kim Schlagel from Robert M. Noone, P.C, dated April 26, 2002 H Letter to Chris Manera, Colorado River Engineering, Inc. from Nathan Bell, Gamba & Associates, dated April 30, 2002. I Letter to Bob Noone, P.C. from Paul Bussone of Resource Engineering dated April 9, 2002 J Letter to Kim Schlagel from Chris Manera, Colorado River Engineering, Inc., dated April 3, 2002. K Letter to Kim Schlagel from Paul Bussone of Resource Engineering., dated May 1, 2002. L Letter to Kim Schlagel from Chris Manera, Colorado River Engineering, Inc., dated May 24, 2002. M Clark Subdivision Preliminary Plan application N Mail Receipts 0 Proof of Publication P Garfield County Zoning Regulations Q Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 R Garfield County Subdivision Regulations S Project Information and Staff Comments T U V X Y Z BOCC 09/03/02 MLB PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for a four (4) lot subdivision on 52.27 acres APPLICANT: John and Susanne Clark ENGINEER: Gamba and Associates LOCATION: 3523 County Road 103 WATER: Well SEWER: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) ACCESS: County Road 103 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN According to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, this site lies in a Medium Density Residential Area. This district recommends six (6) to less than ten (10) acres per dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing that each of the lots will have a primary residential residence with an accessory dwelling unit. This provides for an overall density of 6.53 acres per dwelling unit. Given this density, the application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. II. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Site Description: This site is a 52.27 acre parcel in the Missouri Heights area directly adjacent to County Road 103. An existing ranch house with associated outbuildings is at the northwest portion of the property. Vegetation on the site consists of pinion and juniper with open meadows of irrigated pasture, grasses, and weeds. 1 B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to divide a 52.27 acre parcel into four lots ranging from 10 to 20 acres apiece. Each lot is proposed to have a primary residence in addition to an accessory dwelling unit. Water will be serviced by individual wells and separate ISDS systems will handle septic needs. Lot 1 currently has an existing residence and accessory outbuildings. The existing house has a permitted access point and driveway off of County Road 103. The existing permitted access will also be shared by the proposed Lot 2. C. Adjacent Land Uses: Residential and agricultural land uses surround the site. III. REFERRAL AGENCIES: A. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: No comment received B. Town of Carbondale: No comments received. C. Carbondale Fire District: Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief, responded to this application with comments regarding access, water supply, wildfire hazards, and impact fees. His main recommendations were to have fire sprinklers installed in all the new residences due to the lack of water supply for fire protection, recommendations of the Colorado State Forest Service should be followed to mitigate wildfire hazards, and the applicant will be subject to development impact fees of the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District. Please see attached letter, Exhibit A. (Pg. 1/ ) D. RE -1 School District: No comments received. E. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Kenneth Knox, Assistant State Engineer initially responded to this application with comments regarding the decreed amounts of uses within the current well permit for the existing house and the lack of well applications for the three additional wells covered by the augmentation plan. Kenneth also noted on the lack of information provided for the physical adequacy of water. The applicant submitted an additional report from Resource Engineering regarding the physical adequacy issue. After reviewing the additional information, the Division has determined that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights and is physically adequate. For Kenneth Knox's letters, see Exhibit B. For the Resource Engineering report regarding the physical supply of water, see Exhibit I. (Pgs.3/ ) F. Colorado Geological Survey: Celia Greenman, Geologist, responded to the application with comments regarding drainage, soil, and the ISDS systems. Overall, CGS has no objections to the development provided the recommendations of CTL Thompson are complied with. See attached letter, Exhibit C. (Pgs. /4''/7) G. Garfield County Road & Bridge: Doug Thoe, District Foreman, responded to this application and stated that the proposed access points are acceptable to Road and 2 Bridge as both oints meet site distance requirements. See attached letter, Exhibit D. (pgs. /15 ) H. Colorado Div. of Wildlife: Kelly Wood, District Wildlife Manager, responded to the application with recommendations to minimize impact on wildlife in regards to dogs, cats, fencing, bears, trash removal, riparian wetlands, and the education of residents. See attached letter, Exhibit E. (Pgs. /9 — 2% ) Garfield County Vegetation Management: Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management Director, responded to the application with noxious weed concerns. Steve is requesting that the applicant provide a map and inventory any Garfield County Noxious Weeds found on the property. Additionally, it is requested that the applicant provide a weed management plan for any noxious weeds found on the property and include it Aithin the subdivision covenants. See attached memo, Exhibit F. (Pgs. ) The applicant and Gamba Engineering have responded to the referral comments of the Colorado Geological Survey, the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the review comments made by Colora River Engineering. Please see attached letters Exhibit G and H (Pgs. t — The applicant has also represented many of these comments within the subdivision covenants. IV. STAFF COMMENTS A. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed density is one dwelling unit per 6.53 acres, which is within the Comp Plan's suggested density of one (1) dwelling unit per 6 to 10 acres. This application is therefore in compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. B. Zoning: A single family dwelling is a use by right in the A/R/RD zone district. Accessory uses are allowed if they are part of a public hearing or meeting on a subdivision. The applicant should be aware of the following zoning requirements: Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%) Minimum Setback: (1) Front yard: (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line; 3 (3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. Maximum Height of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet. Section 3.6 within the subdivision covenants state that the maximum height for a structure shall be 27 feet. Per the regulation listed above, this should be changed to 25 feet. Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations). 5.03.21 Accessory Dwelling Unit: Use of a structure as an accessory dwelling whether approved by Special Use, use by right in a new subdivision approval, or on an existing lot must meet the following standards, as well as all other standards applicable to residential use: (1) The minimum lot size shall be four (4) acres containing a building site with slopes less than 40% at least two (2) acres in size. (2) The gross floor area for residential use occupancy shall not exceed 1500 sq. ft. (3) Approval from the subdivision homeowners association and/or allowed by covenant if applicable. (4) Proof of a legally adequate source of water for an additional dwelling unit. (5) Compliance with the County individual sewage disposal system regulations or proof of a legal ability to connect to an approved central sewage treatment facility. (6) Only leasehold interests in the dwelling units is allowed. (7) That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code requirements. (A.95-076) C. Soils/Geology: CTL Thompson performed a geologic evaluation on this property on January 21, 2002. The findings of this study included the presence of natural silty to sandy clays varying from slightly to moderately expansive coupled with variable densities of gravels. CTL Thompson has provided several recommendations regarding development in this area. The following recommendations will be included as conditions of approval: the irrigation ditches that will remain in use near the proposed homesites shall be lined to prevent seepage to foundation areas; where moderately expansive material is present at proposed footing elevations, mitigation in the form of specially designed footings or over excavation of the expansive soil shall be instigated; utility trenches shall be sloped or shored to meet local, State, and Federal regulations; and, a site-specific geotechnical study and design shall be completed for construction on each lot. It should also be noted that, in the opinion of CTL Thompson, radiation levels detected on the site are considered to be consistent with normal background 4 radiation in the area. D. Road/Access: The existing house on the proposed Lot 1 currently has a permitted driveway off of County Road 103 on the northern portion of the property. Access for Lot 2 is proposed to share this driveway and have an access easement over Lot 1 leading to Lot 2. Lots 3 and 4 are to have a shared access point off of CR 103 on the southeastern portion of the property. Gamba engineering has provided a centerline profile for the proposed driveway accessing these lots showing that the steepest grade encountered is 8.03%. Garfield County Road and Bridge has responded to this application saying that access locations the applicant has proposed meet site distance requirements and are essentially acceptable. The applicant will have to obtain the appropriate driveway permits from Road and Bridge for access and follow any recommended conditions of driveway design from Road and Bridge by the time of Final Plat. E. Fire Protection: Bill Gavette, Deputy Chief, responded to this application requesting that all new residences within the subdivision have automatic fire sprinklers installed due to the fact that the applicant has not provided a water supply for fire protection. The Deputy Chief has also recommended that defensible spaces and/or fire resistant building construction features should be implemented within the subdivision area following the recommendations of the Colorado State Forest Service. The applicant has agreed to these provisions and has included these elements sufficiently within the subdivision covenants. Staff would also recommended that the requirement of sprinklered residences be included as a Plat Note to provide further alert of future lot owners. Additionally, this subdivision will also be subject to Carbondale Rural Fire development impact fees, to be determined, by the time of Final Plat. F. Domestic Water / Irrigation Water: The applicant is proposing to provide water through individual on-site wells, consisting of an existing well (permit no. 20095) for Lot 1 and three additional wells to be approved pursuant to an augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 81 CW292. The applicant also owns 88 shares in the Needham Ditch, which have been used to irrigate 12.6 acres on the property. At this time it has not been represented the Needham Ditch irrigation rights will be divided amongst the four lots. If continued irrigation use is to occur on the property, Staff recommends that an easement should be shown on the plat for the existing delivery ditch. If the water rights are to be divided among the lots, then a cost sharing agreement should be developed to address maintenance and replacement for the sections of water delivery system jointly used by the lots. The applicant should be aware of Section 9:51 of the Subdivision Regulations which states the following: 5 An adequate potable and irrigation water supply shall be available to all lots within a subdivision, taking into consideration peak demands to service total development population, irrigation uses, and adequate fire protection requirements in accordance with recognized and customary engineering standards. The applicant has supplied a report done by Resource Engineering, regarding the legal water rights and plan of augmentation as requested by Garfield County Engineering Consultant, Chris Manera, See Exhibit J. The applicant therefore appears to have the legal rights to the water. In a subsequent report by Resource Engineering dated May 1, 2002, See Exhibit K, the results of a four hour pump test taken on April 30, 2002 on the existing well on the property show that a reliable physical supply of water exists on the site. Both reports, as per Chris Manera's comments dated May 24, 2002, Exhibit L, will need a engineer's seal. As noted in the Agency referral section, the Division of Water Resources has stated that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights and is physically adequate. The State does note that the applicant will have obtain and maintain valid well permits per the decreed plans for augmentation. The applicant has not provided, however, and water quality tests concerning the subject water to be used. The applicant will be required to provide a water quality test for bacteria, nitrate/nitrites, and total suspended solids by the time of Final Plat. Additionally, prior to Final Plat approval the applicant will need to obtain the new well permits and provide the following information: 1. That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used; 2. A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level; 3. The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge; 4. A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots; 5. An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day; G. Wastewater: An individual sewage disposal system (ISDS) is proposed for each new lot to be created. During the initial Geotechnical Study done by CTL Thompson in January of 2002, a percolation test could not be performed due to the winter conditions. A report dated May 1, 2002 by Gamba and Associates, See 6 Exhibit M, shows that acceptable percolation rates exist within the vicinity of the proposed building envelopes for ISDS systems. Each system will require more site specific testing and design prior to the issuance of a septic permit. Section 4:92 E (of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations) requires that a proposed management plan for the operation and maintenance of on-site systems be provided. The applicant has provided an ISDS management plan, prepared by Gamba & Associates, but has not demonstrated how this information will be distributed to future lot owners. Staff recommends that this information be included within the subdivision covenants. H. Drainage: A drainage study was done by Gamba & Associates on February 12, 2002. Within this study it was determined that the peak run-off rate for Sub - Basins A and B, as defined on Sheet 1 of the study, decreased for the post - development condition due to the lower rate of runoff associated with the additional lawn area to be introduced within the property. It was also determined that the increased rate of run-off from Sub -Basins C, D, and E is negligible and is within the level of accuracy associated with the TR -55 methodology. The applicant, therefore, does not propose any drainage mitigation due to the negligible difference between the pre -developed and the post -developed flow rates. I. Wildlife: The Division of Wildlife has responded to this application with suggestions to mitigate impacts to wildlife in the area. Some of these suggestions include: each lot shall only be permitted to have one dog and offspring of up to three months old; all dogs must be kept on the owner's property at all times; domestic animals shall be kept so that they are not a nuisance to the neighborhood; fencing should be held to a minimum with a maximum height of 42" and 12 " in width (top view) and an opening in the lower half of at least 16" to allow the passage of deer fawns and elk calves; and, the applicant shall use bear -proof trash cans. These suggestions have been included within the subdivision covenants. J. Assessment / Fees: This subdivision is located in Traffic Study Area 11, which requires $384.00 per determined ADT for each residence by the time of Final Plat. School impact fees and Carbondale Rural Fire Protection impact fees, as to be determined, will also need to be paid at the time of Final Plat. K. Other: The following plat notes shall be included on the Final Plat: 1. "No further subdivision of these lots shall be allowed." 2. "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, 7 sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations." 3. "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County." 4. "All new structures shall have engineered foundations per CTL Thompson report dated January 21, 2002 recommendations." 5. "Each residential unit, including accessory dwelling units, will be required to have an automatic fire sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One and Two -Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes." 6. "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." 7. "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries." V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners; 2. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing; 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare ofthe 8 citizens of Garfield County; 4. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended; 5. That the application is in Zig conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL of the Clark Subdivision Preliminary Plan to the Board of County Commissioners, with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant shall inventory and map any noxious weeds as listed on the County Noxious Weed list and submit a weed management plan approved by the Garfield County Vegetation Director. The weed management plan shall be included within the subdivision covenants. 3. The appropriate Traffic Study area fees in the amount of $384.00 per determined ADT minus the appropriate discounts will be paid at the time of Final Plat. School fees and Carbondale Rural Fire District impact fees, as to be determined, will also be paid at the time of Final Plat. 4. The applicant shall provide a water quality test for nitrates/nitrites, bacteria, and suspended solids for all wells to be located on the property by the time of Final Plat. Additionally the applicant shall obtain valid well permits per the decreed plans for augmentation., prior to Final Plat approval and provide the following information: 1. That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used; 2. A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level; 3. The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge; 4. A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots; 5. An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 9 100 gallons of water per person, per day; 5. The ISDS management plan done by Gamba and Associates dated February 18, 2002 shall be included within the Subdivision Covenants. 6. Section 3.6 of the Subdivision Covenants shall be amended to state that the maximum height of buildings within the subdivision will be 25 feet instead of 27 feet pursuant to Section 3.02.07 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations by the time of Final Plat. 7. The applicant shall obtain driveway permits for all newly created lots from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department by the time of Final Plat. 8. The following recommendations made by CTL Thompson in their report dated January 21, 2002 shall be complied with: a) The irrigation ditches that will remain in use near the proposed homesites b) shall be lined to prevent seepage to foundation areas, subject to approval the appropriate ditch company. c) Where moderately expansive material is present at proposed footing elevations, mitigation in the form of specially designed footings or over excavation of the expansive soil shall be instigated. d) Utility trenches shall be sloped or shored to meet local, State, and Federal regulations. e) A site-specific geotechnical study and design shall be completed for construction on each lot. 9. The applicant shall provide irrigation water to all lots within the subdivision pursuant to Section 9:51 of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant shall provide an irrigation plan for Staff approval by the time of Final Plat. 10. The following reports shall bear the seal of a certified engineer: a) The Resource Engineering water report submitted by Paul Bussone dated b) November 28, 2000 c) Letter dated May 1, 2002 from Paul Bussone regarding the 4 hour pump test on Lot 1 of the Clark Subdivision. 11. The following Plat notes shall be included on the Final Plat: a. "No further subdivision of these lots shall be allowed." b. "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and 10 necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations." c. "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County." d. "All structures shall have engineered foundations per CTL Thompson report dated January 21, 2002 recommendations." e. "Each residential unit, including accessory dwelling units, will be required to have an automatic fire sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One and Two -Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes." f. "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." g. "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries." h. "All structures shall be within the defined building envelope provided on the Plat." /&1- (A -4r -ti _ Pim Z"'o 60t -t?/ - 11 March 23, 2002 Kim Schlagel Garfield County Planner 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 DC:1110 011:38 FIRE • EMS • RESCUE RE: Clark Subdivision, Preliminary Plan Dear Kim: I have reviewed the preliminary plan for the proposed Clark Subdivision. I would offer the following comments: Access Access to the proposed lots appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus. The proposed new driveways should be constructed in accordance with county road standards. Water Supply There is no water supply for fire protection proposed for the subdivision. It would be difficult to centrally . locate a water storage site within the subdivision due to the density and configuration of the proposed lots. I would recommend that all new residences in the subdivision have automatic fire sprinklers installed considering the wildfire hazard and the lack of available water supplies in the area. Automatic fire sprinklers systems should be installed in accordance with NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One and Two -Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes. Wildfire Hazards The proposed subdivision contains areas with slopes of grass, sage, pinion and juniper, which present a high wildfire hazard. Defensible spaces and/or fire resistant building construction features should be implemented in these areas following the recommendations of the Colorado State Forest Service. Impact Fees The development is subject to impact fees adopted by the District for the proposed new residential lots. The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely Bill Gavette Deputy Chief 'RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2002 /'- Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569 -X�,�►21-�- r3 STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 www.water.state.co.us March 20, 2002 Kim Schlagel Garfield County Planning Dept 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Clark Subdivision Sketch Plan NW'/4 Section 13, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, P.E. State Engineer Dear Ms. Schlagel: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 52 acres into 4 lots. A single family residence and accessory dwelling is to be located on each lot. Each lot is allowed up to 2,500 square feet of lawn and garden irrigation and up to six horses. The applicant proposes to provide water through individual on -lot wells, consisting of an existing well with Permit No. 20095, which was decreed in Case No. W-679 and is augmented pursuant to Case No. 81CW292, and three additional wells to be approved pursuant to an augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 00CW292. The applicant also owns 88 shares in the Needham Ditch, which have been used to irrigate 12.6 acres on the property. Sewage treatment is to be provided through individual sewage disposal systems. Our records indicate the well with Permit No. 20095 was issued on June 4, 1964 for domestic use. In Case No. W-679, which was granted on November 22, 1972, the well was decreed for 0.11 cubic feet per second (49 gpm) for domestic and household, stockwatering, irrigation of. 20 acres, fish culture and recreation uses, subject to judicial review per CRS 148-21- 20 as amended (1971). However, the decreed amount and uses are in conflict with the referenced statute, which limited such wells to 15 gpm for ordinary household purposes, fire protection, the watering of poultry, domestic animals, and livestock on farms and ranches, and the irrigation of not over one acre of home gardens and lawns, but not for more than three single family dwellings. Case No. 81CW292, which was decreed on July 12, 1982, augments use in the main residence and a guest house, the watering of 10 head of livestock, and expanded use for one additional acre of irrigation. As such, a new permit issued pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) is required to allow the use of the well per Case No. 81CW292. As of this date, an application for such a permit has not been submitted to this office. Review of Case No. 00CW292 indicates the use requested for the three additional wells is covered by the plan for augmentation. Our records show that applications for these wells have not been submitted to this office. No information was provided concerning the physical adequacy of the water supply. As outlined in the statutes, Section 30-28-133(3)(d), 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 supply of water. Adequate evidence is RECEIVED MAR 2 9 2002 Kim Schlagel March 20, 2002 Clark Subdivision Sketch Plan usually provided in the form of a water resource report, prepared by a professional engineer or water consultant, which addresses the quality, quantity, and dependability issues. A report of this nature was not provided. See the attached Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supply Plan Reports for the necessary information. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits per the decreed plans for augmentation, and operates the decreed terms and conditions of these plans. However, due to a lack of information we are unable to comment on the physical adequacy (dependability) of the water supply. Also note that the use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and a change of water right application may be necessary if the place of use is changed. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, Kenneth W. Knox Assistant State Engineer KWK/CML/Clark ii.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Michael Cone, Water Commissioner, District 38 STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 www.watenstate.co.us Kim Schlagel Garfield County Planning Dept 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RECEIVED .SUN 2 4 2002 June 11, 2002 Re: Clark Subdivision Sketch Plan NW'/4 Section 13, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 coz N4 1876 Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, PE. State Engineer Dear Ms. Schlagel: We have reviewed the additional information regarding the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 52 acres into 4 lots. A single-family residence and accessory dwelling is to be located on each lot. Each lot is allowed up to 2,500 square feet of lawn and garden irrigation and up to six horses. The applicant proposes to provide water through individual on -lot wells, consisting of an existing well with Permit No. 20095, which was decreed in Case No. W-679 and is augmented pursuant to Case No. 81 CW292, and three additional wells to be approved pursuant to an augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 00CW292. The applicant also owns 88 shares in the Needham Ditch, which have been used to irrigate 12.6 acres on the property. Sewage treatment is to be provided through individual sewage disposal systems. As previously stated, our records indicate the well with Permit No. 20095 was issued on June 4, 1964 for domestic use. In Case No. W-679, which was granted on November 22, 1972, the well was decreed for 0.11 cubic feet per second (49 gpm) for domestic and household, stockwatering, irrigation of 20 acres, fish culture and recreation uses, subject to judicial review per CRS 148-21-20 as amended (1971). However, the decreed amount and uses are in conflict with the referenced statute, which limited such wells to 15 gpm for ordinary household purposes, fire of � 1 I �' I. ., ..., farms and and the the watering' poultry, domestic animas, and ti'vestock on ranches, u e irrigation of not over one acre of home gardens and lawns, but not for more than three single family dwellings. Case No. 81 CW292, which was decreed on July 12, 1982, augments use in the main residence and a guest house, the watering of 10 head of livestock, and expanded use for one additional acre of irrigation. As such, a new permit issued pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) is required to allow the use of the well per Case No. 81 CW292. As of this date, an application for such a permit has not been submitted to this office. Also, as previously stated, review of Case No. 00CW292 indicates the use requested for the three additional wells is covered by the plan for augmentation. Our records show that applications for these wells have not been submitted to this office. The new information consisted of a report concerning a production test conducted on the well with Permit No. 20095. The May 1, 2002 report by Resource Engineering, Inc., indicates that the Sherwood Well No.1 well produced an average of 17.5 gallons per minute over a 4 -hour Kim Schlagel June 11, 2002 Clark Subdivision Sketch Plan period on April 30, 2002. If the additional wells have similar production rates the water supply should be physically adequate. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits per the decreed plans for augmentation, and operates the decreed terms and conditions of these plans, and is physically adequate. Also note that the use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and a change of water right application may be necessary if the place of use is changed. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, (ii,az-Kenneth W. Knox Assistant State Engineer KWK/CML/Clark iii.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Michael Cone, Water Commissioner, District 38 Exhi hi -1- G :RECEIVED At -1 R 0 a 2002 STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-261 1 FAX: (303) 866-2461 Ms Kim Schlagel Garfield County Planning 109 8`Y' St Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Clark Subdivision CGS Review No. GA -02-0006 Dear Ms Schlagel: April 1, 2002 !.ed i(z' NWNE13 T7S R88W pier. DEPARTMENT t NATURA RESOURCI Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Vicki Cowart State Geologist and Director In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972) I visited this property to review the plat. Included in the referral were a drainage plan and calculations prepared by Gamba & Associates (February 2002), and a Geologic Evaluation and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by. CTL/Thompson (January 2002). The site is a 52 -acre parcel on CR 103 to be divided into 4 residential .lots.. Drainage. The site is located in the basalt -capped Missouri Heights area and is currently a mix of pastureland and forest (juniper and fir). Slopesin the vicinity of the proposed building envelopes are moderate, ranging up to 16 percent on lot 3. The limited development will hardly alter surface flows from the site, but we recommend that during earthwork and construction, best management practices be implemented to prevent erosion and sediment migration. The chief area of concern is the new access from CR 103 that will serve lots 3 and 4. The roadside swale just downslope of the access point develops into a deep broad gulch within a distance of about 350 ft. Earthwork for the access drive should guard against deep cuts that could increase erosion in this area. Disturbed areas should be reseeded as soon as possible. We agree with CTL/Thompson's suggestion to line the irrigation ditches that will remain in use near the proposed homesites to prevent seepage to foundation areas. Soil. The soil is composed chiefly of colluvial material that has weathered from the basalt bedrock. Much of the rockier area is excluded from development, but there may still be some localized areas where excavating will be difficult. CTL/Thompson performed.swell-consolidation tests on two, samples of sandy clay and found one sample with moderate, swell and one sample with moderate consolidation potential. The foundation recommendations made by CTL/T are appropriate to the test results: where moderately expansive material is present at proposed footing elevations, mitigation in the form of specially designed footings or overexcavation of the expansive soil should be considered. Clark Subdivision, p.2 ISDS. Percolation tests were not performed because of the frozen ground. The Morval soil type is described by the Soil Conservation Service as having slow percolation rates; it is possible that this soil will require some mixing with sand to improve permeability. Conversely, where percolation rates are very fast because of the abundance of gravel and cobbles, the material may require overexcavation and replacement with a more suitable filter material. If shallow bedrock is encountered in a leach field area, an alternative site should be considered, or an engineered system might need to be installed. Provided the comments listed above and the recommendations stated in the CTL/Thompson report are followed, CGS has no objection to the proposed development. Please call me if there are any questions. Yours truly, el I`a Greenm Geologist 4-24-02 RECEIVED APR 4 2002 Garfield County Road and Bridge, District 1 1015 School St., Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-6099 ph. & FAX GARCO building and Planning Attn: Kim Scbiagel 970-384-3470 fax I have reviewed the Clark Subdivision plat and have visited the sight from the perspective of the county road. I was told by the developer that there was a topographical feature within the property that precluded, or made difficult, accessing all proposed lots from the existing driveway, which intersects CR103 between the Piffer property and the Eustes property. After reviewing the topo lines on the plat, I am not convinced that this is the case, but rather the owner wishes to minimize traffic past the existing ranch house, and perhaps preserve a meadow. The proposed lower driveway presents a slight hazard to downhill traffic, which will may travel at higher speeds once the planned re -alignment of 103 at the "Piller corner" is completed. The developer met with me prior to engineering the lot lines, and I indicated that their initial idea of 4 driveways would not fit with the goal of minimizing new driveways on a feeder road. Based on the argument of,topography, I was amenable to the 2 driveway design. Both driveway locations meet sight distance requirements, but I would have preferred to justxse the original driveway for ail access to the property. Road and Bridge can accept the plat "as drawn", but would prefer a single access if there are other reasons that would require a change in the plat. oi .a e1 uL LCI . God rte 11`$ W000 poih-he TO: Kim Schlagel FROM: Kelly Wood, DWM SURF_ STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Department of Natural Resources u ru-5e-65�:� p. RECEIVED APR 0 1 20t2 DATE: 03/29/2002 • r • $ 1 . , ,.11 i a,i 'r 'r,', The following wildlife mitigation measures are ones the Colorado Division of Wildlife most commonly recommends. The easiest method to alleviate wildlife impacts is to locate all development out of native vegetation, as most native vegetation at lower elevations is usually critical wildlife habitat for one species or another. There are other methods that include, tightly clustering the units to preserve as much open/natural space as possible, reduction in densities, conservation easements, etc. I was unable to find the exact location of the home sites but recommend clustering the homes and keeping them out of the middle of the fields. 1) DOGS - Each residential, commercial and/or industrial lot will be permitted to have up to one dog and offspring up to three months old. Residents, lessees and/or owners will be prohibited from harboring dogs on their property unless they have adequate facilities (ie., a fenced yard, dog run, or kennel) to contain the animas_ .Enclosed runs must be located immediately adjacent to the home, within the permitted disturbance zone (building envelope). (In areas known to be frequented by mountain lions, it is strongly recommended that tops be included on dog runs and/or kennels to avoid potential predation). If facilities are inadequate to contain the dog(s), the animals) shall be immediately removed from the subdivision/PUD until adequate structures can be bunt. At no time are dogs to be allowed to run freely. Dogs outside their yard, kennel or dog run must be on a leash under the direct control of its owner or a responsible party. It is the owner's responsibility to ensure compliance. Any dog harbored on-site must be licensed by the appropriate governmental entity (Garfield County or the proper municipality), and must wear the numbered identification tags provided. Visitors to the subdivision/PUD shall be prohibited from bringing dogs onto the property. Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from bringing dogs to the subdivision/PUD site. Workers who violate this provision shall be barred from the subdivision/PUD for 10 working days for the first offense and permanently for any future offense. These dog provisions also apply to multi -family units if located within the subdivision/PUD boundaries. The County/Mumicipality and CDOW (Colorado Division of Wildlife) may also control stray dogs. Persons not is compliance with these dog restrictions will be responsible for any and all costs incurred by the County and/or CDOW for enforcing these provisions. PI di ou uc ua: ctia Ke l l w000 5'fU-yb:i-bb 2) CATS - Cats should be kept indoors or in kennels. Even well fed domestic cats are efficient predators and can contribute significantly to the mortality of small mnrnmals and avian wildlife populations including nesting waterfowl. 3) FENCING- Fencing ENCINGFencing will be restricted throughout the development to facilitate wildlife movements, optimize habitat availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. Ifperipheral fencing of the subdivision is required to restrict domestic livestock grazing on adjacent properties, fencing shall employ a three strand barbed wire fence, with strands located at 18, 30, and 42 inches above mean ground level. {Optimum wildlife fence would be 14, 26 and 38 inches}. If wood rail fencing is used it should not exceed 42 inches in height and 12 inches in width (top view), and an opening in the lower 1/2 of at least 16 inches to allow passage of deer fawns and elk calves. Other fence materials such as wood slats, electric, synthetic, etc. may be used but must be wildlife friendly and not exceed 42 inches in height. CDOW is available to determine compatibility with wildlife. The application suggested a minimum 8 foot high fence. This is discouraged because of the impediment to wildlife. Homeowners will be permitted a privacy fence, (greater than 42" in height with no openings), to enclose up to 2,500 square feet, provided it is immediately adjacent to the residence and is entirely within the permitted building envelope. 4) BEARS/TRASH REMOVAL- > There shall be no outside storage of any trash or garbage, no matter how briefly, at any residence or anywhere within the property, with the exception of bear -proof trash containers. Refuse should not be kept within detached garages or sheds because bears may break into these structures. The use of bear -proof trash containers is the safest and best technique to avoid bear problems. ➢ Residents will be prohibited from using compost piles unless such piles are contained in an approved bear proof receptacle. > Only those receptacles certified by the North American Bear Society, National Park Service or the CDOW shall be considered to be "bear -proof' ➢ There shall be no dumps or underground disposal of refuse within the development. ❑ Pets shall not be fed outside. > With the exception of bird feeders, the feeding, baiting, salting, or other means of attracting wildlife to individual yards will be prohibited. 5) RIPARIAN/WETLANDS- Riparian & wetland areas shalt be avoided Buffer areas shall be established adjacent to these areas to ensure that construction and development impacts do not degrade them. 6) CDOW INDEMNIFICATION The CDOW shall be indemnified against all future claims in regards to wildlife damage. 2 t3 . :j fle11- ...7U UG UO: E0 melts woos :J"tU-JL��-bb J p. 4 7) EDUCATING RESIDENTS - A brochure or pamphlet shall be developed by the proponent educating homeowners about the local wildlife community, the planning that went into the design of the development to accommodate future needs of wildlife, explaining what residents must do to ensure this wildlife use continues. The informational pamphlet should stress that residents have certain stewardship responsibilities that will enable them to coexist with wildlife. For small developments, there are general brochures available through the CDOW. In large PUDs this document should go into specifics on how to deal with the many nuisance animal situations that will no doubt occur (species such as skunks, raccoons, bats, beavers, swallows, woodpeckers, coyotes, etc.). Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 947-2931. Sincerely, Kelly Wood District Wildlife Manager 12j+ MEMORANDUM To: Kim Schlagel From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Clark Subdivision Preliminary Plan Date: April 24, 2002 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the PUD. My comments are as follows: 1. Noxious Weeds A. Inventory and mapping -The applicant needs to map and inventory the project area for any weeds on the County Noxious Weed list. The specific location of any inventoried weeds should be identified on the vegetation map. The vegetation map that is currently provided is very general. (Garfield County Noxious Weed List is attached). Weeds to be on the lookout for in this area are: plumeless thistle, whitetop, and Russian knapweed. B. Weed Management -Once the property is inventoried, the applicant needs to provide a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. ( Attached is a `fill -in -the - blank" weed management plan) C. Covenants -It is the responsibility of each landowner in the State of Colorado and Garfield County to manage listed noxious weeds according to the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Weed Management Plan, This should be mentioned in the covenants. The applicant has stated that the driveway revegetation issue will dealt with by the Architectural Control Committee during its review process by requiring the individual lot owner to bear all responsibilities. This also could be emphasized in the covenants. GARFIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST Common name Scientific name Leafy spurge Russian knapweed Yellow starthistle Plumeless thistle Houndstongue Common burdock Scotch thistle Canada thistle Spotted knapweed Diffuse knapweed Dalmation toadflax Yellow toadflax Hoary cress Saltcedar Saltcedar Oxeye Daisy Jointed Goatgrass Chicory Musk thistle Purple loosestrife Russian olive Euphorbia esula Acroptilon repens Centaurea solstitalis Carduus acanthoides Cynoglossum officinale Arctium minus Onopordum acanthium Cirsium arvense Centaurea maculosa Centaurea diffusa Linaria dalmatica Linaria vulgaris Cardaria draba Tamarix parviflora Tamarix ramosissima Chrysanthemum leucantheum Aegilops cylindrica Cichorium intybus Carduus nutans Lythruni salicaria Elaeagnus angustifolia Name: WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN Physical Address of Property: 1. Targeted weed 2. Current amount of infested land (acres) 3. Amount of infested land to be managed 4. Describe the areas you propose to treat 5. What methods of treatment will you use? a. Herbicides. List product name and rate and timing of application. b. Grazing. Describe grazing plan and timing. c. Mechanical. Describe method. (mowing, cutting, pulling) d. Alternative methods. What, when, and where. e. Revegetation. What you plan to seed and when. 6. I plan to use the services of a professional weed control company. Company name: 7. Additional information: .)c hi 0+ 6. Robert M. Noone Gregory J. Hall Of Counsel James H. Delman ROBERT M. NOONE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE TAMARACK BUILDING, 1001 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 207 P.O. DRAWER 39, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 April 26, 2002 Kim Schlagel Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning Dept. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Clark Subdivision Preliminary Plan Dear Kim: Telephone: 970-945-4500 Facsimile: 970-945-5570 Toll Free: 800-813-1559 E -Mail: rmn@noonelaw.com In partial response to the comments on the Clark Subdivision Plan made by Colorado River Engineering, Inc., the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Colorado Geologic Survey and the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District, I enclose a revised set of Covenants for the Clark Subdivision. With specific reference to the referral agency comments, I offer the following: 1. Colorado River Engineering, Inc. comments. a. Preliminary Plat Map Comments: Nathan Bell, of Gamba & Associates Engineering, is revising the Plat IN consultation with the County Surveyor in order to appropriately address C.R.E.'s comments concerning items to be identified on the Plat, it is expected that the revised Plat will be submitted by May 1, 2002. b. Potable Water Supply Plan: We have previously submitted to you the letter report of Resource Engineering, Inc. dated April 9, 2002 confirming that a well pump test is to be conducted on the property. An engineering report will follow shortly. Due to scheduling difficulties, it appears that the earliest the pump test can be completed is May 1. We expect to be able to provide to you a report complying with Section 4.91.E immediately following the test. I Kim Schlagel April 26, 2002 Page 2 trust that the Resources Engineering reports adequately address C.R.E.'s substantive "Water Right" concerns. With respect to the clerical error noted by C.R.E., the inconsistencies are legally immaterial and do not affect the Augmentation Decree, which is based upon total depletions of 0.90 acre feet, as correctly shown in the decree. Furthermore, the State Engineer concluded on March 20, 2002 that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to vested water rights of others. We would propose to correct the clerical error in the decree in further diligence proceedings before the Division 5 Water Court. In order to administer the augmentation plan, Section 16.1 of the attached Covenants, provides that the Homeowner's Association will be the responsible entity. c. Raw water supply: It is not currently anticipated that the Needham Ditch interests owned by the Clarks will be divided among the four lots. If it is determined in the future that such a division would be appropriate, it will be accomplished in accordance with the Needham Ditch Rules and Regulations. d. Wastewater: CTL Thompson has completed percolation testing and we expect to provide a written report to you early next week which demonstrates the suitability of the property for ISDS wastewater treatment. e. Soils and Geologic Constraints: As indicated above, Nathan Bell is currently consulting with the County Surveyor to determine appropriate plat notes. f. Driveway Access: Nathan Bell is responding to C.R.E.'s comments with respect to driveway access. We believe that the access to County Rd. 103 is appropriate and that it complies with the County Road & Bridge Department's recommendations. Mr. Bell will further demonstrate that the driveway grades are well below 10%. 2. Division of Wildlife. a. Dogs: The attached Covenants limit each lot to one dog and puppies up to three months old which shall be under the control of the Owner of each Lot. (Section 9) The Covenants also prohibit contractors and subcontractors from bringing dogs to the subdivision. Kim Schlagel April 26, 2002 Page 3 It should be noted that cats are to be under the control of the owners as well. b. Fencing: Fencing is addressed in paragraph 17.C., and consistent with the recommendations of the DOW. c. Bears/Trash Removal: Section 19.G., incorporates DOW' s recommendations. d. Riparian / Wetlands: There are no riparian or wetlands areas within the Subdivision. e. Colorado Geologic Survey: Again, we expect to provide you with a percolation test report early next week. With respect to appropriate plat notes addressing soils issues, Mr. Bell of Gamba & Associates will consult with the County Surveyor. 3. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. a. Sections 3.8, 5, 17.D. of the Covenants address the Fire District's wild fire concerns. In addition, Section 17.4 will require automatic indoor fire sprinkler systems be installed in all new dwelling units. I trust the foregoing will assist in your review of the Preliminary Plan. Please contact me with any further comments or concerns you may have. Very truly yours, ROBERT M. NOONE, P.C. By: ' W Robert M. Noone RMN/jp cc: John and Susanne Clark Dean Moffatt Nathan Bell G A M B A & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS WWW.6 AAAAAN 6111[[RIN6.COM PHONE: 970/945-2550 FAX: 970/945-1410 • 113 NINTH STREET, SUITE 214 P.O. BOX 1458 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81 602-1 458 ?(1/I 1 IJI t H - April 30, 2002 Christopher Manera Colorado River Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 1301 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Re: Clark Subdivision Preliminary Plan Dear Chris: The following is in response to your Engineering Review dated April 3, 2002 provided for the Clark Subdivision. The response numbers correspond to the numbers and items provided in your review. Preliminary Plan Map and Existing Conditions 1. We are currently working with Sam Phelps, the County Surveyor, with respect to the portions of County Road 103 that appear to be outside of the County's defined right-of-way. At this time, we are waiting for a response from Mr. Phelps. 2. Easements have been provided in the locations where proposed utilities shall access the property and be required to cross adjacent lots. The overhead utility line serving the existing residence will be shown and is proposed to be relocated underground in the drive accessing Lot 1. All utility mains are currently located in the County Road 103 right-of-way and the service lines are proposed to access the lots adjacent to or within the proposed driveways. 3. Covenants have been provided by others. 4. Mineral owners and lessees information will be provided on the Plat. Soils and Geologic Constraints A plat note shall be added identifying the need for a site-specific geotechnical study and design for each lot. Driveway Access The proposed access driveway to Lots 3 and 4 shall conform to the requirements as defined by the County Road and Bridge Department in their Access Permit. The location is also subject to approval by the Road and Bridge Department and the entrance will be constructed to meet all sight distance and design requirements. Clark Subdivision Engineering Review Response April30, 2002 Page 1 of 2 -28 Attached is a centerline profile for the proposed driveway accessing Lot 3 as depicted on the Preliminary Plan. The steepest grade encountered along the road as proposed is 8.03%. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Gamba & Associates, Inc. Nathan Bell, Enclosures: Lot 3 Access Driveway Profile cc: Kim Schlagel, Robert Noone, Dean Moffatt G:\98749-01\Chris Manerra Response letter 043002.doc Clark Subdivision Engineering Review Response April30, 2002 Page 2 of 2 0 + 0 ttti 6 a O rn m 0 or m O rn 0 0 0 0 m O m 6868.56 6868.3 + 0 u' 1 6870.4 1 1 BVC3 Ot3r BVCE• 6669.96 6870.67 6873.2 \ EVCS: 0-75 6872.36 \ EVCE 6812 36 l 6873.9 sso 6874.36 IT 6875.5 6878.0 \ • o o 6878.36 6880.7 n 6882.8 6882.36 \\ 6884.8 BVCS: 2+28.23 6886.3 BICE: a 884.82 6886.12 , 6887.0 ^ ' JEVCS 2+'8.23 EVC7. 6887.38 6887.26 6887.9 - BVCS: 2+77.36 BVCE: 6887.32 6888.26 i - 6889.9 EVCS: 27- 6889.89 6891.9 E\'CE: 6890.: 6891.90 6893.8 6895.7 6895.91 6897.7 6899.7 6899.92 6901.4 6903.4 \\ SP 6903.94 6905.4 \ 1 6907.2 \ 6907.95 \ 6908.8 \ 1 6910.8 6911.96 \ 6912.9 \ k 691 \� 6915.9.9 7 wit e ROI GI In 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 cn 0 + 0 01 0 5 5 am 7C C �i y R N < 1 N r0 V1 Of + N N W 8 MI 5 X 0 ,� N • < R N N 0o co91 L' 0 CO CB Oma N cCO.4 0 0 1741 a z z .y H - r0 D 1 281 8~D r m T 0 1 1 LOT 3 ACCESS DRIVEWAY PROFILE SCALE: 1" = IDB DATE: APRIL 30, 2002 DRAWN BY: NJB SHEET: 1 OF 1 PROJECT: 91749.01 CHKD 8Y: NJB DRAWING. prelim -PUN -MAP update 043002.dwg DIRECTORY- G,\98749.011 GAMBA ASSOCIATCS CLARK SUBDIVISION GAMBA & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS 970/945-2550 WWW.GAMBAENGINEERI NG.COM 113 NINTH ST.. STC. 374 P.O. COC 16.6 fiL{NW00031,114.3.3. CO 1111603 1 pXhh ifHILIRESOURCE 1 ■■■■■ NEERING INC. Robert M. Noone, Esq. PO Drawer 39 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 207 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 RE: Clark Subdivision Dear Bob: April 9, 2002 Colorado River Engineering, Inc. provided Garfield County with an Engineering Review of the Clark Subdivision Preliminary Plans (report dated April 3, 2002). The report included comments on the Potable Wates Supply Plan.. The intent of this letter is to address the questions and comments in that section of the report, PHYSICAL AVAILABILITY Resource Engineering, Inc. will supervise a well pump test at the existing well to evaluate the water quantity and dependability on the Clark Subdivision. An engineering report will be provided by the end of April. Water Quality will also be evaluated for Nitrates/Nitrites and bacteria. WATER RIGHTS A copy of the Resource Engineering report dated November 28, 2000 and our letter dated October 23, 2001 are attached. Combined, these two documents describe the plan for augmentation and provide the engineering information requested by Colorado River Engineering. The attached copy of the decree in Case No. 81 CW292 should provide the requested water rights information. The Colorado River Engineering report raised a question about the decree in Case No. 00CW292 siting "inconsistencies and errors in calculating the well diversion and depletion amounts". It is true thatthe decree incorrectly identifies the total diversions as 1.044 AF (0.348 AF/well). Actually the total diversions at the three proposed wells are 3.132 AF (1.044 AF/welt). None -the -less this mis-statement does not negate the validity of the Augmentation Plan which is based upon total depletions of 0.90 AF which is correctly shown in the decree. The depletions are augmented by water service contracts with BWCD and CLCD. Please note that the State Engineer's report dated March 20, 2002 and signed by Ken Knox states that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to vested water rights. Consulting Engineers and Hydralogiete 909 Colorado Avenue IIII Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 III (970) 945-8777 ■ Fax [970) 945-11O7 5/- 77 /7 4 (Il Qco4,R 1 ! F' "\ •.4 'allnnm •IAI 1 lannu'IAI.177. 7 7n_77 Robert M. Noone, Esq. April 9, 2002 If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. aul S. Bussone, P,E. Water Resources Engineer PSB/dlh 842-1.0 bn co riv cng revicw.942.wpd Attachments 32 - Page 2 77 /4 # fY1 cCC4rAl1 JP1 RESOURCE N C: I N E E (l I N C: I N C. ^'1'..1 . 11nnkI 'RI 1 IMr, LIIAIJ77.7 17" 77 l ENGINEERING REPORT FOR WATER RIGHTS AND PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION CLARK SUBDIVISION aug plan stark sub.842.wpd 77 /+, 4 n l cc°J, G`n 1 & 1 Prepared By: Resource Engineering, Inc. 909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 (970)945-6777 November 28, 2000 /'i •J ,".]1111r L1 •111 1 i 111 ri L 11,1 J,, •- 1 -r n -1-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 WATER REQUIREMENTS 1 WATER RIGHTS 3 NEW WATER RIGHTS 3 Clark Lot 2 Well 3 Clark Lot 3 Well 3 Clark Lot 4 Well 4 AUGMENTATION WATER RIGHTS 4 PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION 4 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP 2 LIST DF APPENDICES APPENDIX A - WATER REQUIREMENTS TABLE APPENDIX B - ALIGMENTATICA WATER RIGHTS mug plan dark aUb,842.WPd 4w- 34--- 77 /0 411 I coo4,an & "'RESOURCE ENGINCCRING INC. ,1 • 40iinnkJ .1A1 tLJiIAIJ7. 11 1" -7, L INTRODUCTION John and Susanne Clark are the owners of a 52 acre parcel at 3523 County Road 103 in Garfield County (see Location Map, Figure 1). The property is in Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 6th P.M. in Water Division 5, District 38. The property is proposed for subdivision into four residential lots each with the potential for one main residence, one accessory dwelling unit (ADU), minimal lawn and landscape irrigation and watering of livestock. There is one existing single family home on the property and it is served by Sherwood Well No. 1 (permit No, 20095) which is decreed for 0.11 cfs (50 gpm) in Case No. W-679. The land is also served by the Needham Ditch in which the applicant owns 88 shares and which has been used historically to irrigate about 12.5 acres on the 52 acres. In addition there is a decreed plan for augmentation (81 CW292) which covers specific domestic, irrigation and livestock uses out of the Sherwood Well No. 1. The augmentation source is 0.5 AF of adjudicated augmentation water (79CW97) represented by 5 shares of Park Ditch Co. !eased from the Cancends;& Land Development Co. (CLDC). The purpose of this report is to provide the necessary information to submit an application to water court for water rights and a plan for augmentation for the three proposed Clark Subdivision lots not already served by a well. WATER REQUIREMENTS Lot 1 of the proposed Clark Subdivision will be served by the existing Sherwood Well No. 1 and the plan for augmentation in 81 CW292 and the five shares of Park Ditch Co. Lots 2 through 4 will have individual wells and will be covered by the augmentation plan described herein. Each lot will have two single family homes (main residence and ADU), 2,500 s.f. of lawn and landscape irrigation and up to six horses. The water requirements for each lot are shown in the Table included in Appendix A. A total of about 0.99 AF/yr of diversions are required for each aug pian dark sub,842.wpd 77 /Q 41 nJccc+.pn1R� :::::RESOURCE NI6 1 N C CRIN O 1 N❑ r1 •,..I 4'311.1t11.I •IAI 1 1=rf I IAI_77 • 7 II r' 7oo0� n-- !ry�� �r1 EXISTING WELL CLARK WELL NO. 2 CLARK WELL NO. 4 CLARK WELL NO. 3 CLARK SUBDIVISION CARBONDALE 2.1 MILES DATE; NOVEMBER 28, 2000 w®ERESOUR+CE �1� pp1991ENC31 r'.J F INom. 11,1Y�- 99P 07.001X1 AS • 910W0 91111199, CO SIMM arlm +11-41777 .110f MO 0111-1191 JOB NUMBER: 842-1.0 CHECKED BY; PSB SCALE; 1"=-- 2000' CLARK SUBDIVISION WATER RIGHTS VICINITY MAP FIGURE 7 77 /1 -1{ n l ccc+.an) g tot with 0.30 AF of consumptive use, Monthly diversions and consumptive use are shown in the above mentioned table. WATER RIGHTS NEW WATER RIGHTS Three new wells will be required; one for each lot 2 through 4. The date of appropriation for each is October 4, 2000 by location of wells in the field and formation of intent to appropriate water for beneficial use. Following is the additional information for each well. Clark Lot 2 Well Location: NW%a NEN, Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 6w P.M. at a point 620' from the North line and 1,380' from the East line of said Section 13. Amount: 0.033 cfs (15 gpm), conditional 1.0 AF/yr Source: Ground water tributary to Cattle Creek, tributary to the Roaring Fork River Depth: 250 feet Use: Domestic, irrigation and stock water Clark Lot 3 Well Location: NWY4 NEN, Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 8th P.M. at a point 1,315' from the North line and 1,650' from the East line of said Section 13, Amount: 0.033 cfs (15 gpm), conditional 1.0 AF/yr Source: Ground water tributary to Cattle Creek, tributary to the Roaring Fork River Depth: 250 feet Use: Domestic, irrigation and stock water eu0 plan clink rub.842.wpd 3 ••••-4* 77 /0 44. 1 cccJ.i;nll.'*+ RESOURCE CNGINCCRING 11 •J 1c11nn11 1,I Innntl II*, 1-r,• 1 .. Clark Lot 4 Well Location: NWI4 NEN, Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 5`" P.M. at a point 1,150' from the North line 2,300' from the East line of said Section 13. Amount: 0.033 cfs (15 gpm), conditional 1.0 AF/yr Source: Ground water tributary to Cattle Creek, tributary to the Roaring Fork River Depth: 250 feet Use: Domestic, irrigation and stock water AUGMENTATION WATER RIGHTS The augmentation water rights will be from two sources; 1) a water service contract with Basalt Water Conservancy District {BWCD) for the non -irrigation season and 2) a contract with Carbondale Land Development Company (CLIC) for Park Ditch water for the irrigation season. A description of the water rights available under each contract are included in Appendix B. Applications for Conti acts with 6',A/C0 and UDC must be made simultaneous with or preceding the water rights application with the water court. PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION The depletions to Cattle Creek, Roaring Fork River and Colorado River will be delayed significantly frorn the actual time of pumping. Only upon completion of the wells and analysis of the well logs can the actual delayed impact be accessed, Our experience suggests that because of the great distance of the wells from Cattle Creek the stream depletions will be delayed by many months, perhaps years, and the impact will be relatively uniform. The contracts will provide sufficient amounts of replacement water to offset any reasonable stream depletion schedule and call scenario. aup plan clnrk sub./342.m M 4 77 /G.` n i nnna.an / a i :::::RESOURCE MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I N G. Total depletions are 0.90 AF annually for the three wells. For this plan for augmentation a BWCD contract for 0.10 AF for the non -irrigation season and a CLDC contract for 0.60 AF for the irrigation season are recommended. The BWCD contract water will augment the potential cameo call in April while the CLDC water will augment the Cattle Creek irrigation season call. Operation of this plan for augmentation will protect senior water users from injury. Respectfully submitted, RCE ENGINEERING, INC. aul S. Bussone, P.E. Water Resources Engineer PSB/mmm 842-7.0 aug plan dark sub.E42.wpu 5 77 /Ill -4 (1 J CC: !?J. i;^rl I C I :;:::RESOURCE NNNQ INC APPENDIX A aug clan clerk sub.$42_wpd 77 /1 I i!- /1 J Ccc4.G1n 1 R 1 :=RESOURCE •.7.■ C N G I N G e Il I N C INC. fh •J •IA1 1 I1t fUflAIJ,'7. 7 -fn m (t) w ip 0 Source Series: Maximum Demand: 0 8 , 4O R8 ' ©©Dc) 000003000 0(3 (30Oca0fs9 U U gE fa w N � .t. E 1 U (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12). Domestic Commercial Lawn Crop In-house or Other Irrigation Irrigation livestock TOTAL oo� oCi ao3 Cigg§oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ii 0' C O O 6 0 0 6 6 6 6 0 6 0 O o 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 C pppp QQ QQ o o O cg O O O 6 O a O O OOOOOOOUOC+O Q 6 QQ Q Q O O 0 o Q Q 6 0 c5 O O O 5q O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0© O Z5 D CD C^ CD ,. Q 0. 0 0 0 o o600;_. 1:=.o 0000 Co T 0 e o 1-- x a. — 0 . a 1 A q U V o 0 — T O �/y py o' -p7, G O c. 4--] G7 d 6 C] O • g, g fqp (qp g g tQp gg g 6 6 6 o 6 O 6 O O 0 0 6 6 CqpO d § p 6 Q§ qq o0oC5Ci6 c70o000 § o O O O O O Q§ Q§§ 9 4 00 c7o 666000 4 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 6 -c A a gid E E En u) q�q (um 5 S'v.58 4) TOTALS-? m a o # of Livestock © 11 galsfday 0 W 0 z W 0 w ce cc W m X w lk 2. E 0 2 m U cfU es 5% Transit Loss 77 /7 6c 4,an1L3� RESOURCE G N G I N C C R I N G I N C. �. 'J .nlinnkt 1A1 1 IC'lIn LJ I -r Ian �-i h. By decree of the Water Court in Case No. 81CW34, Ruedi Reservoir was decreed a refill right in the amount of 101,280 acre feet, conditional. In Water Court Case No. 95CW95, 44,509 acre feet was made absolute. 3. Information from evious decrees for Tro Ditch and Edith Ditch ri _hts: STRUCTURE PRIORITY COURT CASE NO. ADJ DATE APP DATE DECREED AMOUNT (CFS) USE (4) AMOUNT SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR RESERVED AMOUNT REMAINING t'°I (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) CFS AF Toy Ditch 370 3082 08I25/1936 05/01/1906 5.10 0.000 0.000 0.095 0.064 0.035 4.906 N/A Troy Ditch 1st Enlg 427 05/01/1928 t; t t 0,000 0,2+ t 0.134 t N/A Troy Ditch 2nd Enlg 669 06/01/1942 t 0.000 0.115 0.077 t • N/A Edith Ditch 353 3082 08/25/1936 05/01/1904 2.72 I 0.110 0.1320 0.050 0.000 0.018 2.410 N/A Edith Ditch 1st En1g 673 4613 06/20/1958 07/01/1946 313 1 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.000 0.022 3.148 N/A Troy Ditch Water System aka Lower Headgate (2) W- 2281 15.50'! LD, M C,P 0.110 0.1320 0.520 0.275 0.190 14.273 412.89 (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (1 0) Originally diverted form Or Creek All others originally diverted from Frying Plart ltrver. Alternate point fo all priorities of Troy and Edith Ditches. Combined atnaun limited to 15.5 cfs and 453 AF of consumptive use, 300 AF of which can be stored. I - Irrigation, 0 = Domestic, M = Municipal, C = Industrial and P = Piscatorial. Transferred to Edith Ditch Well in Casc No, 80CW I with 1.0 AF. Transferred to three springs on Cap K Ranch in Casc No. 82CW189 (1.29 AF assumed to be included). Deeded to George Yatcs with 15.4 AF in 1983. 0.2 cfs and 10.60 cfs was included in Case No. 82CW357 for Ruedi South Shore augmentation plan. Deeded to Joan Wheeler in 1987 for diversion at the Troy Ditch 1st and 2nd Enlargement (16.9 AF assumed to be included). Reserved for augmentation of Cap K Ponds with 5.52 AF_ Case No. 9ICW220. A total of 40.11 AF of the original 453.00 AF has been sold or transferred. In Case No. W-2281, Division 5, the Court decreed that 453 acre feet of annual consumptive -use credits were available to these ditches, and that 300 acre feet could be stored in an unnamed reservoir. The Basalt Water Conservancy District owns 412.89 acre feet of the 453 acre feet, and makes the water rights available to contract allottees for use pursuant to an approved substitute supply plan or decree of Court. The Troy and Edith augmentation water can be delivered to the Frying Pan, Roaring Fork or Colorado Rivers by by-passing water at the headgate on the Frying Pan River. 77 /C I 41 711 ni7f an) e i i ' .ofRESOURCE u■O�� c n, C i N E E R I N a IN. •_1 ui 1 1nnn11iw 1-/-7 �-.n Basalt Water Conservancy District Augmentation Rights 1, information from previous decree for Green Mountain Reservoir: a. Source: Blue River, tributary of Colorado River b. Legal description: located approximately 16 miles Southeast of the Town of Kremmling in Summit County, Colorado, and more particularly in all or parts of Sections 11, 12, 13,14,15, and 24 of Township 2 South, Range 80 West, and in Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, and 34, Township 2 South, Range 79 West of the 6th P.M. c. Adjudication Date: October 12, 1955 d. Appropriation Date: August 1, 1935 e. Case No.: 2782, 5016, and 5017 Court United States District Court, District of Colorado £ Decreed Amount: 154,645 acre feet g. Decreed Uses: in accordance with paragraph 5(a), (b), and (c) of the section entitled "Manner of Operation ofProject Facilities and Auxiliary Facilities" in. Senate Document 80. 2. Information from previous decree for Rucdi Reservoir: a. Source: Frying Pan River, tributary of Colorado River b. Legal description: an on -channel reservoir located in Sections 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14 throughl8, Township 8 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. The reservoir is located in portions of Eagle and Pitkin Coi. ties, c. Adjudication Date: June 20, 1958 d. Appropriation Date: July 29, 1957 e. Case No.: C.A, 4613 Court: Garfield County District Court fDecreed Amount: 102,369 acre feet (Originally decreed for 140,697.3 acre feet; reduced to 102,369 acre feet in Case No. W-789-76) g. Decreed Uses: generation of electric energy, domestic, municipal, industrial, irrigation and stock watering q3 77 /(7.1 11. n J nrri_on) C RESOURCE •EEEE E N O I N E E E I N O I N c n•J InnAI •I1.I Y-7" -,-I Park Ditch and Reservoir Company The Applicants shall obtains perpetually lease 0.6 acre foot of historic consumptive use decreed in Case No. 79CW097, Water Diversion No. 5 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "CLDC water"). The 0.6 acre foot of adjudicated historic consumptive use is derived from water rights decreed to the Park Ditch and Reservoir Company. The Park Ditch and Reservoir Company diverts water from Cattle Creek under the following water rights: TABLE 1 PARK DITCH WATER RIGHTS Ditch Decreed Priority Decreed Adjudication Appropriation C.A. Con. Res. Con. Res. Con. Res. Amount No. Location Date Date 2144 4613 SFas (cis) Sec- 7 175 R87W Park Ditch 9.0 221A NW/SW/SE 06/26/1913 09/12/1904 1627 Park Ditch 4.1 232 NW/SW/SE 06/09/1916 07/01/1912 1821 Park Ditch 1.9 221A NW/SW/SE 06/26/1913 09/12/1904 1627 Park Ditch 2.0 232 NW/SW/SE 09/05/1918 07/01/1912 4.973 Landis Canal 130.0 718 NW/SW/SE 06/20/1958 07/29/1957 4613 {alternate pt. Of Park Ditch see 80CW713) Direct flow diversions under the shares in the Park Ditch and Reservoir Company are supplemented by releases from Consolidated Reservoir. This reservoir operates under the following decreed priorities. TABLE II CONSOLIDATED RESERVOIR WATER RIGHTS Structure Decreed Amount Priority No, Decreed Location Sec_ 19 TSS R87W Adjudication Date Appropriation Date C,A Con. Res. Con. Res. Con. Res. 595.0 AF 285.6 AF 401.0 AF 8B 678 754 NE/NE NE/NE NE/NE 02115/1921 06/20/1958 11/05/1971 09/08/1898 09/01/1948 09/01/1948 2144 4613 SFas Historic use: The historic use associated with Applicants' 0.6 acre feet of historic consumptive use was adjudicated and determined in Case No. 79CW097 in the District Court in and for Water Division No. 5. aui pian dark sub.842.wpd 77 /11 J2 n 1 nrrliC n RESOURCE MMMMM E N O I N E M a 1 N a I N C. APPENDIX 8 :lug pi fl Clark SUb.842.wpd 77 /C I 4 111 (^r*r11.R111 D :::::RESOURCE MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM INC. n •_I TiinnI, ui inrvn11liu i,,. oto FAVRE DOM. PT. - SP. NO. 1 0.50 06/20/1958 08/11/1937 649 4613 FAVRE DOM_ PL. 5P. NO. 2 0.50 06/20/1958 04/15/1912 666 4E13 1) Amount: Each 2prifg is decreed for 0.50 cfs, but the use oY both has a combined limit of 0.50 cfs. 2) District COuxt in and for Garfield County b. Legal Description: i. Favre Domestic Pipeline - Spring No. I: Located at a point whence the Elfa corner, Section 34, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M. bears South 34°26' East, 890.9 feet. ii. Favre Domestic Pipeline - Spring No. 2: Located at a point whence the E/4 corner, Section 34, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M. bears Souzi137°24' East 721.4 feet. c. Source: Blue Creek. which is tributary to Roaring Fork River d. Decreed Use: Domestic and augmentation e. Histt+ric Us4: io . CD owns the Favre Domestic Pipeline right. The Springs historically provided a majority of the domestic water supply for El Jebel, a community of 364 EQRs, consisting of 291 single family residential units (mostly mobile homes), irrigation of 12.5 acres of lawn and landscape, and commercial development. In Case No. 93CW319, the Court decreed that 142.82 acre feet of historic consumptive -use credits were available to Blue Creek as a result of such historic use: and that 67.2 acre feet of historic consumptive -use credits were available to the Roaring Fork River as a result of such historic use. In 93CW319, the Court also decreed a change of use of said credits to include augmentation. BWCD makes the credits available to contract allottees for use pursuant to an approved substitute supply plan or decree of Court. 77 //I 4 fl 1 r:r, .i.an 1 L• 1 ■ RESOURCE INIONM E N INIONMENGINE I N C n •J .M11,11,1,1 Ill 1 innonLlIu1J».-r 1-.11 -r -f rnm: IRE S D U R E. ■�.Y� GINEERING INC Robert Noone, Esq. PO Drawer 39 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 207 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 RE: Clark Subdivision - Case No. 00CW292 Dear Bob: October 23, 2001 The proposed augmentation plan in the Clark case provides for replacement of depletions associated with 3 wells. The total annual depletions are approximately 0.9 AF (0.3 AF per well). The depletions will accrue to Cattle Creek on a delayed impact basis. The wells will be completed in a sandstone formation at depths in excess of 200 feet and at distances between 2,500 feet to 3,000 feet from the creek. As such the wells are desig:,ated as category E wells as defined in Basalt Water Conservancy District Case No. 87CW155. The monthly delayed depletion factors for category E wells are as shown on the attached table. The monthly delayed depletions expressed in acre feet (AF) using the factors are as follows: MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY ,NN JUL AUG SEP OCT j Nov DEC DEPLETIONS 3.075 0.076 0.075 ' r 075 0.076 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 ' �.J7 4 0.075 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, RES CE ENGINEERING, INC. ul 5. Bussone, P.E. Water Resources Engineer PSB/mmm 842-1.0 m replace dep.842.wpd Attachment Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs. 00 91 691 ■ (97C] 94G-8777 77 /01 .4 n / coo d. an 1 6; A Fax [970] 945-1137 f1 •—I on! •lel 1 I nr4 1J11.._I,,.'t 1,es —r—. IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5 STATE OF COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF THE FOR WATER RIGHTS OF PAUL R. CHANIN IN THE ROARING FORK OR ITS TRIBUTARIES TRIBUTARY INVOLVED: IN GARFIELD COUNTY Application No. 81CW292 APPLICATION ) ) RIVER FILED IN DISTRICT COURT WATER DIVISION 5, COLORADO JUIN 081982 MARIE TAIAMAS, CLERK RULING OF REFEREE CAT'T'LE CREEK ) The above entitled application was filed on October 30, 1981, and was referred to the undersigned as Water Referee for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado, by the Water Judge of said Court on the 16th day of November, 1981, in accordance with Article 92 of Chapter 37, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, known as The Water Right Determination and Administration Act of. 1969. And the undersigned Referee having made such investigations as are necessary to determine whether or not the statements in the application are true and having become fully advised with respect to the subject matter of the application does hereby make the following determination and ruling as the Referee in this matter, to -wit: 1. The statements in the application are true. 2. The name of the structure is Sherwood Well No. I. 3, The name of the claimant and address is: Paul R. Chanin, c/o Leavenworth, Patrick and Lochhead; 1011 Grand Avenue, P.O. Drawer 2030, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. 4. The source of the water is a well having a depth of 165 feet, and being tributary to Cattle Creek. 5. The well is located in the NW4NEk of Section 13, T.7S., R.88W. of the 6th P.M. at a point 729 feet East and 644 feet South Of the North Quarter Corner of said Section 13. 6. On September 22, 1972, in Case No. W-679, the Water Referee for Water Division No. 5 awarded to Sherwood Well No. 1, an absolute water right for 0.11 cubic foot of water per second Of time, to be used for domestic and household, stock watering, irrigation, fish culture and recreation uses, with appropriation date of march 15, 1964. This Ruling of Referee was confirmed and made a Decree of the Court on November 22, 1972. 7. This is an application for approval of Plan for Augmenta- tion to provide a dependable supply of water for domestic use for one main residence and one guest house, for the -watering of approximately 10 head of'livestock, and to irrigate an additional one (1) acre of land in addition to the land presently irrigated under water rights other than those augmented herein. 8. The water rights to be used for augmentation are 0.5 acre-feet of adjudicated augmentation water decreed in Case No. 79CW97, water Division No. 5. The water is perpetually leased - 46- 77 /PI 4 n J r,nnYsn l s+ 77 /n7 11 n i nnnicn i c. 81CW292 from the Carbondale Land Development Corporation, owner of 5 shares of the Park Ditch and Reservoir Company involved in Case No. 79CW97, Water Division No. 5. 9. Applicant is the owner of approximately 56 acres of land situated in Lots One (1), Two (2), Thirteen (13), and Fourteen (14) of Section Thirteen (13), Township Seven (7) South, Range Eight -Eight (88) West of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.). Applicant presently has one main residence and one guest house and, for purposes herein, the main residence is occupied year- round with throe people per household, each using 90 gallons per day (270 gallons per day delivery requirement). The annual delivery water requirements for the main residence is 98,550 gallons. The guest house is occupied approximately four weeks in oach year. Assuming 2.5 persons per occupancy and 90 gallons per capita delivery requirement per day, the delivery requirement for the guest house is 6,300 gallons per year. Each unit utilizes a common septic -tank leachfield system which returns 90 percent of the delivery water requirement to the stream course from which it is diverted. Accordingly, the annual Consumptive use requirement for in-house uses is 10,485 gallons (0.032 a.f./c.u.). Applicant further provides water for the watering of approxi- mately 10 head of livestock, each requiring and Consumptively using approximately 25 gallons per day per head. Thus, the annual consumptive use requirement for the livestock is 91,250 gallons per year {.28 a.f./c.u.). Applicant further will irrigate an additional 1.0 acre in addition to its present irrigation under water rights not aug- mented herein. This irrigation will be by sprinkler irrigation means for a consumptive use requirement of 1.0 acre-feet per year (assuming an efficiency rate of 1.0 acre-feet per acre). 10. The operation of the Plan is as follows: The water right described in Paragraph 2, above, will be able to divert under its own priority, nine (9) months in each year, during the period October 1 through July 1 of each year. Accordingly, one-fourth (25%) of all out -of -priority consumptive use requirements for in-house and livestock water usage will be augmented by this plan; this quantity of Consumptive use water is 0.078 acre-feet annually. Two-fifths (40% or July 15 - October 15) of all irrigation water demands set forth herein will be augmented by this plan. This quantity of consumptive use water is 0.4 acre-feet annually. Therefore, the total consumptive use demand to be augmented herein is .478 acre-feet per year. Hence, Applicant's ownership in the water rights to be used for augmentation more than satisfies the only priority depletions to be augmented herein. 11. The Application for Approval of a Plan for Augmentation described herein is hereby approved. The water rights set forth in Paragraphs 2 and 8, above, may be operated in the manner pro- vided for in Paragraph 9, above. 12. The Plan for Augmentation set forth herein may operate to permit continued diversions through the Sherwood Well No. 1 without injury to the vested water rights and decreed conditional water rights of others. • It is accordingly ORDERED that this ruling shall be filed with the Water Clerk and shall become effective upon such filing, subject to Judicial review pursuant to Section 37-92-304 CRS 1973. 91 --- --2- STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Divircion of water Resources Error:merit of Katmai Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room Sl a Drevcr, Calabria 430203 Phone 1303} 866.3587 r nn t1D31 t366r35a9 vwryt.water.Std le. C0. trS March 20, 2002 Kim Schlegel Gbrfield County Planning Dept log 8th St Ste :303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Clark Subdivision Sketch Plan NW'/. Section 13, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM W. Division 5. W. District 38 BrJ1 Owens Govemor Gree E wAct,R LnRvriK• arrrtrnr Fiat D. ting,; -0n, PE_ SGiq Engineer Dear Ms. Schlegel: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 52 acres into 4 lots_ A single family residence and accessory rowelling is to be located on each lot. Each lot is allowed up to 2.500 square feet of lawn and garden irrigation and up to six horses. The applicant proposes to provide water through individual on -lot welts, consisting of an existing well with Permit No. 20095, which was decreed in Case No_ W-679 and is augmented pursuant to Case No. 81 CW292, and three additional yv, .s to be approved pursuant to an augmentation plain decreed in Case No. 00CW292. The applicant.also owns 88 shares in the Needham Ditch, which have been used to irrigate 12.6 acres on the property. Sewage treatment is to be provided through individual sewage disposal systems. Our records indicate the well wi:h Pe: mit No. 20095 was issued an June 4, 1964 for domestic use_ In Case No_ W-679, which was granted on November 22, 1972, the well was decreed for 0.11 cubic feet per second (49 gpm) for domestic and household, stockwatering, irrigation of. 20 acres, fish culture and recreation uses, subject to judicial review per CRS 148-21- 20 as amended (1971). However, the decreed amount and use are in Conflict with the referenced statute, which limited such wells to 15 Spm for ordinary household purposes, fire protection, the watering of pou:try, domestic animals. and livestock on farms and ranches, and the irrigation of not over one acre of home gardens and lawns, but not for more than three single family dweliingS. Case No. B1CW292,-which was decreed 6n July 12, 1982, augments use in the main residence and a guest house, the watering of 10 head of livestock. and expanded use for one additional acre of irrigation. As such, a new permit issued pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) is required to allow the use of the well per Case No. 81CW292. As of this date, an application for such a permit has not been submitted to this office. Review of Case No. 00CW292 indicates the use requested for the three additional wells is covered by the plan for augmentation. Our records show that applications for these wells have not been submitted to this office. No information was provided concerning the physical adequacy of the water supply. As outlined in the statutes. Section 30-28-133(3)(d),.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 supply of water. Adequate evidence is 50- 77 /I7 11 f11l1 r•�.1 Oi11 L+� "RECEIVES MAR 2 9 282 n • ,niifl :'.,1 .ui , inn...111161 ice,,. -r ,�� r- n—vc. t,.wnin,HC1 T i m. vone. v.c Kim Schlagel Clark Subdivision Sketch Plan usually provided in the form of a water resource report, prepared by a professional engineer or water consultant. which addresses the quality, quantity, and dependability issues_ A report of this nature was not provided. See the attached Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supply Plan Reports for the necessary information, Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1 xnxi), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so tong as the applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits per the decreed plans for augmentation, and operates the decreed terms and conditions of these plans. However, due to a lack of information we are unable to comment on the physical adequacy (dependability) of the water supply. Also note that the use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and a change of water right application may be necessary if the place of use is changed. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance_ . ;'rt184b5570 Th 3/ March 20, 2002 Sincerely, 71.7.</. Kenneth W. Knox Assistant State Engineer KWwcMUClark ii.dGe cc: Alan Marteliaro, p,vision Engineer Michael Cone, Water Commissioner, District 38 n innn.ia •ta,,.,.1 .1.1 N..i Ilat . Exhit HJ ) 1111Nip COLORADO RECEIVED APR 0 4 2002 RIVER ENGINEERING, INC. April 3, 2002 Ms. Kim Schlagel Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Clark Subdivision Preliminary Plan — Engineering Review Dear Kim: P.O. Box 1301 Rifle, CO 81650 Tel 970-625-4933 Fax 970-625-4564 As requested, Colorado River Engineering, Inc. has reviewed the Preliminary Plan application for the Clark Subdivision. We have reviewed the applicants February 18, 2002 bound submittal packet, attended a field investigation with Sundesign Architects, and met with the project engineer, Mr. Nathan Bell, of Gamba and Associates, Inc. Also, discussions were held with the County Surveyor and Road and Bridge Department to address access and improvement issues with County Road 103. A brief overview of the project, recommendations, and issues that require additional attention are summarized in this letter report. Background The property consists of about 52.27 acres at an elevation of 6,900 feet located in Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, of the 6thPrime Meridian. The property is situated in the Cattle Creek watershed about 3 -miles northeast of Carbondale. County Road 103 accesses portions of the southern and eastern property boundary. An unidentified ditch or lateral enters the higher elevation northeastern corner of the property. The Park Ditch traverses the lower elevation western property boundary. Improvements include an existing home and out -buildings. Pockets of natural vegetation, predominantly pinion and juniper, surround multiple fields of irrigated grass and pasture area. The proposed subdivision will create 4 -lots total. Lot 1 includes the existing home and is the largest parcel at 20.47 -acres. The three remaining lots (2 through 4) range in size between 10 to 11 acres each. No internal roads are proposed. Lot 2 will share a portion of the existing driveway serving Lot 1. Lots 3 and 4 will share a common driveway access point from County Road 103 along the southern property boundary. The proposed water supply is individual wells with wastewater treated using Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS). Review Comments and Recommendations Preliminary Plat Map and Existing Conditions 1. Portions of County Road 103 are outside its recorded easement and are located within the Clark property legal description. It is our understanding that the County's policy has been to identify additional easement width on the plat for these situations. 1 The county surveyor should be consulted on plat notes or easement identification requirements. 2. The existing conditions map should reflect the location of existing irrigation ditches and utilities on the property. The location and availability of offsite utilities to service the new lots should also be identified. Easements should be provided on the plat map for shared ditches or utility lines that currently or in the future will cross lots within the subdivision. For example, no easement is provided for the overhead power lines observed running through Lot 2 and serving the existing home (lotl). 3. A reference to Covenants are identified on the Plat but were not included in the submittal packet. 4. Names and addresses of mineral owners and lessees are required on the Plat. Potable Water Supply Plan The existing Sherwood Well No.1 will continue to serve the home on Lot -1. Three new wells (not currently drilled) are proposed to serve each new lot. Physical Availability - Information will need to be submitted addressing physical water quality, quantity and dependability for the existing or proposed wells in accordance with section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County. For water supply systems served by individual wells the regulations proof of physical supply and water rights is specifically addressed in Section 4:91.D and 4:91.E as follows: D. If individual water systems shall be provided by lot owners, a report indicating the availability of ample potable ground water at reasonable depths throughout the -subdivision and the expected quality and long-term yield of such wells, with the written report by a registered professional engineer licensed by the state of Colorado, qualified to perform such work; and E. If applicable, a plan for Augmentation and a plan for subdivision water supplies, as required by law, with the supporting engineering work signed by a Colorado registered engineer, shall be submitted by the applicant, even if the applicant is not the actual supplier of water. Water quality for the project will not be subject to any water standards administered by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. As a minimum, we recommend water quality be tested for bacteria, nitrates, and nitrites. Water Rights — A water supply report should be submitted in accordance with section 4.91.E (see above). A brief description of the water rights has been prepared using available information in the application. 2 Lot 1 Reportedly, the Sherwood Well No. 1 serving Lot 1 has been decreed and is covered under its own augmentation plan. The well uses replacement water leased from the Carbondale Land Development Corporation (CLDC) to augment depletions to Cattle Creek. An engineering report should summarize the well decree, augmentation decrees, and well permit limits. The report should identify if the water rights are adequate to supply the proposed two dwelling units. Lots 2,3, and 4 Court Case No. 00CW292 was included in the application packet. The decree develops water rights and a plan for augmentation for each of the three new wells. Each well is decreed for service to two dwellings units, irrigation of up to 2,500 square feet, and livestock watering of 6 head. The augmentation plan uses augmentation water from CLDC to replace out -of -priority depletions to Cattle Creek during the irrigation season and augmentation water from the Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD) to augment non -irrigation season water right calls from the Roaring Fork River or Colorado River. The BWCD water contract was included in the application. An engineering report should also be prepared summarizing the water rights and augmentation plans associated with these three wells. Our preliminary review of the decree noted inconsistencies and errors in calculating the well diversion and depletion amounts. The actual well depletions were calculated to be 0.948 acre-feet and is greater than the 0.7 acre-feet of augmentation contract water identified in the decree. It is our opinion that the augmentation plan could require corrective measures or additional contract water requirements in order to obtain valid well permits prior to final plat. Legal counsel should review this matter. Pursuant to terms of the decree, the Colorado Division of Water Resources will require proof of water contracts with the BWCD and CLDC, and the existence of a homeowner's association prior issuance of well permits. The homeowners association will have to be developed before approval of any final plat. Raw Water Supply The decree for the new wells indicates that the applicant has an ownership interest in the Needham Ditch. The application does not identify if water rights associated with the property will be divided among the four lots. If a water rights split is to occur, then provisions should be provided to address cost sharing of common portions of the irrigation delivery and distribution system. Wastewater Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) are proposed for wastewater treatment. The soils report prepared by CTL Thompson, Inc. (CTL) stated that percolation testing could not be �4- completed due to winter conditions. CTL believes ISDS will be appropriate at the site and that "engineered systems" will be required for percolation rates outside the 5 to 60 minutes per inch range. The soils survey data rates the building -envelope soils as "severe" for septic tank and absorption fields. We recommend that percolation tests be completed at the property prior to preliminary plat approval based on the soil survey rating and the water right limitations that could be associated with "engineered systems" (i.e. the augmentation plan would not cover the use of an evapotranspiration system). To promote proper maintenance of any ISDS facilities we recommend that the covenants identify a minimum inspection period of at least yearly as recommended in the Operation and Maintenance Guide prepared by Gamba and Associates, Inc. Soils and Geologic Constraints No geologic conditions or hazards were identified in the CTL report that would preclude development of the property for the intended uses. CTL identifies the need for additional design level geotechnical studies to develop design level recommendations and construction criteria for individual buildings. We recommend that the Plat identify the need for site-specific geotechnical studies and design criteria be completed prior to building permit approval. Driveway Access The driveway serving Lots 1 and 2 will utilize the historic driveway access. A new -shared driveway entrance to Lots 3 and 4 is proposed along the southern property boundary. No design improvements were included in the design packet. The county road and bridge department as part of the driveway permit process typically requires: 1) Culvert installation, 2) Perpendicular entrance conditions to the county road, 3) Sufficient driveway entrance width (±30') to accommodate tractor trailers, 4) The first 30' of driveway to have less than 4% slope, and 5) At least an 8 -foot asphalt apron at the road and driveway intersection. The above items should be included as a condition of approval. The new driveway has been situated at a location recommended by the road and bridge department and approved by Gamba and Associates. A site visit revealed that the access sight distance along County Road 103 could be significantly improved if vegetation and other obstructions were removed. In order to improve sight distance and safety, we recommend that obstructions be removed for a distance of at least 20 -feet from the northern edge of the county road at least 200 -feet in each direction. 4 The centerline for the driveway to Lot 3 appears to have grades that exceed 10%. We recommend that any Preliminary Plat approval be conditioned on submittal of design drawings detailing the shared driveway entrances, removal of sight obstructions, and demonstration that the driveway to Lot 3 can be constructed without exceeding a slope of 10%. The future maintenance costs for the shared sections of driveway should be addressed through the covenants or homeowners association. If you have any questions, we can be reached at 970-625-4933. Sincerely, Christ•pher Manera, P.E. CM:cm reviewl .doc iiiiiRESOURCE.•.•• IUUENGINEERINGG I N C. Ms. Kim Schlagel Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Clark Subdivision 1 May 1, 2002 Dear Ms. Schlagel: On April 30, 2002 Resource Engineering, Inc. supervised a 4 hour pump test of the existing well serving Lot 1 in the proposed Clark Subdivision. The existing well is decreed as Sherwood Well No. 1 and carries permit No. 20095. The well is completed in sandstone formation at a depth of 222 feet. Static water level was 146.7' prior to pumping. Total drawdown after 4 hours of pumping at 17.5 gpm was less than one foot (10 3/4"). Recovery occurred within 3 minutes. A copy of the data is attached. The well exhibited the ability to provide a reliable physical water supply for the proposed uses which include a single family home, an ADU, 2,500 s.f. or irrigation and up to 6 horses. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the well has served the existing home and amenities for many years. It is also our professional opinion that the proposed Clark Lots 2, 3 and 4 Wells can be completed in the same aquifer and obtain similar water yields, that is 15 gpm and 1.0 AF/year. The proposed wells are located approximately 600 feet apart and should not create any well to well interference. Therefore, it is our conclusion based on the pump test and an evaluation of local geology that is reliable physical water supply is available to all four lots in the Clark Subdivision as proposed. Sincerely, RESO CE ENGINEERING, INC. aul S. Bussone, P.E. Water Resources Engineer PSB/mmm 842-1.0 ks pump test.842.wpd CC: Robert Noone, Esq. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 ■ (970) 945-6777 • Fax (970) 945-1137 - 59- LEVEL I44 7-;M l X11- 94 /N. -gni Rjf 7115 `/6- ?'3/Y /96 7.34" Apr 30 02 09:24p Sam )1son Pump Co, Inc. 97' ?47-9448 WELL TEST.REPORT Name % G o J�� ,rce / �lCr/'��j �S Add`ess ;�_ f� PoN- Date - -0 Well Log Depth/ Water Level /Ui9 - 7 Casing Size 4' / Draw Down ref? - Putpp Setting Production 1-2- J `Test Pump :'A fir 'Zh.. ' 11"" k► G ` TIME /v DRAWDOWN MIN. LEVEL 1 2 3 5 6 8 140 /cI7`3 GPM /Of"— ..- TIME RECOVERY MIN. 12 15 m(22- %'/G7 - 30 1 -/7 -GYM 40 -S/A• 11.00 50 ., v b I: 00 1. 9) 45617� 40- Ib3 lee r2' 180 P..0 -51/f, ! -sty J(f7 - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 20 30 40 50 60 //7- S34, 1 p. 1 . tx14 obi -f-1, 11Plop\r COLORDO Rn►eR A ENGINEERING, INC. RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2002 P.O. Box 1301 Rifle, CO 81650 Tel 970-625-4933 Fax 970-625-4564 May 24, 2002 Ms. Kim Schlagel Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Clark Subdivision Preliminary Plan — Engineering Review Dear Ms. Schiagel: Subsequent to our April 23`d, 2002 review of the Clark Subdivision additional information has been submitted by the applicant. This letter has been prepared to summarize the review of new materials and outline any outstanding engineering issues. Potable Water Supply Resource Engineering, Inc. has submitted a letter summarizing the pump test performed on the Sherwood Well No.1 located on Lot 1. The pump test showed that sufficient capacity is available from the underlying aquifer. Resource states "... it is our conclusion based on the pump test and an evaluation of local geology that a reliable physical supply is available to all four lots in the Clark subdivision as proposed." The analysis and letter meet the requirements set forth by the County regulations for water quantity. The letter will require the engineer's seal. As identified in our previous review, the county requires water quality testing for bacteria, nitrate/nitrites, and total suspended solids. The water rights for the Sherwood Well No.1 and the proposed wells for each lot are summarized in a report prepared by Resource Engineering, Inc. The report combined with the multiple water court decrees for the wells and augmentation sources indicates that sufficient water rights are available to support the subdivision. The report will require the engineer's seal. Raw Water Supply No supplemental information has been provided concerning the future use of irrigation water rights from the Needham Ditch. A plat note should be required prior to final plat identifying the water rights associated with each lot. If continued irrigation use is to occur, then we recommend that easements be developed for the ditch delivery system. Site inspection indicated that the ditch delivery lateral crosses through the Lot 2 building envelope. If the water rights are to be divided amongst the lots, then the proper easements should be developed and a cost sharing agreement should address maintenance and operation procedures for the shared delivery components. Percolation Tests Percolation tests performed by Gamba and Associates, Inc. show that individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) will be adequate for the site. Each system will require site specific testing and design prior to building permit issuance. Driveway Access The driveway profile for Lot 3 provided by Gamba and Associates, Inc. shows a design grade of 8% and demonstrates adequate access. A design for the shared driveway entrances was not provided. We recommend that any approval of preliminary plan be conditioned on submittal of the driveway entrance design or obtaining an access permit before final plat. Cost sharing agreements should be developed for the shared sections of driveway. Utilities No information has been provided addressing the location and type of utility service available to each new lot. Our site visit indicated that electric and phone is available along the County Road right-of-way. As notice to future lot owners, a plat note should be added indicating the available utilities, providers, and the location for service connections. If you have any questions, we can be reached at 970-625-4933. CM:cm reviewl.doc Sincerely, Christo.her Manera, P.E. IMO 6�D G A M B A & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS WWW.6048A[NOIN[6gING.COM PHONE: 970/945-2550 FAX: 970/945-1410 • 113 NINTH STREET, SUITE 214 P.O. BOX 1458 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602-1458 CkV�ibi-�- I1'1 May 1, 2002 Kim Schlagel Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Clark Subdivision Preliminary Plan Percolation Tests Dear Kim: Gamba & Associates, Inc. has performed preliminary percolation testing in the vicinity of the proposed building envelopes for the Clark Subdivision. The testing conformed to the Garfield County Regulations applicable forr obtaining percolation rates. A single percolation test was conducted for each proposed building location and yielded the following results: Lot 2 = 20 minutes/inch Lot 3 = 6 minutes/inch Lot 4 = 40 minutes/inch All three of the percolation rates are within the specified limits and indicate Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) for residential construction will be adequate for the site. These tests are only used as an indication of the percolation rate within the area of the proposed building locations. Site specific testing will have to be performed at the time of building permit application and prior to an ISDS design for each residence. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Gamba & Associates, Inc. /AAr1 Nathan Bell, P. cc: Robert Noone, Dean Moffatt G:\98749-01\Perc Test report.doc Clark Subdivision Percolation Testing May 1, 2002 Page 1 of 1 41-