HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Memo to BOCC 02.12.1998MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Eric McCaffe
SUBJECT: Cedar Ridge Farms Subdivision
Decision on Extension of Preliminary Plan Approval
DATE: 12 February, 1998
This matter is before the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to a request by the applicant to
extend a previously approved, subdivision preliminary plan. The Board will recall that a portion of
the subject property was proposed to be split, by exemption, from the tract. Staff had recommended
the Board take a disposition toward the validity of the preliminary plan, either in conjunction with the
exemption application, or in a separate hearing. After conferring with all parties involved, it was
determined the exemption application would be tabled until the Board's determination of whether or
not to extend the preliminary plan, as required by Section 4:34 of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations.
Consistent with Section 4:34, a preliminary plan approval is considered valid for one (1) year from
the original date of approval, unless an extension of not more than one (1) year is granted by the
Board, prior to the expiration of the original approval. The original resolution of approval is dated
July 15, 1991, and staff canind no information that the preliminary plan has ever been extended. See
Resolution 91-062, pages 0 . In staffs opinion, technically, the preliminary plan approval
has expired specifically because no extension was ever requested or granted. After discussion with
the County Attorney, Don advised that extension or revocation should be decided at the conclusion
of a formal, public hearing.
Staff has reviewed the existing information contained in the Cedar Ridge Farms subdivision
preliminary plan file and has attached the original sketch plan staff report, preliminary plan report, and
other pertinent information.
In summary, the subdivision proposed a total of seven residential lots varying in size between 4.4
acres and 17.6 acres, with a remaining open space parcel of 46.1 acres. It is not immediately clear
whether the open space parcel would be provided as common open space to the subdivision, or would
be utilized only by the applicant. This acreage would be subdivided from the tract, yet no
infrastructure would be provided. Staff recommends that the acreage formally be reserved as open
space and be dedicated to the homeowner's association, with the appropriate protective covenants
included, if approved.
Slope across the parcel varies from a minimum of 7.5% to a maximum of 28%, with vegetation
varying from pinion and juniper on the steeper slopes to pasture grasses and sage on the gentler -
sloped portions. A sketch plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1982, at a time when
sketch plans were subject to approval or denial. The sketch plan was approved, with conditions, and
a later preliminary plan was approved, also with conditions. See sketch plan report and preliminary
plan report, pages /i- 2 1 .
The tract remains zoned A/R/RD; and the subdivision lots would be served by individual wells and
septic systems. The engineering report contains well production information, which purports the
pumping capacity of an existing well is 40 gallons per minute. No actual well pump test seems to be
included in the preliminary plan submittal, so it is not known whether this rate is an estimate or is
actually based on a pump test of some duration. See information, pages 21 " ZS .
A legal water supply would be premised on a water augmentation plan that has granted conditional
water rights, for 15 gpm, for the individual wells. Upon a finding of due diligence, the water referee
has continued the conditional water rights, until November, 2000. See information, pages 21-3 0 .
Individual sewage disposal systems were proposed, with preliminary percolation information
suggesting engineered systems may be required. A condition of approval requiring engineered
building foundations, for lots 1 thru 3, was attached.
Access would be provided from the existing intersection with County Road 103 and, as an original
condition of approval, required to meet County standards, which staff interprets to mean Semi -
Primitive access standards. Additional approval conditions regarding access included Fire District
approval of the cul-de-sac design, a requirement to reimburse Hawkridge subdivision lot owners for
a pro -rata share of pavement costs, presumably for County Road 103, as well as extending the paving
of CR 103, from Hawkridge to the entrance to Cedar Ridge Farms.
In terms of Comprehensive Planning, since the time of the original approval of this subdivision
preliminary plan, the County has adopted a new Plan. The subject tract lies within the Medium
Density Residential (6 to less than 10 acres per dwelling unit) Proposed Land Use District. Density
of the subdivision would result in 8.1 acres per dwelling unit, without including the remaining 46
acres.
In regard to density, the proposed covenants include provision for "caretaker's units" that would be
allowed on the individual lots. If allowed, true gross density would decrease to 4.0 acres per dwelling
unit. Item 14 of Resolution 91-062 requires that Article 3 of the covenants be altered to comply with
zoning. Staff can only guess that this requirement was meant to address the proposed caretaker units.
In staffs opinion, caretaker units should only be allowed as a special use, consistent with underlying
zoning, due to their impact on infrastructure (roads, water supply, wastewater treatment) and
neighboring properties.
Additionally, the proposed covenants would allow up to three (3) dogs per residential lot, which
contradicts the County's policy of allowing one (1) dog per lot.
Conclusion; The subdivision, if it were proposed today, would not likely be approved, as submitted,
because it either contradicts existing policies (dog policy), or it is incomplete in other areas
(reservation of common open space, drainage plan, physical water supply). However, these
deficiencies are mitigated somewhat by a general adherence to the new comprehensive plan and the
application of the recently -adopted road impact fee. The subject tract is within Impact Area #11,
which would be required to contribute a per lot fee of $3840, which equates to a total of $26,880.
This fee may be in excess of the amount that would be contributed from adherence to approval
condition #16, yet staff has no way of calculating the actual cost.
In staff's opinion, this matter exemplifies the problems associated with past subdivision approvals that
have never proceeded to final plat. In effect, the Board is being requested to rejuvenate a subdivision
that seemed to have expired by a lack of interest on the applicant's part. Although the augmentation
plan has been kept alive, no other progress toward finalizing the subdivision seems to have occurred.
After further consultation with Don, he has advised that since the applicant has not requested an
extension, within the time allotted, and since very little progress has been made toward complying
with conditions of approval and submittal of a final plat, then this preliminary plan cannot be
extended.
In the interest of fairness, the applicant's agent claims to have not necessarily been advised of Don's
opinion of application of Section 4:34. In my case, I have indicated to the applicant that at least one
other preliminary plan has been extended, without an annual review (Mamm Creek Industrial Park).
From the date of original approval of Mamm Creek, June 1981, there has been an inconsistency on
how Section 4:34 has been applied. My information was based on a review of the files in the Planning
Department, which was cross-checked with Resolutions on file in the Clerk and Recorder's Office.
There seems to be a gap between formal extensions, between the years 1987 and 1989, inclusive. (It
is possible that extensions may be reflected in the minutes of the proceedings, but this information has
not been researched.)
Based on this situation, the Board is being requested, by the applicant, to mediate the situation that
has arisen and either formally extend or formally rescind the preliminary plan approval. Staff has
provided findings and conditions that would be appropriate for whichever decision the Board makes.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS - DENIAL
1. That proper publication and public notice and posting were provided as required by law for
this hearing before the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the hearing 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 the hearing.
3. That the subdivision preliminary plan is not in conformance with Section 4:34 of the Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended.
4. The Board finds that the applicant has not made satisfactory progress in the pursuit of
finalizing this subdivision, has not adhered to specific approval conditions, and further finds
that the previously approved preliminary plan has expired and is hereby revoked.
3
In staffs qualified opinion, the extension of the subdivision preliminary plan is considered worthy of
approval, with the following qualifications:
1] Conduct a well pump -test, or demonstrate a pump -test has been conducted, which meets the
following standards: 24 hour duration; well depth; static water level; drawdown and recharge
characteristics;
2] Submit a drainage plan that meets the standards of Section 4:80(D);
3] Formally include the remaining 46.1 acres as open space and address its nature (common
open space or otherwise) and maintenance within the protective covenants;
4] Change covenants to limit amount of dogs, per lot, to one (1);
5] Require all "caretaker units" to be considered as special uses, consistent with underlying
zoning.
The submittal of the above information would require these proceedings to be continued, to a date
certain, to allow the applicant time to submit the information and the Planning Department time to
review the information. The Board would then entertain the information in the continued public
hearing and would render its decision at the conclusion of the hearing.
If the Board determines the above items are not required, and considers it appropriate to extend the
validity of the preliminary plan, staff recommends all previous requirements of Resolution 91-062 be
enforced, with the following suggested findings and amendments to Resolution 91-062:
SUGGESTED FINDINGS - APPROVAL
1. That proper publication and public notice and posting were provided as required by law for
this hearing before the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the hearing 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 the hearing.
3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in conformity with the recommendations set forth
in the Comprehensive Plan, for the unincorporated area of the County.
4. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution.
5. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State of
Colorado and Garfield County have been submitted.
6. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption is in the best interest of
the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County.
Due to the unique circumstances surrounding this proposal, there has been conflicting advice
given to the applicant. The extension granted herein shall in no way be considered a
precedent by which any other similar application will be granted, by this or any other
applicant.
S. The Board finds that the applicant has made satisfactory progress in the pursuit of finalizing
this subdivision, adherence to all approval conditions, and submittal of a final plat and further
finds that the previously approved preliminary plan is still valid.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO APPROVAL CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION 91-062
2] The community dumpster tract should be an easement, not a separate lot.
4] The subdivision improvements agreement may be submitted with the final plat.
5] All roadway improvements may be submitted with the final plat.
6] Add the following tot he protective covenants or plat notes:
"One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit within this subdivision and the dog shall
be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. Enforcement provisions
shall be developed for allowing the removal of a dog from the area, as a final remedy in worst
cases.
"No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within this subdivision. One
(1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations
promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be
allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances."
"All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting shall 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."
"The minimum defensible space distance for structures shall be 30 feet on level terrain, plus
appropriate modification to recognize the increased rate of fire spread at sloped sites. The
methodology described in "Determining Safety Zone Dimensions, Wildfire Safety Guidelines
for Rural Homeowners," (Colorado State Forest Service) shall be used to determine
defensible space requirements for the required defensible space within building envelopes in
areas exceeding five (5) percent grade." This plat note shall substitute for #3.
"The individual lot owners shall be responsible for the control of noxious weeds."
7] Add to this condition a requirement of contributing the applicable road impact fee.
9] This requirement must be satisfied within the final plat submittal.
11] Delete the $200 amount and require an appropriate school impact fee that would be
calculated at the time of submittal of final plat documents.
13] There should be a determination on how this requirement would be enforced.
16] If the applicant contributes road impact fees, then this condition must be rescinded.
Additional: Require inclusion of the remaining 46.1 acres as open space and address its nature
(common open space or otherwise) and maintenance within the protective covenants
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
At a rog„lar meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners
Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on
Monday , the 15th of .7nly A.D. 19 91 ,
there were present:
Arnold T._ Marklay
Pinar (RnrkPy) Arhanay
Marian T, Smith
non npFnrrl
Mildred Alsdorf
Chuck Deschenes
, Commissioner Chairman
, Commissioner
, Commissioner
, County Attorney
, Clerk of the Board
, County Administrator
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-062
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE
CEDAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, Sandy Smith has filed an application with the Board of
County Commissioners of the Garfield County Planning Department, this
Board finds as follows:
1. That proper publication, public notice and posting were
provided as required by law for the hearings before the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of
County Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that
all interested parties were heard at that hearing.
3. That the Garfield County Board of Commissioners recommended
approval of the Preliminary Plan.
4. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with
the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for
the unincorporated area of the County.
5. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs
as are required by the State of Colorado and Garfield County
have been submitted, reviewed and found to meet all sound
planning and engineering requirements of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations.
6. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution.
7. 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 of the
citizens of Garfield County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Preliminary Plan of the
Cedar Ridge Subdivision for the following described unincorporated area
of Garfield County be approved with the following conditions:
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the
application or stated at the public hearing before the Board
of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise stated by the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. That the applicant shall reserve a tract of adequate size in
a central location for a community dumpster. The tract shall
include a concrete pad with wood fencing or masonry walls for
screening purposes. This tract shall be dedicated to the
Homeowner's Association and reserved in perpetuity for this
purpose. The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for
the upkeep and maintenance of this tract.
3. That the Homeowner's Association shall be incorporated in
accordance with C.R.S. requirements.
4. That the applicant shall submit a subdivision improvements
agreement addressing all on-site and off-site improvements
prior to the submittal of a Final Plat.
5. That the applicant shall submit improvement plans for all
roadway improvements prior to the submittal of a Final Plat.
6. That the following plat notes shall be included on the Final
Plat:
1. Soils test and engineered foundations shall be required
on Lots 1-3 and may be required on all other lots.
2. Engineered wastewater systems may be required.
3. Wildfire prevention guidelines of the U.S.F.S./Colorado
State Forester shall be incorporated in site planning and
residential design.
7. That the proposed roadway shall be constructed in accordance
with Sections 9.34 and 9.35 of the Subdivision Regulations.
In addition, any subsequent standards and specifications for
road design that are adopted prior to the submittal of the
Final Plat may be applicable.
8. That the applicants shall provide written endorsement from the
Colorado Division of Water Resources.
9. That the applicants shall provide written authorization by the
Carbondale Fire District consenting to the cul-de-sac design.
10. That all utilities shall be placed underground.
11. That the applicant shall submit $200 per lot in School Impact
Fees prior to the submittal of the Final Plat or in
conjunction with the Subdivision Improvements Agreement.
12. That the water rights for the domestic wells be transferred
the Homeowner's Association or the individual lot buyers.
13. That the applicant shall make provision for repayment of
pavement costs to the Hawkridge developers as identified in
their Subdivision Improvements Plan.
14. That the applicants shall modify Article 3 of the proposed
"Protective Covenants" to bring them into compatibility with
minimum zoning regulations.
15. All recommendations of the Division of Water Resources in
their 9-11-90 letter shall be incorporated into the Final Plat
and the applicants covenants.
16. The applicants shall (chip and seal) surface C.R. 103 from the
end of the pavement to the entrance of the Cedar Ridge Farm to
a similar standard as required for Hawkridge.
to
17. The applicants shall revegetate all cut slopes and disturbed
areas with a certified weed free seed and monitor.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached Exhibit A.
Dated this 15th day of 1„ly , A.D. 1991 .
ATTEST: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
Cl-rk of the Board Chairman
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was
adopted by the following vote:
Arnold L. Marklay
R1mar (Rnrkayl Arhan.y
Marian T_ Smith
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
, Aye
, Aye
, Aye
I, , County Clerk and ex -officio
Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and
State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing
Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceedings of the
Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my
office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of
, A.D. 19
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners
0.i Vii" "1+• _ - -.r- ';' iy.�.'!��h ,may 4‘,
,i"r •,�..;
Beginning at the Quarter Corner common to Sect ons 12r
Township and Range, �,K: Y3 't�. k�•:-,�
thence S.84°16'22" E. along the Section line between said Sections'
:12 and 13, 210.00 feet to a point in the center of the Park Ditch;'
thence along the centerline of said ditch S.16°07'31" E. 40.35 feet;
thence S. 26°17'50" E. 76.58 feet;
thence S. 34°58'50" W. 179.02 feet;'
thence S. 21°25'52" W. 97.27 feet;
thence S. 09°41'43" E. 57.78 feet;
thence S. 14°07'.35" E. 322.35 feet;
'thence S. 12°03"17" E. 139.33 feet;
thence S. 73°54'25" W. 138.94 feet;
thence S. 01°31'14" E. 294.00 feet;
thence S. 05°28'32" E. 109.40 feet;
thence S. 21°16'33" E. 67.58 feet;
thence S. 64°12'36" E. 116.10 feet;
thence S. 52°13'39" E. 95.46 feet;
thence S. 10°49'10" E. 116.53 feet;
thence S. 26°39'52" E. 157.36 feet;
thence S. 18°20'39" E. 70.39 feet;
thence S. 27°01'44" E. 142.09 feet;
thence S. 39°23'09" E. 143.24 feet;
thence S. 02°53'08" W. 96.14 feet to a point on the Northerly right-of-wa
line of County Road No. 103;
thence along said right-of-way line, 59.31 feet along the arc of a
curve to the right, having a radius of 1044.57 feet the chord of which
bears: S. 81°47'25" W. 59.30 feet;
thence S. 83°25'00" W. 115.08 feet;
thence 116.32' feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a
radius of 741.22 feet, the chord of which bears S. 78°55'16" W. 116,20
feet;
thence 230.70 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a
radius of 423.13 feet, the chord of which bears S. 58°48'21" W. 227.86
feet;
thence 90.93 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius
of 408.67 feet, the chord of which bears S. 36°48'42" W. 90.75 feet;
thence leaving said right-of-way line N. 89°16'38" W. 32.34 feet;
thence S. 01°06'40" W. 492.34 feet to a point in the center of said
Park Ditch;
SEE ADDED PAGE
001683,
Page 2
•
thence S. 79°54'59" W. 105.66 feet along the center of said ditch;
thence N. 06°38'19" W. 240.30 feet;
thence N. 73°01'11" W. 409.45 feet;
thence N. 54°06'22" W. 675.91 feet;
thence N. 10°48'08" W. 313.56 feet;
thence N. 12°35'49" W. 1436.10 feet;
thence N. 18°16'24" W. 529.17 feet;
thence N. 00°19'40" E. 456.51 feet;
thence N. 88°12'04" W. 174.20 feet;
thence N. 10°24'04" W. 591.49 feet;
thence S. 77°29'14" E. 737.75 feet;
thence S. 27°08'04" E. 412.25 feet;
thence S. 0.1°18'01' E. 122.39 feet;
thence S. 03°51'39" E. 233.82 feet;
thence S. 45°01'08" E. 273,91 feet;
thence S. 03°42'58" W. 76.44 feet;
thence N. 87°58'57" E. 762.34 feet more or less to the Quarter Corner
common to Sections 12 and 13 in said Township and Range, the point of
beginning. Except that portion of said parcel lying in Lot 7 of
Section 13, said Township and Range.
PARCEL B:
A parcel of land situated in Lot 8 of Section 12, Township 7 South,
Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, described as follows;
Beginning at the Quarter Corner between Sections 12 and 13 in said
Township and Range;
thence S. 87°58'57" W. 762.34 feet along a fence;
thence N. 03°42'58" E. 76.44 feet;
thence N. 45°01'08" W. 273.91 feet;
thence N. 03°51'39" W. 233.82 feet;
thence N. 01°18'01" W. 122.39 feet;
thence N. 27°08'04" W. 412.25 feet;
thence S. 77,°29'14" E. 1166.80 feet to a point on the North-South
Centerline of said Section'12,
thence S. 01°27'21" E. along the North-South Centerline of said Section
12, 713.02 feet to the point of beginning.
County of Garfield
State of Colorado
001684
Page 3
BOCC 12/3/90
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Cedar Ridge Farm Preliminary Plan
OWNER/APPLICANT: Sandra Smith
PROJECT ENGINEER: Dean Gordon, P.E.
LOCATION: A parcel of land situated in the SW
1/4 of Section 12 and the N 1/2 of
Section 13, T7S, R88W of the 6th
P.M.; located approximately four (4)
miles north of Highway 82 on C.R.
103 (Crystal Springs Road) across
from the Hawk Ridge Subdivision.
SITE DATA: The site consists of 105.5 acres.
WATER: Individual wells.
SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems.
ACCESS: Proposed private access road off
C.R. 103.
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The site is located in District C - Rural Areas with Minor
Environmental Constraints as designated on the Comprehensive
Plan Management District's map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
A. Site Description: The property is located in a rural
area of the County, with uses in the vicinity being
single family residential and ranching. The property
consists of a north -south trending valley and its side
slopes. The property drains from south to north in an
intermittent channel. The valley floor consists of
grasslands and irrigated pasture. The side slopes are
vegetated with scattered pinon/juniper and oak trees. At
the north end of the property is a single family
residence and an enclosed riding arena.
B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to divide
the 105 acre tract into 7 single family lots ranging in
size from 4.4 to 17.6 acres in size. The 8th lot of 46
acres would be retained by the owner for grazing and
pasture purposes.
C. Background: In 1982, the applicants submitted a Sketch
Plan for Cedar Ridge Farm. At that time, the submittal
was reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners (see enclosed staff comments, (pages
]). No major objections were voiced at that time to
the submittal. The current Preliminary Plan submittal is
similar in design to the approved Sketch Plan reviewed in
1982.
III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Colorado Geological Survey: No major geological
impediments exist in this area. Major concerns are
foundation design, adequate grading and drainage and
radon mitigation (see letter on page ).
B. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: Their concerns
include preservation of existing irrigated lands, soil
erosion and adequate dog control (See letter on page
C. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Requested that
plat notes and protective covenants be developed
consistent with water augmentation plan limitations.
Noted that the water report by Dean Gordon indicated hard
water. (See letter pages
D. Colorado Department of Health: Notice that ISD systems
must meet county and state requirements.
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Design: Six (6) of the 8 proposed lots are located on
the hillside slopes above the valley floor. Slopes on
these lots, particularly Lots 1-4, range upwards to 25%.
These slopes may present difficulty for wastewater and
foundation design as well as requiring substantial
excavation, Lots 7 and 8 are located on gentler terrain
in the valley floor.
Vegetation removal for homesite development should be
minimal with the exception of Lots 2 and 3 where
substantial amounts of pinyon/juniper oak scrub exist.
B. Roads: The applicants are proposing to extend an
internal roadway from C.R. 103 into a "K" turn -around
adjacent to Lots 1 and 2. This roadway will consist of
a 24 foot wide platform with 10' travel lanes and 2'
shoulders within a 50' right-of-way. The proposed
surface is gravel. There is currently an existing
roadway within this alignment varying in width from 16 to
20 feet. From the "K" turn -around, a lesser width road
right-of-way will extend to Lots 6 and 7. (See enclosed
map on page
Section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations state that
private roadways may be permitted provided they meet all
requirements of the regulations including design stand-
ards. Minimum standards for this type road include a 28'
driving surface width (includes minimum 2' shoulders) and
a chip and seal surfacing treatment.
Section 9:34 allows cul-de-sacs in excess of 600' in
length if acceptable for fire protection purposes. A
minimum cul-de-sac turn -around radius of 50' is required.
No provisions for "K" turn-arounds are included in the
Subdivision Regulations. In addition, contributions (ie.
chip and seal surfacing) towards the upgrading of C.R.
103 may also be required. Specific contributions will be
determined at a later date. •(
Water: The applicants are proposing individual wells on
each of the proposed lots. Two potential groundwater re-
sources exist in the vicinity, in the shall alluvial
deposits and in the underlying basalts. Typically, the
basaltic deposits yield higher quality and more reliable
water. The existing well on Lot 7 is in bedrock at a
depth of 186' and produces upwards of 50 g.p.m. Typical
yields would probably be 5 to 25 g.p.m.
The applicants have approved water rights and an
augmentation plan for the construction of 7 wells. This
plan provides .03 CFS for domestic in-house use, lawn and
garden irrigation, stock watering and fire protection.
The property is traversed by an irrigation ditch which
waters the irrigated pasture land. It is unknown whether
the applicant intends to transfer any of these rights to
future lot owners.
E. Wastewater: The applicants are purporting that septic
tank/leachfield system will suffice for wastewater dis-
posal purposes. I.S.D.S. systems are currently in place
on Lots 6 and 7 serving the existing residence and riding
arena. S.C.S. soil survey data indicates that there may
be severe limitations for septic tank/absorption fields
due to the steep slopes and presence of large stones.
F. Fire Protection: The subject property is located within
the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. No
response from the District has been received to date.
The applicants are proposing a 5000 gallon cistern for
fire fighting supply.
G. Drainage: Stormwater runoff will be collected through a
series of existing culverts and routed through natural
drainage courses. Runoff will leave the property heading
northward concentrated into an intermitted stream bed.
No significant increase in stormwater runoff should be
generated by the development proposal.
H. Wildlife: No response has been received from the
Division of Wildlife regarding impacts of wildlife.
Covenants will restrict the number of dogs and require
that they be kenneled to reduce potential for conflicts
with wintering deer and elk.
I. Utilities: The applicants are proposing to place
underground electric service within the 50' road right-
of-way. No reference to telephone service has been
indicated in the application.
V. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
A. That proper publication, public notice and posting were
provided as required by law for the hearing before the
Planning Commission; and
B. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was
extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters
and issues were submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at that hearing; and
C. That the proposed subdivision of land is in general
compliance with the recommendations set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the
County; and
D. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution; and
E. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and
designs as are required by the State of Colorado and
Garfield County have been submitted and, in addition,
have been found to meet all requirements of the Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
On September 12, 1990, the Planning Commission recom-
mended APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within
the application or stated at the public hearing before
the Planning Commission shall be considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise stated by the Planning
Commission.
2. That the applicant shall reserve a tract of adequate size
in a central location for a community dumpster. The
tract shall include a concrete pad with wood fencing or
masonry walls for screening purposes. This tract shall
be dedicated to the homeowner's association and reserved
in perpetuity for this purpose. The homeowner's
association shall be responsible for the upkeep and
maintenance of this tract.
3. That the homeowner's association shall be incorporated in
accordance with C.R.S. requirements.
4. That the applicant shall submit a subdivision improve-
ments agreement addressing all on-site and off-site
improvements prior to the submittal of a Final Plat.
5. That the applicant shall submit improvement plans for all
roadway improvements prior to the submittal of a Final
Plat.
6. That the following plat notes shall be included on the
Final Plat:
1. Soils test and engineered foundations shall be
required on Lots 1-3 and may be required on all
other lots.
2. Engineered wastewater systems may be required.
3. Wildfire prevention guidelines of the U.S.F.S.
should be incorporated in site planning and
residential design.
7. That the proposed roadway shall be constructed in accord-
ance with Sections 9.34 and 9.35 of the Subdivision
Regulations.
8. That the applicants shall provide written endorsement
from the Colorado Division of Water Resources.
9. That the applicants shall provide written authorization
by the Carbondale Fire District consenting to the cul-de-
sac design.
10. That all utilities shall be placed underground.
11. That the applicant shall submit $200 per lot in School
Impact Fees prior to the submittal of the Final Plat or
in conjunction with the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement.
12. That the water rights for the domestic wells be trans-
fered to the Homeowner's Association or the individual
lot buyers.
13. That the applicant shall make provision for repayment of
pavement costs to the Hawkridge developers as identified
in their Subdivision Improvements Plan.
14. That the applicants shall modify Article 3 of the pro-
posed "Protective Covenants" to bring them into compat-
ibility with minimum zoning regulations.
15. All recommendations of the Division of Water Resources in
their 9-11-90 letter shall be incorporated into the Final
Plat and the applicants covenants.
16. The applicants shall (chip and seal) surface C.R. 103
from the end of the pavement to the entrance of the Cedar
Ridge Farm.
CEDAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN
Owner: Sandy Smith - Cedar Ridge Farm, 3059 103 Road, Carbondale, CO 81623
Planner: Jim Curtis - Real Estate Affilites, 300 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
Location: Approximately 4 miles north of Highway 82 on County Road 103 (Crystal Spgs. Rd)
Site Data: The parcel is a 102 acre parcel of gently rolling topography located above
Cattle Creek to the north.
Water: Proposed from individual wells on each lot.
Sewer: Individual septic systems on each lot.
Existing Zoning: A/R/RD (Agricultural, Residential, Rural Density)
Adjacent Zoning: North: A/R/RD
South: A/R/RD
East: A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD
Adjacent Land Uses: North: Steep terrain to Cattle Creek
South: Agricultural
East: Agricultural
West: Agricultural
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan:
This parcel is located in Management District C, a rural area with minor enviromental
constraints -Page 70 of the Comprehensive Plan. These lands have moderate suitability
to absorb growth. Non-agricultural and non-productive cropland shall be considered
best able to absorb growth. Road access and condition shall be used to evaluate the
relative ability of areas within District C to absorb growth. District C shall be
considered to have a maximum density of one unit per 5 acres.
Any development in District C which is determined to have a high degree of visual
impact shall receive special attention to building siting, etc.
Description of Proposal:
A) The site is located on agricultural land which seems to be phasing out of
production. The site is primarily vegetated with clusters of oak, juniper,
and pinion with irrigated areas of hay. The site is gently rolling and
slopes to the north toward Cattle Creek.
8) The project consists of 7 single family lots ranging in size from 5 acres to
17 acres. There is proposed an 8th lot of 46 acres to be used and maintained
as pasture land for horses.
Major Concerns and Issues:
A) The applicant is proposing that the existing dirt road into the property be
retained "as is" as a private road. It is against county policy to allow
private roads and it is inappropriate to allow subdivisions to have access
off substandard internal access streets.
8) The applicant is also proposing individual wells on each lot as opposed to a
central water system. The commission should pay special attention to this
request because the county has not approved, in recent times, any subdivisions
over 6 lots on individual wells. Individual wells, each with a plan for
augmentation, do not represent, in the staff's opinion, a major prohlem to
water supply for the subdivision.
c) Fire protection is a major issue for the subdivision. The applicant proposes
individual 1,000 gallon cisterns on each lot. Ito comment has been received
from the Carbondale Fire Department regarding cisterns of this size, but should
be available by the Planning Cormission meeting.
0) Hawk Ridge Subdivision has been required to chip and seal County Road 103 from
the existing paved portion to their project. Cedar Ridge Subdivision should be
required to extend the paving to their access. Cedar Ridge and Hawk Ridge
Subdivision should be required to share in the costs of improvements to County
Road 103 on a per/lot basis.
E) The preliminary soils report indicates that there may be potential limitations
for septic systems because of soils. individual perk tests should be preformed
on each lot to determine whether standard or engineered septic systems will he
required.
3/5/5.1 Cftr)Ae-4.4,-0 ``'/ `°'''`n
/�
FINDINGS:
This proposal seems compatible with the precedent which has been set for larger lot
sizes in this part of Missouri Heights. The proposal also meets the basic provisions
of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the staff does not find any major objectives
to this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
Cts^ c"l' -e
1) That the major access road within the subdivision be constructed to county standards.
2) That the issue of fire protection be addressed in detail at preliminary plat and
comply with the reconnendations of the Carbondale Rural Fire District.
3) That Cedar Ridge Subdivision be required to extend the paved portion of 103 Road
to their access and share in the costs of road improvements with Hawk Ridge
Subdivision on a cost per/lot basis.
4) That perk tests be performed on each lot to determine whether standard or engineered
septic systems will be necessary.
OL,Q,...„ • xxior,b, .04'; 6.A.f..42„..4,
1(
GA -91-0004
ROY R, ROMER
GOVERNOR
August 23, 1990
of • coto�
+
476
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
�
JOHNWROLD
OtRECTOR
715 STATE CENTENNIAL GUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN
DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE nv�mmxvn u './� � ., `•].•'
�r.- -. '� '.``
'AUG %D13SO
I.
--.
Y
Mr. Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Planner
109 8th Street, #303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cedar Ridge Farm
Dear Mr. McGregory:
We have reviewed the materials submitted regarding this proposal and the
general and engineering geology of the area.
Proper foundation design, adequate grading and drainage and radon mitigation
are the critical issues in this area.
The foundation design and grading/drainage recommendations found in the
Chen/Northern and Lincoln DeVore reports should be followed.
Structural design or HVAC systems should be modified to minimize the
potential for radon gas accumulation in occupied huildin0s'
If these conditions are met, we have no objections to the approval of this
subdivision.
Yours Very Truly,
4
Jeffrey L. Hynes
Senior Engineering Geologist
lnl:JLH-9l-5lOO
6081
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTURE
.`�,����
`�-
.
•
.
. `
��
�'^
'
'' .
'� �•`
•
Mour,_ . •;'yis Soil Conservation District
P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601
August 3, 1990
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Andrew:
ALM 31990 Ili_
Lu:i�_>_L:•�oritr
At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
the Board reviewed the plans for Cedar Ridge Farm.
Since they had reviewed a plan for this property in the past, they were very
familiar with the property.
Some of the concerns they did note were that although a table was shown using
the SCS soil symbols, they felt that the complete information sheets on each
of these soils are very helpful to those reviewing as well as the landowners.
Since this service is provided without cost by the Soil Conservation Service,
they would urge that the material be included in full in packets.
Since irrigation is used on this land, the Board recommends that continued use
of the ditch be preserved for homeowners' use, and any erosion the ditch may
cause or have within the ditch be controlled as much as possible.
As always, the Board is concerned about soil and water preservation, and encourages
the use of measures that ensure water quality as well as control of soil
erosion.
With this area being one with wildlife populations, the Board recommends that
strict control of animals, especially dogs, be maintained.
Again, the Board appreciates being allowed to make comments on development within
their boundaries.
Sincerely,
Dee Blue, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT . SELF .GOVERNMENT
ROY ROMER
Governor
of
* 1876
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street -Room 818
Denver. Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
September 11, 1990
Mr. Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Cedar Ridge Farm Preliminary Plan
SE1/4 NW1/4, Section 13, T7S, R87W
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
s`
GAF;. �UuNTY
.990
Dear Mr. McGregor:
We have reviewed the above referenced submittal for a subdivision of
105.5 acres into seven residential lots. The proposed water supply source is
individual wells. An augmentation plan (Case No. 81CW497) has been approved
in Water Court. The seven proposed wells are each limited by the augmentation
plan to single-family in -house -uses, non-commercial lawn and garden irrigation
of up to 0.04 acres, fire protection, and the watering of livestock.
Plat notes and protective convenants should be promulgated to limit water
uses to those discussed above. The homeowner's association should have powers
to enforce these restrictions. The water rights used to replace depletions
from the wells in this subdivision should be conveyed to the homeowner's
association. One individual should be designated to be specifically
responsible for these water issues and his name and telephone number should be
provided to our Division Engineer and Water Commissioner.
A water supply report prepared by Mr. Dean W. Gordon was submitted
indicating that there is sufficient physical supply to serve the development.
This report also indicates that the water quality is satisfactory although it
mentions that "typically ... the water from these wells tends to be classified
as "hard" with respect to mineral content and high in dissolved solids."
As long as the above issues are adequately addressed, we can recommend
approval of this subdivision proposal. However, we would like to see an
amended copy of the protective convenants prior to final platting.
JRH/JCM/clf:3073I
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Bruce DeBrine
•
it
t.(
• .
Sincerely,
9--cyrnz /\ GP�t.CJ
James R. Hall, P.E.
Supervising Water Resources Engineer
)q,
•
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
222 So. 6th St, Room 232
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
September 6, 1990
Telefax:
(303) 322-9076 (Main Building/Denver)
(303) 320-1529 (Ptarmigan Place/Denver)
(303) 248-7190 (Grand Junction Regional Office)
Garfield County Planning Department
Attn: Andrew McGregor, Planner
109 8th Street
Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Cedar Ridge Farm Subdivision Preliminary Plan, Garfield County
Dear Andrew: -
Roy Roma
Governor
Thomas M. Vensal% M.D.
Directive Director
I have reviewed the preliminary plan for Cedar Ridge Farm Subdivision and
offer the following comments:
1. The ISD Systems proposed must meet all county and state
requirements.
2. Is the proposed subdivision located too far away from Carbondale
to utilize Carbondale's central water or wastewater facilities?
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 248-7150.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Bowman, P.E.
West Slope Unit Leader
Water Quality Control Division
RHB/ck
cc: Schmueaer Gordon Meyer, Inc.
Denver -Planner and Standards
File
U
17.6 Acs.3
L21
Madeline Corson
.l. Suite 101
,do 81611
cribed.
1 cap L5 15710.
•rumesfs as shown.
rr with the right to
ed by the United Slates
,er J0, 1941, in Book 205
cipating royalty o/ 1/J2 0/
1 in Document No. 21401.7
and /ma Rent/..
LOT T
c/
Ln /73
Richa,I Hotel
3057 103 86
Crbond ,, CO 01623
in
CS 0.v
124 S arsa•sr W
Je2r3'
Jr Acts M ,naps C.w...*
LOT 6
9.5 Acs.t
i
Karl C. and A./ado/ins Lcrson
201 N. 451/ SL Sudo 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Nt 1._0..3 so' - s0.7�:' 4,47
ii 1r
A
1s' E
Jr Acres*
Vaay (.....w.t
M i, ♦ C� w
S.ctw ly 11 S, e Y e
762.-T4
74
T.1
.3.71 k
LOI-8
46.1 Acs.k
t•LAM
S84•16•?rE
210.00'
LOT 1
6.0 A,s.±
C11
01
s ir I _ VI
ul.3.'
to w
1 O
LOT 2
4.4 Acs.t
s ,.furs'' s
'J.c.or-
LOT 3
CIS 4.6 Acs.t
S 1 x.?!
/00610.
us
lw 0�
t LOT S
7.3 Acs.*
9
A'or/ G. and t/adelns Larson
?tt/ Ai I4,1: 51. eu•fr t0/
c:3
Cl
L14
H
'„
w
8\.
••
•
CrJ M 7e •'
C12
LUT 4
cn
7 0 Acs. t
O0
3400•
John c
c/0 Pc
101 Cc
San F,
ti
e !/
s ..ror•so't.
NAV'
1
CZE
ou-
Jol,
Co
/. e
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC.
July 16, 1990
Ms. Sandra Smith
3059 103 Road
Carbondale, CO 81623
RE: Cedar Ridge Farm Subdivision
Water System Analysis
The purpose of this letter is to
done with respect to the availabil
protection recouulendations on yo
posed individual homesites.
Groundwater Resources
This analysis is based upon a re
the State Engineer's Office, dis
well drillers and our general kno
Attached hereto, also, is a lette
Drilling who has drilled a number
Cedar Ridge Farm as well as a crop
currently serves the riding arena
or Lot 7.
As stated in the geologic analysi
characterized by alluvial/colluvi
formations of basaltic origin and
are two potential groundwater re:
would be wells on the order of 0
formations alongside the existing
groundwater resource comes from tt
above this area. Generally, we
completed in the alluvial format]
seasonal precipitation quantities
above.
The second source would be in the
completed in the basaltic format
higher yields than those located i
anticipate that drilled wells on
the basaltic bedrock formations.
ably a bedrock well and is report
depth. It is also reported tha
Generally, we would not antici
drilled wells but, rather, yields
quality is usually satisfactory f
Seldom are any of the Colorado Pr
ties exceeded. Typically, however
be classified as "hard" with re
dissolved solids. The option rem -
water softening and/or removal o
CONSULTING
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6501
Fax (303) 945-5948
ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/
review for you the analysis we have
ity of groundwater resources and fire
• property with respect to the pro -
iew of records available to us from
:ussions we have had with the local
aledge this part of Garfield County.
✓ from Mr. Wayne Shelton of Shelton
of wells in the immediate area of
of the well log for the well which
and single-family residence located
s for the property, the property is
al materials which overlay bedrock
the deeper Maroon formation. There
sources on the property. The first
- 100 feet completed in the alluvial
roadway on Lot 8. The potential for
le significant drainage area located
would not recommend that wells be
.ons because of their dependence on
and irrigation practices in the basin
Bedrock formations. Generally, wells
ions have better water quality and
i the Maroon formations, and we would
this property would be terminated in
The existing well on Lot 7 is prob-
Kd to be on the order of 186 feet in
the estimated capacity is 50 gpn.
ate yields of this magnitude from
on the order of 5 to 25 gpn. Water
om wells drilled in these formations.
nary Drinking Water Standard quanti-
, the water fLau these wells tends to
>ect to mineral content and high in
ins with the homeowner as to whether
E individual minerals is desirable.
July 16, 1990
Ms. Sandra Smith
Page two
We are anticipating that a test well will be completed on Lot 6 the
week of July 23rd or July 30th. We have held off any additional water
quality sampling on the property with the intent to sample this well
immediately after construction. We hope to have these water quality
samples returned to the Planning Office well in advance of the Planning
and Zoning Commission hearing on the Preliminary Plat Submittal.
=In summary, there are a number of producing wells in the immediate
vicinity of this property, including one well on the property itself.
`We anticipate a high degree of probability that individual drilled
wells can be completed as a satisfactory potable water source for all
the lots proposed.
Fire Protection
=I have been working with Mr. Bill Gavette, Chief, Carbondale Rural and
Fire Protection District, with regards to the conditions which were
Contained in the Sketch Plan approval. The first of these was inclus-
ion into the Fire Protection District. From what Bill and I can deter-
mine, the property has, in fact, been annexed to the District since the
Sketch Plan approval in the early 1980's. The second condition was to
'develop a fire protection plan for the project. A cistern has been
agreed to and shown on the Site Plan.
will remain available to provide additional input as required with
A1"•~''i"' = respect to a potable water supply system for the project.
Respectfully submitted,
SCBMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
23
ELEVATOR HOLES TEST HOLES
A1tm .gViang
P.O. BOX 1059
BASALT, COLORADO 81621
927-4182
eser Gordon Meyer Inc.
1 Grand Ave
Springs, Co. 81601
t May Concern, = . --
July 17, 1990
;-As a local water well driller who has experience in the Missouri Heights area,
ve-been asked to give my opinion on the availability of an adequate aquifer for
al'.,,individual wells for the area owned by -Sandy Smith located on County Road
After studying my well records and state well records for this area it is my
nim that an adequate aquifer does exist in this area at a depth of between 180
300 feet, depending on local elevation changes. Most local wells are producing in
15 to 20 gpm range and some have been producing at that level since the 1960's.have
- had very good results in obtaining good quality and quantity water from the
canic Aquifer or the underlaying Maroon Aquifer in the Missouri Heights area.
er,*as with all potential aquifers there are occasional extremes in depth and
ction but I feel that in this case the probabilities of these extremes are very
11
If you have any questions please give me a call.
-- •=1 F F' I
1 : 1 _.
D I i.7.; I T O C1 L LIPSERCHT
I BONDED LICENSED INSURED
Sox 475 Frisco. Colorado 80443
668-3564
•an r :t ;;mat h
03 ltd.
rr+rYx�n�j.a1P�. c'a1a� 81.623
Oeotn
�rr
46
1, 4Q
Caning
0.
Size
0.0.
Feet
Port.
/0 703(0
L'`)/ eticz;64 .tv.se. •
Si:*
Pert.
Water
Level
Surf=ce
1/=5 9/16 40
318
90
Eattmntotl
Capacity
P _ @ 1
N° 0207
oArs
LOCATION Mo • Hts •
Por F.
�.y.r.N.,uw; r1 �rj��JJ1y�. .lII
ase CYig'.
50 g•pm $ 24.50
■
1
MS: NET - A service charge of 172% per month (18% per year) will be cflarged on alt
AST OUE accounts. Customer will be charged with all costs of collection Inctudtng a
able attomey's tee it such action becomes necessary.
.( •-re .4'.,‘ ••• :.3;
�y. .5"-
K✓firA i4.4�••'.
•
4 -:=til •
•
1
1
•
Prue
Please slcn and return one coon TOTALS - nn
.. _. ...-. _ ..
•
SCHMUESEA GORDON MEYER INC.
September 5, 1990
��`w� 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E
A;q>Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6501
Fax (303) 945-5948
Vti CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/
Mr. Mark Bean, County Planner
Garfield County Building,
Sanitation and Planning Department
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cedar Ridge Farm Preliminary Plat Submittal
Supplemental Information re Potable Water Supplies
Dear Mark:
In_ order to provide further information with respect to the avail-
ability of potable water supplies for the project, a well has been
drilled on Lot 6 of the project. Please find attached hereto a
copy of the appurtenant information from Shelton Drilling Company
with respect to the well, as well as a chemical analysis of the
water supply from Grand Junction Laboratories.
The well was completed to a total depth of 120 feet. The estimated
pumping capacity is in excess of 40 gpm. This is a better than
average production for a drilled well located in the formations
that underlie the Cedar Ridge Farms project.
A brief review of the chemical analysis indicates that all cationic
and anionic parameters fall within acceptable levels. You will
note that the water has a hardness which would be classified as
moderately hard and a total dissolved solids value that is average.
On the other hand, both these values are less than the typical
value for a groundwater well in this area. Please note that hard-
ness is a non -mandatory or recommended limit of the Department of
Health and has no significant public health effects. Waters with
this level of hardness may or may not be treated with individual
softening units at the election of individual homeowners.
In conclusion, the well drilling program on Lot 6, as well as the
existence of the well on neighboring Lot 7 indicates there is a
reasonable expectation of adequate groundwater resources for the
proposed Cedar Ridge Farm project. Please feel free to contact me
if I can provide any additional information.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON YER, INC.
Dean W. Gordon, P.E.
President
90083:lec
iclosures
cc: Ms. Sandy snit's
PERMIT NO.JI' II - IIn L, 2
z
O
0
0
t1
m
0
w
Ec.
�I
Estimated Capacity
Total Drilled
0
C
U
0
C
U
L_
C
n
e
m
no
cn
L�
c
E
0
U
o m
3 0i
c
0
rn
N c
c
a- c
E a
a E
o • a
� c
o
N '
0,
0=
al I
A 1% handling charge per monlh will be added 15 days from lirsl billing.
•
4
Received from:
GANO JUNOTIONART
435 NORTH AVYNUR
• PHONE 241 -MIS
• ORANO JUNCTION, COI.ORAOO *t501
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.: Dean Gordon
Glenwood Springs, CO
9356�� water
m
Cu u No. Lsbarstcry No.
Date Received 8/21/90
Received
' Sample
Total Coliform Bacteria
Arsenic(Az)
Barium(Ba)
Cadmium(Cd)
Chromium(Cr)
Fluoride(F)
Lead(Fb)
Mercury(Hg)
Nitrate(N)
Selenium(Se)
Silver(Ag)
pH
Conductivity(025 degrees C
Sodium(Na)
Calcium(Ca)
Magnesium(Mg)
Potassium(K)
Chloride(C1)
Sulfate(So4)
Phenol. Alkalinity(CaCO3)
Tota'. Alkalinity(CaCO3)
Dissolved Solids
Hardness(CaCO3)
9/4/90
Due Reputed
9356
Cedar Ridge
Farms Well
0 colonies/100ml
0.000 mg/1
0.00 mg/1
0.0003 mg/1
0.002 mg/1
0.43
0.002
0.00013
0.712
mg/ 1
mg/ 1
mg/ 1
mg/ 1
0.000 mg/1
0.0000 mg/1
• 7,45
730 umhos/cm
20.6 mg/ 1
67 mg/ 1
34 mg/ 1
3.1 mg/1
14 mg/ 1
43 mg/ 1
0.0 mg/1
292 mg/1
499 mg/1
318 mg/ 1
La b
15
Colorado Dept.
of Health limits
for public
drinking
0 colonies/100m1
0.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
2.4 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.002 mg/1
10.0 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
20 mg/1
125 mg/ 1
230 mg/1
250 mg/1
IMP
500 mg/1
200 mg/1
Director; Brian Bauer
•r; r
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 5, CO;.ORADO
Case No. 94 CW 272 (83CW378)
FILED
IN COMBINED COURT
GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
APR 11 199E
RULING OF REFEREE
CLER<
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE DILIGENCE FOR WATER
RIGHTS OF SANDRA SMITH IN GARFIELD COUNTY.
The above captioned application for reasonable diligence was
filed in November of 1994 and the undersigned Water Referee having
made such investigations as are necessary to determine that the
statements in the Application are tru, does hereby make the
following Ruling in this matter, to -wit.
1. The statements in the Application are true.
2. The names of the structures are Cedar Ridge Farm
Subdivision Wells, Nos. 1-7.
3. The name and address of the Applicant is Sandra Smith, 3059
Road 103, Carbondale, CO 81623. (970)963-3507.
4. The sources of the water are wells having depths of
approximately 150 feet within the alluvi2m of Cattle Creek.
5. The proposed use of the water is domestic, as specified at
C.R.S. 1973, 37-92-602(1)(b), including _awn and garden irrigation
and stock watering.
6. The wells are located at speci:_ic points in the NE1/4,
NW1/4 and SW1/4 of Sec. 13, T.,7 S., F. 88 W. of the 6th P.M.
mentioned in 81CW497.
7. On November 2, 1984 the Water Referee awarded each of the
wells conditional water rights for 0.033 c.f.s. (15 gpm) to be used
for the above uses. Subsequently, Applicant has complied with all
requests of the Court for proof of due diligence, and all such
diligence applications have been confirmed and decreed by the
Court.
In support of this application, AFplicant has submitted an
outline of work performed and expenditures made during the last
diligence period toward the development c,f these conditional water
rights.
The Referee, having examined the in:ormation submitted herein
and having completed investigations necessary to make a
determination in this matter, does fin.: that the Applicant has
shown reasonable diligence in the dev,:lopment of the proposed
appropriation of the water conditionally awarded to the wells
mentioned herein, and, therefore, concludes that the Application
- 2_5 -
r..
should be granted, and the conditional water right continued in
full force and effect.
Application for finding of reasonable diligence shall be filed
in the month of November of 2000 and in the month of November every
sixth calendar year thereafter so long as Applicant desires to
maintain this conditional water right or until a determination has
been made that it has become absolute by reason of the completion
of the appropriation.
It is ORDERED that this Ruling shall be filed with the Water
Clerk, subject to Judicial Review.
It is further ORDERED that a copy hereof shall be filed with
the appropriate Divv_io Engineer and the State Engineer.
ted
Robert C. Cutter
No protest was filed in this matter. The foregoing Ruling is
confirmed and approved, and is made the Judgment and Decree of this
Court.
Dated
/
Sandra Smith diligence ruling (94CW272)
-2-
-36-
water Judge