HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 09.12.1990PC 9/12/90
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PROJECT ENGINEER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Cedar Ridge Farm Preliminary Plan
Sandra Smith
Dean Gordon, P.E.
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 form the Hawk Ridge
Subdivision.
The site consists of 105.5 acres.
Individual wells.
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems.
Proposed private access road off C.R.
103.
A/R/RD
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, page
5{-.(0 ). 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.
1
• •
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 7 ).
B. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: Their concerns
include preservation of existing irrigated lands, soil
erosion and adequate dog control (See letter on page
nAE4, P.n 7
4146,1
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 cf )
Section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations state that
1' ,av
llrequirivate rrements ofs ybe the rermittd regulationsrincludingthe
design
standards. Minimum standards for this type road include
a 28' driving surface width (includes minimum 2'
�} shoulders) and a chip and seal surfacing treatment.
V?`c�" Section 9:34 allows cul-de-sacs in excess of 600' in
'`length if acceptable for fire protection purposes. A
k 6)\ o minimum cul-de-sac turn -around radius of 50' is required.
No provisions for "K" turn-arounds are included in the
-----
e r, Subdivision Regulations.
tv" kC. Water: The applicants are proposing individual wells on
c" each of the proposed lots. Two potential groundwater
resources 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.
• •
D. Wastewater: The applicants are purporting that septic
tank/leachfield system will suffice for wastewater
disposal 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.
E. 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.
F. 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 intermittent stream bed.
No significant increase in stormwater runoff should be
generated by the development proposal.
G. 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.
H. Utilities: The applicants are proposing to place
underground electric service within the 50' road
right-of-way. Na__- -her--•--unlit ' e is being
prhaped.
oda ,'
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
a c)Jl7 rO rl S.
APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within
the application or stated at the public hering 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
improvements agreement addressing all on-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 enginee;�j,ed foundations shall b
required on Lots 1-3 ,»td s - AAA (Ti t
2. Engineered wastewater syst s 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
accordance 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
transfered 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 Atricle 3 of the
proposed "Protective Covenants" to bring them into
compatibility with minimum zoning regulations.
E 5 , A L ( re s laded
10 titre c r q• 1[ 90 rev c5�ta f� c.#r to c aa-s/o
(;4 . / /1t.:94 a.41
ll
C���Pb sell GQ (� J
IL. —f I,e A l� c„w-.- 5 Ufkce- (6-3 f -f'
GA -91-0004
ROY R. ROMER
GOVERNOR
August 23, 1990
14140114111.% 110
/576
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL. BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET 7"C
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611
Mr. Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Planner
109 8th Street, #303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
JOHN W. ROLD
DIRECTOR
�l J
'Ali CI 29 1990 Iii
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 buildings.
If these conditions are met, we have no objections to the approval of this
subdivision.
Yours Very Truly,
A
Jeffrey L. Hynes
Senior Engineering Geologist
lnl:JLH-91-5100
6081
G E O L O G Y
STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTURE
Moult ",' ris 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:
if --,T, rin r----\
' Jil
AUC q 1990 1t _
Lizsuii i:!.. 7,...I., � _:✓.:r 1 i
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
2;
L21
Madeline Larson
";t. Suite 101
Ido 81611
cribed
1 cap L.S. 15710.
N 00'19'40" E
17.6 Acs.±
•
L. -o -r 7
C7
?,zes L28 125
30' Access and Utley Easement
LOT 6
9.5 Acs.±
'uments as shown.
'r with the right to
ed by the United States
)er 30, 1941, in Book 205
t
.cipating royalty of 1/32 of
1 in Document No. 214013
and Imo Renftle.
Karl G. and Madeline Larson
201 N. Mill St. Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
,',GENT 1 CHORD —f BEARING J OELTA
45.66' 90.75' 5 J648'41 W 1744'56'
58.78' 116.20' 5 7855'16"-W 065979'
118.30' ' 227.85_5 5648'11' W .!1'74'71'
29.66' 59.3'0' N 111'47.7.5.-E' 0.5'15'11'
65.58' 130.89' N 83'01'..11°-E 0727'50
J5.d8' 66.45' N 89'51'15' W 37'26'0J'
6737' 1J3.41' 5 80'19'10 E 1872'54'
O
‘1,
Richard Hang
3057 /03 Rd.
Carbondale, CO 8/623
2
Ts.
C5 L24 b S 87'58'57"
382.95'
•
N I/4 Comer
Section 7J. T 7 S R 88 W
P.O.B.
762.34'
S 84.1672" E.
SCALE : 1"
8LM
O
J0' Access end
U7iWfy Easement
\
LOT 8
46.1 Acs.±
Hammerhead/ 1
Turnaround
5 707'p4:2-'1im \\
N / 4p6.50 \\
5
LOT 5
� N
7.3 Acs.±
Karl C. and Madeline Larson . ,
201 N. Mil/ St. Suite 101 127.,,
O
.�
rrt
r
m
344.09'
In (n
o � b O
4 LOT 3 0
I
�1 C16 4.6 Acs.±
rn
V
o
� , G15
\ T 1-
S S9
Jr.
Ste• dy.
sp, f
John c
c/o Pe
101 Cc
Son Fr,
N
074
r C
013 08't —
1"j„..7<0,11.
N 870150'''E
705.37'
CII
•
LOT 4
7.0 Acs.±
C10
50.00'
ti
Cl
I
CJ ' ,a
00'1
Lo 8
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
• •
PC 9/12/90
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Consolidated Metropolitan District
Service Plan
The proposed district is located in
portions of Section 5, 7, 8, 9, 17
and 18; T7S, R95W and Sections 19
and 24; T7S, R96W; more practically
described as parcels of land located
within the Battlement Mesa P.U.D.,
south of Parachute.
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Some relevant Garfield County Comprehensive Plan issues are:
Ensure the provisions of legal, adequate, dependable
and cost effective sewer and water facilities and to
encourage new development to locate in proximity to
existing sewer and water facilities.
The following goal objective and policy are relevant to the
issue of special districts:
Objective 5.
Discourage the unnecessary proliferation
of private water and sewer systems and
special districts.
Policy 5. The County will approve only those private
water and sewer systems and/or special
districts that meet a specific development
need and where the development cannot
obtain the same services from an adjacent
or nearby system or district in an
economically feasible manner.
Whether or not a new special district should be formed is
still a relevant issue and a finding of substantial compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan will have to be made by the Board
of County Commissioners and Planning Commission according to
C.R.S. 32-1-203.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Battlement Mesa P.U.D. was originally approved by the
Board of County Commissioners in August of 1975. Subsequent
amendments to the P.U.D. were approved by Resolution No.80-82,
5/19/80, and by Resolution No. 82-121, 5/24/82. The P.U.D.
encompasses approximately 3,082 acres of land zoned for
residential, commercial and recreation/openspace uses. In
December of 1981, the Board approved the Battlement Mesa Water
and Sanitation District by Resolution No. 81-379. The
original boundaries of the Battlement Mesa Water and
Sanitation District were modified in 1986 to reduce the area
included in the district to the developed neighborhoods.
Due to changes in the development of the Battlement Mesa
P.U.D., it was proposed to centralize the costs of providing
services by the formation of a Metropolitan District
surrounding the existing water and sewage treatment
facilities. The Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District was
approved by the Board by Resolution No. 86-129 in November of
• •
1986. Saddleback Metropolitan District was approved by
Resolution 88-011 in January of 1988. The Metropolitan
District contracts with the existing service users for the
treatment of water and sewage. These entities are Battlement
Mesa Partners (BMP), Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation
District, Saddleback Metropolitan District and the Town of
Parachute. It was anticipated that when the Battlement Mesa
P.U.D. is built -out completely, the Battlement Mesa
Metropolitan District boundary may encompass the entire area
developed, and all of the other districts will dissolve.
Portions of the proposed district have existing water and
sewer lines in place as a result of the original construction
activity of BMI in the early 80's. These facilities were
purchases from BMI by the district. Any new water or sewer
lines will be built and paid for by the developer of the
property. Treatment of the sewer and treated water will be
provided for by contract with the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan
District.
As a metropolitan district, the following services can be
provided legally, in addition to water and sewer:
-fire protection
-street improvement
- safety protection system
- television service
- public transportation
- mosquito control
In essence, the metropolitan district has most of the same
powers and authorities as a municipality.
III. ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. The formation of a special district requires the filing
of a service plan with the County Clerk and Recorder and
then action by the County Planning Commission and Board
of County Commissioners. The Board of County
Commissioners must take action within thirty (30) days
of the regular meeting at which the service plan is
presented to them. Within the thirty day period, the
County Planning Commission is required to study the
service plan, and present its' recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners. The Board can take any
of the following actions:
1. Approve, without condition or modification, the
service plan;
2. Disapprove the service plan as submitted;
3. Conditionally approve the service plan subject to
additional information being submitted or the
modification of the proposed service plan.
The Board must disapprove the service plan if evidence of
the following is not presented:
1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for
organized service in the area to be serviced by the
proposed special district;
2. The existing service in the area to be served by the
proposed special district is inadequate for present
and projected needs;
3. The proposed special district is capable of
providing economical and sufficient service to the
area within its' proposed boundaries.
•
4. The area to be included in the proposed special
district has, or will have, the financial ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable
basis.
The Board may disapprove the service plan if evidence
satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the
discretion of the Board, is not presented:
1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available
to the area through the County, other existing
municipal or quasi -municipal corporations, including
existing special districts, within a reasonable time
and on a comparable basis;
2. The facility and service standards of the proposed
special district are compatible with the facility
and service standards of each County within which
the proposed special district is to be located and
each municipality which is an interested party under
Section 32-1-204(1);
3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a
master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-106,
C.R.S.;
4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted
county, regional, or state long-range water quality
management plan for the area;
5. The creation of the proposed special district will
be in the best interests of the area to be served.
Enclosed for your review is a complete copy of the
proposed service plan. Due to the short turn -around in
receiving this report, there will not be any additional
staff comments until the meeting.
Mount `Iris Soil Conservation District
P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOODSPRINGS,COLORADO81601
August 3, 1990
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Andrew:
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.
1 j
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
•pv COLO II
may;. O
,, G�'2 O
NfM y
„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
Dear Mr. McGregor:
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
:90
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.
Sincerely,
James R. Hall, P.E.
Supervising Water Resources Engineer
JRH/JCM/clf:3073I
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Bruce DeBrine
r •
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
222 So. 6th St, Room 232
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
September 6, 1990
Garfield County Planning Department
Attn: Andrew McGregor, Planner
109 8th Street
Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telefax:
(303) 322-9076 (Main Building/Denver)
(303) 320-1529 (Ptarmigan Place/Denver)
(303) 248-7198 (Grand Junction Regional Office)
Re: Cedar Ridge Farm Subdivision Preliminary Plan, Garfield County
Dear Andrew: -
Roy Romer
Governor
Thomas M. Vernon, M.D.
Executive 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: Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
Denver -Planner and Standards
File
1
SCHMUESER _N MEYER INC
September 5, 1990
11‘01J!1''\*'
1111/4
11 p CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/
Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E
wood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6501
Fax (303) 945-5948
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 Nj YER, INC.
r.
Dean W. Gordon, P.E.
President
90083: lec
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Sandy Smith
1.99x';'
UN-y��t
• •
A 1% handling charge per month will be added 15 days from first billing.
w
3
c CO
(D
o0 3
•
m
0
c
3 D
� c
3
a
• -
c
7 y-.
co D1
. w
( =
O
W • z
o
(0
(0
0
0
3
3
(0
a
N_
N
0
0
co
9
0
w
N
v
'WO 6ulse3
Pele}ol
lanai al}e;s
gloedeO palewl3s3
N
NOIIVOOl
0
ON 1IW1d3d
1 ?_>.
v. � W O0
co
a Z N O O
O jy—
O
Z...o N O co CCD
0
--1-1
m
C)
a)
N
Sep. 4 '90 14:52 The Mail Suite
Recefred from:
•
JOHN C. KEPHART & CO.
AN: J.
435 NORT7-I AVHNUQ
CTI 0
LA€ORATOPJES
• PHONs 24E-7616 •
FAX 703— .4.3-2:'Su
ANALY t1CAL REPORT
GRANT] JUNCTION, COLORADO at501
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.; Dean Gordon
Glenwood Springs, CO
9356
Customer No Lshotatory No. Sample
8/21/90
Date Received Date Reported
Sample
Total Coliform Bacteria
Arsenic(As)
Barium(Ba)
Cadmium(Cd)
Chromium(Cr)
Fluoride(F)
Lead(Pb)
Mercury(Hg)
Nitrate(N)
Selenium(Se)
Silver(Ag)
pH
Conductivity@25 degrees C
Sodium(Na)
Calcium(Ca)
Magnesium(Mg)
Potassium(K)
Chloride(C1)
$ulfate(So4)
Phenol, Alkalinity(CaCO3)
Total Alkalinity(CaCO3)
Dissolved Solids
Hardness(CaCO3)
9356
Cedar Ridge
Farms Well
water
9/4/90
0 colonies/100ml
0,000 mg/1
0.00 mg/i
0.0003
0.002
0.43
0.002
mg/1
mg/1
mg/ 1
mg/1
0.00013 mg/1
0.712 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
Colorado Dept.
of Health limits
far 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 mq/1
125 mg/1
250 mg/1
250 mq/i
499 mg/1 500 mg/1
318 mg/1 200 mg/1
Lab Director; Brian Bauer
LAW OFFICES
ROBERT B. EMERSON, P.C.
86 SOUTH THIRD STREET
CARBONDALE. COLORADO 81623
(970) 963-3700
ROBERT B. EMERSON
January 13, 1998
Mr. Eric McCafferty
Senior Planner
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 Eighth St., Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Sandra Smith - Cedar Ridge Farm Subdivision
Dear Eric:
JAN
_
,r...,.�..,_.__.� t�/.
FAX (970) 963-0985
As we discussed, I am enclosing with this letter a copy of the
Ruling of the Referee and Water Court Judge for Division 5
regarding due diligence on the Sandra Smith wells for this
subdivision. This ruling was made in 1995 and continues in
effect until November, 2000. If you have any questions regarding
this matter, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Emerson
RBE/jc
cc: Sandra Smith
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC
September 5, 1990
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6501
Fax (303) 945-5948
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
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Sandy Snith
N
(D
\''..2 co to
rn0No
o 0 - •
\, 00^z
N
JCO O al
OVOw
J
¢ J
w
0
PERMIT NO
4.74
141
c›.
0
r-;
z
0
0
0
J
C.
c.
0
ti♦
Estimated Capacity
•
co
c
a)
E
C 0
U
CO a)
0
Total Drilled
0
O
0
0
N
QI
c
co
0
-N
a)
0
e
N
1!`
a
0
0
a.
`0
0
N
rn
E
0
0
c9
0
A 1% handling charge per month will be added 15 days from first billing.
Racetvad from:
1
J -'.
JOHN C. KEPHART & CO.
JU
435 NORTH AVSiNUE
LAHRATOR
ES
• PHONIC 212-711I$ • GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 11501
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.; Dean Gordon
Glenwood Springs, CO
9356 water
customer No Laboratory No. Supple
8/21/90 9/4/90
Date Rsoelvad Dabs Repotted
Sample
Total Coliform Bacteria
9356 Colorado Dept.
Cedar Ridge of Health limits
Farms Well for public
drinking
0 colonies/100m1 0 colonies/100m1
Arsenic(As) 0.000 mg/1
Barium(Ba) 0.00 mg/1
Cadmium(Cd) 0.0003 mg/1
Chromium(Cr) 0.002 mg/1
Fluoride(F) 0.43 mg/1
Lead(Pb) 0.002 mg/1
Mercury(Hg)
Nitrate(N)
Selenium(Se)
Silver(Ag)
0.00013 mg/1
0.712 mg/1
0.000
0.0000
mg/1
mg/1
pH 7,45
Conductivity@25 degrees C 730 umhos/cm
Sodium(Nal
Calcium(Ca)
Magnesium(Mg)
Potassium(K)
Chloride(C1)
Sulfate(So4)
Phenol, Al kalinity(CaCO3)
Total Alkalinity(CaCO3)
Dissolved Solids
Hardnees(CaCO3)
20.6 mg/1
67 mg/1
34 mg/1
3.1 mg/1
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
14 mg/1 250 mg/1
43 mg/1 250 mg/1
0.0 mg/1
292 mg/1
499 mg/1 500 mg/1
318 mg/1 200 mg/1
Lab Director; Brian Sauer