HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 BOCC Staff Report 02.12.1996BOCC 2/12/96
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST; Preliminary Plan for the Cedar Hills Ranch
Subdivision.
APPLICANT/PLANNER: Spring Creek Land Company (Norm Clasen)
ENGINEERS;
LOCATION:
High Country Engineering;
Zancanella & Associates
A tract of land located in the eastern 1/2 of the
NE 1/4 of Section 1, T6S, R92W and the
western 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 6, T6S,
R91 W of the 6th P.M.; approximately two (2)
miles northeast of Silt; immediately north of
and adjacent to Peach Valley Road (CR 214).
SITE DATA: 77.5 Acres
WATER; Shared/Individual Wells
SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS)
ACCESS; Single access from CR 214
EXISTING ZONING; A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING; North: O/S
South - East - West: A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO TIIE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is located in District C - Rural Areas/Minor Environmental Constraints as
designated by the Garfiled County Comprehensive Plan's Management Districts Map.
IL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description; The property is located north of Peach Valley Road (CR 214),
approximately two (2) miles northeast of Silt. The southern and western portions of
the property consist of gently -sloped, irrigated meadows, transitioning to steeper -
sloped hills and ridges. Elevation varies across the property, ranging from 5565 feet
at its southwestern boundary, up to 5800 feet near the northeastern corner of the
tract. Vegetation of the property varies from sage and grasses in the meadows to
pinion and juniper on the slopes. The Roseman Ditch traverses the southern and
western portions of the property. See vicinity map, page q.
B. Adjacent Land Uses: It appears the dominant, historical land use has been
agricultural; however, the area is slowly transitioning to a mix between agricultural
uses and residential uses. Bureau of Land Management owns property adjacent to the
northern border of the applicant's property.
C. Development Proposal; The proposal is for a 20 lot subdivision of the 77.5 acre tract.
Eighteen (18) lots would be developed as single family residential and two (2) lots
will be reserved as open space. Lot size will vary between 2.1 and 5.7 acres, with
approximate, net density of 4.3 acres per dwelling unit. The applicant has proposed
•0111P lair
a phased development scenario with Phase I consisting of lots 1, 2 (open space), 3,
4, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20. Phase II will consist of the remaining lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13 (open space) and 17. Currently, proposed lots 1, 18 and 19 have
existing homes.
D. Background: Sketch plan review by the Planning Commission was conducted in
April, 1995, and Preliminary Plan review was conducted at the October, 1995
meeting. The applicant withdrew the Preliminary Plan prior to a scheduled hearing
with the Board of County Commissioners, has made adjustments and refinements, and
returned to the Planning Commission for Preliminary Plan consideration at their
January 10, 1996, hearing.
III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Stated contracts with West Divide Water
Conservancy District would probably be sufficient to mitigate any injury to decreed
water rights; commented that at a sustained flow rate of 23 G.P.M. and with adequate
storage, the well can adequately supply the proposed uses See letters attached on
pages �� 2,_.
B. Garfield County Road and Bridge: No further comments.
C. Division of Wildlife: Stated property is critical deer habitat; elk are known to frequent
the site; noted the plan does not address wildlife and the associated impacts from the
development, nor does it specify covenants. DOW requests: property owners be
required to kennel dogs; wire fences for pastures be constructed according to DOW
specifications; property owners be required to provide their own fencing to protect
haystacks; prospective property buyers be advised that the DOW is not liable for
game damage to gardens and ornamentals. See letter attached on pages /3
D. Bureau of Land Management: Recommends construction of a boundary fence along
the applicant's northern boundary as a condition of approval; hunting is allowed on
public lands adjacent to the proposed subdivision; coal minerals underlie the proposed
subdivision that lies within Section 6 (T6S R92W) under lots 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10, of
which all rights are reserved to the United States; concerned project will impact deer
winter range. BLM has recently submitted a letter giving limited consent to the
pd ccess trail through the subdivision. See letters attached on page
o ose—r(.
E. Colorado State Forest Service: Comments regarding wildfire hazard and mitigational
steps that can be taken. See letter attached on pages J 7 • .
F. Garfield County Planning Commission: Minutes from January 10, 1996, hearing
wheret Preliminary Plan was discussed and approved. See minutes attached on
pages
G. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No response, to date.
H. Colorado Geological Survey: Cited concerns regarding drainages on-site which can
carry sizeable flood and debris flows during infrequent, heavy rainstorms; noted
moderate to severe geological constraints to development; suggested that only the
most level terrain be used for building sites; suggested care be taken to design and
maintain roads and drainage structures; recommended lining of the on-site irrigation
ditch; recommended that all building sites be investigated by a qualified engineer or
potential of necessity to be engineered. See letter attached on page Z 3 oL .
I. Burring Mountains Fire Protection District; Phase I: Recommended a dry hydrant be
installed at the pond; Phase II: Recommended two (2)a itional fire hydrants and
a 60,000 gallon water tank. See letter attached on page.
2 .„,, .vr,..,.., MOD
r
J. Kenny Frost - Native American Consultant: Gives Native American and cultural
clearance as no above ground archeological sites were identified. See letter attached
on pages 7 • VI.
K. Public Service of Colorado: Requests 12 to 15 foot front lot line easements for joint
trench facilities; ease nts given for utility crossing of irrigation ditch. See memo
attached on page'
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Water Supply: Water for at least 15 of the lots (neglecting the open space lots 2 and
13) will be supplied from a central well. Lot 1 will continue to use an existing well
and lots 19 and 20 will share an existing well. If it is later found that the existing
wells are insufficient to supply water to these lots, they (lots 1, 19 and 20) will be
added to the central system at a cost to be borne by the individual property owners.
Staff recommends easements be designated, at time of final plat, to guarantee access
to the central well by these lots and any future owners.
A pump test on the central well was conducted June 16, 1995, to determine the long-
term, safe yield of this well. The static water level was 73.2 feet below the top of the
well casing and total depth of the well is 160 ft. After 220 minutes of pumping, the
well stabilized for the remainder of the test (17.5 hours). The test was conducted at
a pumping rate of 23 GPM and, in the opinion of the engineer conducting the test, this
pumping rate could be sustained indefinitely as the water in the well would remain
above the pump intake. Recovery data for the well indicated the well recovered at a
rate faster than the drawdown rate, likely %due to the influence of the nearby irrigation
ditches and springs. See charts, pages���=l %.
Estimates concerning the number of people per dwelling unit, amount of water used
per person and irrigation of lawn and garden have indicated that the peak demand
month for water will be July, using an estimated 0.98 acre-feet (AF) and annual water
usage is estimated to be 9.23 AF. Estimated peak demand requirements, at time of
build -out, indicate a larger instantaneous peak demand than can be provided by the
well alone, requiring the necessity of water storage. The applicant has proposed a
60,000 gallon storage tank that would be capable of supplying peak demand water
and water for fire fighting purposes, to be built during Phase II of the project. A
second well has been proposed to be drilled during Phase II, which would act as a
back-up to the primary well, providing mechanical reliability.
Pump Test: The pump test was conducted in late spring, at a time when water was
flowing in the Roseman ditch and the applicant's engineer speculated that the fast
recovery rate of the well was influenced by water flowing in the ditch and from the
nearby seeps. This seems to indicate that, when water is not flowing in the ditch, the
water table may be encountered at a lower depth. The physical location of the ditch
on the property in question could cause a temporary elevation of the nearby water
table affecting the hydraulic characteristics of the tested well. Likewise, the static
water level in the tested well may also decrease when water is not flowing in the ditch.
If this is the case, the water table will be located deeper in the well and the amount of
available drawdown water in the well would decrease accordingly.
The applicant's engineer has submitted measurements taken (most recently) January
29, 1996, showing the static water level to be approximate) eight (8) feet higher than
when the well was tested, see measurements, page 37'0 . It would appear that,
given these measurements, the increased available drawdown for this well would help
to guarantee viability of this well. Furthermore, the State Engineer's Office, upon
review of technical information submitted by the Planning Department, has opined
that '...this well can adequately supply the proposed uses." See letter, page
Z. . However, by all accounts, 1995 was an abnormal water year and it is
diicult to predict the availability of water in a very dry year. The applicant has
proposed to conduct an additional pump test if the static water level falls below 75
feet, at any time during the approval process.
Water Quality: A water quality test was conducted on water from the central well,
indicating a high amount of Sodium and higher than recommended amounts of
dissolved solids and turbidity. The applicant's engineer has recommended the use of
individual, reverse osmosis type treatment systems to remove dissolved minerals. It
may be necessary to install additional filtration equipment to reeve the dissolved
solids and excess turbidity. See water quality report, pages �, — ,31
Augmentation Water: A water allotment contract for augmentation water has been
issued by the West Divide Water Conservancy District and appears to cover the four
(4) domestic wells.
Sewer: Waste water will be treated with individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS).
The Soil Conservation Service has identified three (3) types of soils on-site, each with
differing characteristics that can affect percolation rates. In general, these soils carry
moderate to severe ratings concerning the use of ISD systems, which, depending on
the soil type and physical qualities of the soil, may require the engineering of some or
all of the ISD systems. Five (5) test holes were dug at different places on the property
and percolation rates calculated for each hole. The Colorado Department of Health
requires the engineering of ISD systems when percolation rates are quicker than 5
minutes per inch (MPI) or slower than 60 MPI. Assuming these numbers are
representative of all on-site percolation rates, then 60% of the systems will need to
be engineered. See percolation rate information, page 37 . Staff recommends
a plat note be included to address these limitations.
C. Roads: Roads for Phase I are proposed to be built to rural access standards and shall
serve all the internal lots of Phase I. The terminus of the road for this portion of the
project would be between lots 4 and 5, and initial distance of approximately 2300 feet.
At this point in the project, all roads will be gravel surfaced. Rural access standards
allow for up to 200 vehicles per day (VPD), a minimum right-of-way of 50 feet, 11
foot travel lanes and 2 foot shoulders. Strictly speaking, County subdivision
regulations for rural access roads specify shoulder width of 6 feet. Staff recommends
this road be built in strict adherence to county subdivision regulations.
The roads of Phase II will be built to semi -primitive access standards, allowing up to
100 VPD, a right -of way of 40 feet, 8 foot travel lanes and 2 foot shoulders. At this
time (construction of Phase II), all roads will be chip/seal surfaced and proposed to
terminate in a circle with a 35 foot radius. Subdivision regulations require a
turnaround radius of 45 feet.
Emergency Access. Due to the exaggerated length of the cul-de-sac (approximately
4200 feet), it has been recommended that an emergency access road be developed.
This access road is proposed to be built to primitive access standards with a grade of
no more than 14%. Although planned as an access road, portions of this road would
serve as a driveway for lots 10 and 11 and would then be gated, from above and
below, to deter use as a general access road. Staff recommends that the gating be
done consistent with guidelines from the Burning Mountains Fire Protection District
to ensure unimpeded access by emergency vehicles. It appears the slope of this access
road will require significant cut/fill areas. Staff recommends the applicant adopt
construction practices that would ensure the least amount of scarring and erosion and
further construct this road at a time when precipitation is, historically, at its lowest.
Maintenance: All roads shall be dedicated to the public; however, all roads will be
maintained by a Homeowners Association, which shall include snow removal.
Traffic Study: Two (2) traffic studies have been conducted assessing the impacts to
CR 262 (Mid -Valley Lane) and CR 214 (Peach Valley). Most recently, the applicant's
engineer, using data collected in late -September along Peach Valley Road by County
Road and Bridge, generated a computer model showing that, at build -out of the
subdivision, Peach Valley Road would be capable of carrying the estimated, peak
traffic level of 85 vehicles per hour (VPH). According to this model, Peach Valley
Road would continue to operate within Level of Service "A" (the best operational
D.
level, as defined by the "Highway Capacity Manual"). This model further estimated
that Level of Service "A" would continue up to a peak -hour volume of 129 VPH.
The engineers have further identified up to four (4) ditch crossings, along the studied
route, where constriction of the travel lanes impedes traffic flow. The applicant has
offered to contribute up to $4000 to the County for off-site road improvements in the
vicinity of this proposed subdivision.
Potential Runoff The on-site drainage basins and off-site drainage basins that would
contribute flows across the subject property have been determined and the 25 year
and 100 year peak flows have been calculated. Basin #1, which would directly impact
the project, can be expected to have a 25 year flow of 114 cubic feet per second (cfs)
and a 100 year flow of 195 cfs. It appears that the Roseman Ditch would intercept
much of the flow originating on the property and on the northwestern portions of the
Drainage Basin #1 and has been predicted to be able t convey the stormwater runoff
for these areas. See Drainage Basin map, page ® . In addition to the Ditch
conveying the majority of stormwater off-site, a etention pond is proposed for a
portion of lot 13 (open space), which should decrease the severity of a runoff event.
E. Lot Design/Development. It appears the applicant has given significant consideration
to the solar aspect of proposed building sites and has designated the majority of these
sites in an effort to take advantage of passive solar and has also attempted to protect
viewsheds from Peach Valley Road. Without in-depth analysis using GIS, it is
difficult to predict what would be visible from the road, but it is staffs opinion, when
considering topography and vegetation, the homes to be built on the northern part of
the site would not be highly visible from Peach Valley Road; however, the homes that
would be built on the southern part of the property probably would be visible.
F. Fire Protection: The applicant has discussed fire protection with the Burning
Mountains Fire Protection District who have approved the phasing plan for fire
protection. Phase I would be served by a dry hydrant installed at the existing pond
and K -turns would be provided to allow an emergency vehicle the ability to turn
around. Phase II would incorporate the above with a 60,000 gallon water tank and
two (2) additional fire plugs to be served from the tank. It is not immediately clear
if the District has concerns regarding the proposed emergency access road and
attempts to confirm this with the District have been unsuccessful, to date.
G. Zoning: The property lies within the A/R/RD zone district, which mandates a
minimum lot size of two (2) acres per dwelling unit. All proposed lots are in excess
of this requirement. Given the slope of the tract, the placement of building envelopes
and septic tank leach fields may be constrained. A blueline has been generated that
shows areas with slopes between 30% and 40% and areas greater than 40% in slope.
State and County regulations specify that no ISD systems are allowed on slopes in
excess of 30% and county regulations specify that for lots greater than one (1) acre
in size, there must be at least one (1) contiguous acre of less than 40% slope.
K. Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan: Section 4:33 of the Subdivision
Regulations requires review of an application based on compatibility with various
planning criteria, including the Comprehensive Plan. The following section addresses
the compatibility or lack of compatibility with the Plan.
Agriculture: The subdivision may have impact on and from adjacent agricultural
uses by its potential incompatibility. Impacts from agricultural uses;
noise; odor; etc., may be experienced in the subdivision.
Housing: Existing, platted subdivision lots currently exist in the area of the
proposed subdivision, with current build -out estimated at an average
of 53%. Conventional zoning, not PUD, is being employed. There
are no provisions for low and moderate income housing (stated)
within the subdivision application information. The subdivision is
situated away from incompatible, non-residential uses such as light
5
industry and commercial centers.
Recreation/Open Space: The proposed development include provision for access to
adjacent BLM lands.
Transportation: County regulations do not have any provision for off-site
improvements to County roads. The applicant is proposing to provide
monies for off-site improvements. The applicant is limiting traffic to
one intersection. Roadway design is targeting a specific, projected
traffic Load. Roadway design has been conducted in consideration for
potential emergencies.
Water and Sewer Service: It appears that a legal, physical water supply exists. The
development could not feasibly connect to any existing water/sewer
system. Soils on-site are constrained in their use for ISDS.
Environment: There are slopes on the parcel which are in excess of 25%. Mitigation
of erosion by development of the property is required. Mitigation of
slope, potential rock -fall or mudflow and slow percolation of soil will
be necessary. Areas within the proposed development are susceptible
to very slow percolation rates. Depending on design of building
envelopes, the potential for removal of vegetation and cut and fill
activity is high, causing visual degradation.
V. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper publication and public notice and posting were provided as required by
law for the 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 general compliance 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 and, in addition, have been
found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
VL RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission, at their January 10, 1996, hearing, gave its APPROVAL to the
Preliminary Plan for Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision, subject to the listed conditions:
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless stated otherwise by
the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
2. The Homeowner's Association shall be incorporated in accordance with Colorado
Revised Statute requirements.
3. The applicant shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements Agreement
addressing all on-site improvements, prior to the submittal of a final plat.
4. The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all roads, bridges, utilities, fire
protection, improvements, signage and drainage structures prior to the submittal of
the final plat.
5. That all proposed utilities shall be placed underground.
That all cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native
grasses, shrubs and trees with adequate weed control. All revegetation shall be in
accordance with the applicant's revegetation plan. Revegetation and landscaping shall
be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. In addition, adequate
security shall remain in place for a period of two (2) years to guarantee the survival
of all plantings.
7. That the applicant shall demonstrate that procedures are established for the
maintenance of all roadways and bridges, including snow removal, through the
Homeowner's Association.
That the applicant shall pay $200 per lot in School Impact Fees prior to the approval
of the Final Plat.
9. That the following plat notes shall be included on the Final Plat:
"The recommendations of the Colorado State Forester and U. S.F. S. wildfire
prevention guidelines shall be followed in the construction of all structures."
"Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare and
submit a soils and foundation report, an I. S.D.S. design, and a grading and drainage
plan prepared and certified by a professional engineer. All improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with such measures, which shall be a condition of the
building permit."
"Certain lots may require pumps to increase residential water pressure. Additionally,
it may be necessary for individual reverse osmosis water treatment systems, installed
at each home."
10. The approved augmentation plan, together with the West Divide Water Conservancy
District Allotment Contract and the water rights associated with the wells, together
with well permits, and shares from the Roseman Ditch shall be transferred by the
developer to a homeowner's association which shall have the power and the duty to
enforce compliance by lot owners with the terms and conditions of the augmentation
plan. Appropriate Protective Covenants shall further require compliance with the
terms and conditions of the augmentation plan.
11. That the applicants shall prepare and submit protective covenants, articles of
incorporation and other Homeowner's Association documents including by-laws will
be submitted for review by the County Attorney prior to the approval of the Final
Plat.
12. That the plat and covenants will provide that there will be no resubdivision of the lots.
13. That all roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards in
effect at the time of submittal of the Final Plat.
14. The Final Plat shall identify building sites that are in conformance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical report and less than 40% slope.
15. That a plat note requiring staking and certification by a R.L.S. verifying building
location within approved sites. This requirement shall be incorporated into the
restrictive covenants.
16. That adequate easements for wells, waterlines and other attendant facilities and
utilities shall be provided on the Final Plat. The final plat shall also show central
water supply easements to lots 1, 19 and 20.
17. That 12 foot perimeter easements on each lot shall be provided for utility purposes.
18. The applicant shall provide road signage in accordance with the Uniform Manual of
Traffic Control. These should be included in the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement.
19. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit approved plans (by
Colorado Department of Health) for the proposed community water system.
, I • 1,o
•,
1
WARE
r
0
ANI
11
//•``h
�l ,1
(i 1) )R 't' I ' �lk`l' `> � � .1:
' �\Z l,'I II.(J, •
I\, \ I�t Ij� •1.,>�I ' 1 '1 I t �i��
�,I!( ))�III I �,! (1 i'1 I c
1 � {/ 1 1 , • �'�'I : I.1,/} ..,,it:
t, , .1., i.
„i., .
,.. 1,.
. .:•1.
•
,,, )
, • i
\,,i 1)k,,c,,
lc ..)),..1k ) t,,c-;7 11`. . .0.(.0,;•..1 1/i i).
' 1 1 I I �� I IIS I I' lh
11 •
�� (. ,i.,1 ,-.t,,,,, Irl( .I
001)6
n 11I
• 1
()•.\.
r
.1
L
I U11 c S
i,1•, is 1
V At ..n:. I_.
T
VICINITY MAP
9
OFFICE OF TI IE STATE ENGINEER
1 )ivision of Wale( Resources
Department of Natural Resourc es
1:11 ] Sherman Slrcal, Rimm 11 III
Denver, c uloro<lu It112(1.1
I'hnnc (1(11) IS66 15111
FAX (101)1166-151H
Mr. Mark Bean, Planner
Garfield County Planning
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 00601
s.
STATE OF 0011(
) �rl
August 17, 1995
;s,,, •�, •r..1
a..
R„y I21n101
(.d,v,,M11
Ionics S. Lu, I,11('e,1
XI'CliiiVe till
I lal I). Siiulsnn
5I.,lc rnitinrr,
RE: Cedar Hills Ranch, Preliminary Plat
E1/2 NE1/4 Sec. 1, T. 6 S, R. 92 W, and WI/4 NWI/4 Sec. 6, T. 6 S, R. 91
W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 39
Dear -Mr. Bean:
We are in receipt of your subdivision referral to subdivide approximately 77-I- acres into
20 residential lots, located about three miles east of Rifle, Colorado. The proposed water supply
is either central well and/or individual wells on the lots which wells are to be included in the West
Divide Water Conservancy District's substitute supply plan until a permanent plan for
augmentation is approved by the Water Court.
Pursuant to Section 30-20-136(1)(h)(I), C.R.S., the State Engineers Office offers the
following opinion for your consideration regarding material injury to decreed water rights and the
adequacy of the proposed water supply of the subject subdivision.
Our records show that the ground water in the subject area is tributary to the Colorado
River System, which is over -appropriated. The substitute water supply plan issued to the
West Divide Water Conservancy District (District) is reviewed and renewed by our office
annually. If the applicant obtains West Divide contracts or a decreed plan for
augmentation for the proposed uses and well permit(s) are issued from OW office, it is
unlikely that injury will occur to decreed water rights.
2. We are unable to comment on the adequacy of the water supply without an engineering
or geotechnical study documenting the physical availability of ground water for the
proposed uses. As outlined in the statutes, Section 30-20-133(3)(d), C.R.S., the applicant
is required to submit adequate evidence that a water supply that is sufficient in terms of
Mr. Mark Bean Page 2
August 17, 1995
quality, quantity, ancl dependability will be available 10 ensure an adequate supply of
water.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office or
Mr. Orlyn Bell of our Division office in Glenwood Springs at 9,15-5665.
Sincerely;
Mr. Kris Murlhy
Professional Engineer
KM/km
cedarhills.sub
cc: Orlyn Bell, Div. Engineer
James R. Lemon, Water Commissioner
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3501
FAX (303) 866-3589
STATE Of COLORADO
December 1, 1995
Mr. Eric D. McCafferty
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
DEG U i 199
. r
RE: Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan
NE '/4 , Sec. 1, T. 6 S., R. 92 W., and NW '/4 , Sec. 6, T. 6 S., R.
91 W., 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 39
Dear Mr. McCafferty:
Ituy Romer
Governor
James 5. Lochhead
Executive Director
1 tat D. Simpson
State Engineer
We have reviewed your request to provide additional comments concerning the
physical adequacy of the water supply for this project which proposes to create 20 residential
lots on approximately 77 acres. Our previous review (letter to Garfield County dated August
17, 1995) of the preliminary plan for this project indicated that no comments concerning the
physical adequacy of the water supply could be made without an engineering study
documenting the physical availability of ground water for the proposed uses. To address
concerns over the physical water supply, this referral included a report entitled "Cedar Hills
Subdivision Physical Water Supply", dated November 26, 1995, by Zancanella and
Associates.
The above referenced report provided well test data on the Cedar Hills Well /13.
(Although the report did not identify a permit or file number for Well //3, our records appear
to indicate that Well #3 was constructed as a monitoring and observation hole under file no.
MH -25885 on June 13, 1995.) Information in the report indicates that Well /13 produced 23
gallons per minute in a 21 hour test with a maximum drawdown of 10.5 feet. It is our
opinion that at this sustained flow rate and with appropriate storage capacity, this well can
adequately supply the proposed uses. Please note that the long term adequacy of any ground
water source may be subject to fluctuation due to hydrological and climatic trends.
Should you have any questions regarding the water supply for this project, please
contact Jeff Deatherage of this office.
SPL/JD/jd
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
James Lemon, Water Commissioner, WD
Sincerely,
(
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
rib
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE -
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Perry D. Olson, Director
606 Broadway
Deriver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
t ( 1$9 1�l�lti l;
.1
November 6, 1995
Mr. Eric McCafferty
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Eric:
REFER TO
For lNi1r1Ii%t' -
Fur 1'rol,Ic
I have reviewed the proposed covenants for the Cedar. hills Ranch
Subdivision and 1 have determined that they do meet Division of
Wildlife regulations regarding subdivisions. Jin addition, the
Covenants sufficiently address DOW concerns 1 noted in my letter. of
March 30, 1995.
One minor change I recommend is the wording concerning the
destruction or removal of nuisance wildlife in paragraph //7 on page
9. I would advise that homeowners consult with the DOW before any
such action is taken due the complexity of state and federal laws
pertaining to protected species.
It has been a pleasure working with Norm Clasen and these Covenants
demonstrate that private and public entities can share the same
values.
Respectfully,
J
Don Crane
District Wildlife Manager
cc: Norm Clasen
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Jarnos S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swill, Vice-Chaiunan • Arnold Salazar, Secretary
Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member
William fl. liegberg, Member • Maik LeValley, Member
March 28, 1995
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Commission
109 0th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
:f. t (, I .i
}
rrr .1rj'j) ;r i
I. 1 !I
.j ]
i:.III 1 `
1705g
(7-880)
In response to your request for continents regarding the proposed Cedar Hills
Ranch Subdivision, I offer the following statements for your scheduled
April 12, 1995, Planning Commission review of Lhe sketch plan. The entire
northern edge of the 120 acre tract is adjacent to public lands administered
by this office. Current uses on the BLM include livestock grazing, wildlife
habitat, and dispersed recreation such as hunting, horseback riding, and
hiking.
1. Ownership of land adjacent to BLM-administered public land does not grant
the adjacent landowner(s) any special rights or privileges for the use of the
public lands.
2. During staff review, it was noted that the proponents propose a 50 foot
access easement between lots 3 and 4 that would "provide permanent riding and
hiking trails ... to the BLM'•. The proposed 50' easement would likely attract
or encourage recreational use, mainly from subdivision residents, and there
could be negative impacts from such use. Such an easement could result in the
unauthorized proliferation of trails by both nonmotorized and motorized users,
trash dumping, disturbance of wildlife and firewood cutting. Public access to
the affected public lands is already available from existing county roads in
the vicinity and the need for additional public access is not apparent.
Any developed trail system from the subdivision onto adjacent public ]and
would require prior approval from this office, and such approval is uncertain
at this time.
3. I am concerned with increased OHV use on public lands from subdivision
residents and the effects such use could have on the landscape (erodible
soils, visual quality, vegetation) and any archeological or paleontological
resources that may exist in the area. The proponents should be aware of the
location of property boundaries Lo ensure no encroachment occurs on public
land.
To help control such impacts on the adjacent public land, I recommend the
construction of a boundary fence along the proponent's north boundary as a
condition of approval. Such a fence would ensure no encroachment occurs on
public land, and help control livestock. The fence should be constructed to
allow for easy passage by big game, i.e. less than 42" in Freight with a 10"
kick space between the top 2 wires.
4. The owners should be advised that the adjacent public land has current
permits for livestock grazing. Under Colorado statutes, it is the owners'
responsibility to construct, and maintain in good condition, a lawful fence
protecting their property in order to recover any damages from trespass
livestock. Again, a continuous fence built to the above standards along the
subdivision/BLM boundary is recommended to resolve the potential use
conflicts.
5. Adjacent public land is open to hunting and other dispersed recreation
activities. The proponents should be aware that hunting and other recreation
uses are allowed on 13LM-administered land.
2
6. The County and the subdivision proponents should be made aware that coal
minerals underlying all of the proposed subdivision that lies within Section
6, (T6S, R92W, Sixth P.M.) are reserved Lo the United States. This subsurface
ownership underlies portions of proposed lots 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10, and all lots
proposed in the Option Parcel. According to the records available at this
office, no leases have been applied for or issued for coal within Lhe federal
coal reserve.
7. Any roads, trails, paths, or utilities (water, electric, phone or
otherwise) crossing BLM would require right-of-way (ROW) permits from this
office. An environmental assessment report would be completed as a part of
the ROW permitting process.
8. The proposed subdivision lies within crucial deer winter range.
Encroachment of homesites and people on big game winter ranges can have a
profound effect on game herd populations and health.
In closing I ask for your consideration in these matters in regards to the
pending Sketch Plan for the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, please contact Jim Byers
of this office at 945-2341.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Mottice
Area Manager
JBYERS:CO1923/1000/CEDARHLL.L,q'R
IN REPLY IUiI Llt 'I.O:
l.:
United States Department of the Interior;
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Glenwood Springs Resource Area
50629 1ligllway 6 and 24
P.O. Box 1009
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
December 12, 1995
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County
Building and Planning Dept.
109 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Subject: Cedar Hills Subdivision proposal
Dear Mr. Bean:
4 1995
8300
(7-880)
A field review of the proposed trail access from the subject subdivision into
adjacent BLM land was recently completed jointly with the subdivision
developer, Mr. Norrn Clasen. The review included the proposed point of access
and a potential trail route on BLM land, as shown on the enclosed map. The
terrain and soils affected by the access point and potential trail route
appear to be suitable for the type of trail related uses anticipated from the
proposed subdivision.
Dispersed use of BLM land for horseback riding and hiking activities is
consistent with current policy and regulations for recreational w:e of BLM
land, as long as the use does not result in unacceptable impacts. All of the
concerns indicated in previous comments are still relevant, and the Bureau
will work with the proponent in managing trail use and activities to prevent
resource damage and minimize conflicts with other uses on BLM land neighboring
the proposed subdivision if it is developed.
If you have any questions, please contact 3.im Byers or Francisco J. Mendoza of
this oEEice at the address above or (970) 945-2341.
Sincerely,
vL.Michael S. Mottice
Area Manager
Enclosures
1. Map of access point to BLM land
CC: Clasen
April 5, 1995
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Coloo
FOR i.S'l'
SERVICE
Suttc Soviets I)ulltling
222 S. (.th Strcct, Room •116
(;rand Junction, Colorado 01501
Telephone (30.1) 248-7325
Re: Cedar Hi l is Subdivision Wildfire Hazard Review
Dear Mr. Michaelson,
I have reviewed the Sketch Plan Report for the Cedar Hills Ranch
Subdivision, submitted by the Spring Creek Land Company, and
visited the site on April 4th. When evaluating a site for
wildfire hazard, I concentrate on vegetation, topography, water
supply, and access. These points are addressed in the following
comments.
Vegetation in the proposed subdivision ranges from irrigated
pasture to a mature pinyon -juniper woodland, interspersed with
small openings of sagebrush and grass. Cottonwoods line an
irrigation ditch and some of the drainages above the pasture.
Topography consists of a gently sloping sidehill cut by a series
of shallow drainages flowing roughly southwest. Slopes range from
nearly level to 30%. Several rock outcrops within the proposed
area would act as effective fuelbreaks, as well as the proposed
road system.
The proposed subdivision is in an area that has been mapped as
low, medium, and high hazard for wildfire. The pasture area is
low hazard (lots 1, 2, 13, 14, and parts of lots 16 and 17).
Medium hazard exists in the sagebrush and sparsely forested
areas. The high rating is limited to the steeper ground of this
parcel, where the pinyon -juniper is more dense. Although fires in
the pinyon -juniper type are Common, they are usually confined to
single trees or small groups of trees, and are generally easy to
control. In sagebrush, fires are usually of low to moderate
intensity and are likewise fairly easily controlled. Of primary
concern in this proposed subdivision are any areas over 30% slope
and the more densely vegetated drainages. Under favorable burning
conditions, a fire occurring in one of the steep gullies would
intensify due to the "chimney" effect of the topography and
slope. Structures located in or at the head of such drainages
would be especially vulnerable to damage from wildfire.
The applicant has stated that water supply for firefighting will
be provided by two ponds on the property that are fed from both
the seasonal irrigation ditch and springs. The ponds appear Lo
have a fairly dependable supply of between 20,000 and 50,000
gallons each, and have good access for fire department vehicles.
The applicant has also stated that one or more cisterns will be
located on the upper reaches of the property (lots 16-21) for use
in firefighting.
In regard to access, CSFS standards are for subdivisions to have
dual ingress/egress points, which is not provided for, in this
proposal. Dual ingress/egress can be an important factor in
providing safe evacuation in case of wildfire; however, this
access is not always practical. To help alleviate this problem,
it is recommended that turnouts be located every 750 feet along
roadways to provide adequate emergency vehicle access.
My specific recommendations to further mitigate wildfire hazard
for this proposed subdivision are:
-Structures should not be located in or aL the head of
drainages.
-Remove all vegetation within Len feel of all structures.
This area should be ma 1nL.ained in the future as low
groundcover such as mowed grass.
-Brush or trees within 30 feet of homes should be thinned,
if necessary, so that remaining clumps are no more than 10
feet wide. Down dead material and small, brushy trees that
would act as "ladder fuels" should be removed to reduce the
chances of a crown fire.
-Al 1 lots located above the irrigation ditch should have a
water storage facility accessible to fire department
vehicles, w i Lh a minimum storage capacity of 1,000 gallons
per structure.
-Roof coverings should be of non-combustible materials.
Shake -shingle roofs are a documented source of ignition in a
wildland fire situation, and should be avoided.
The above recommendations are covered in more detail in the CSFS
publication "Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface"
which was provided to Lorin Clasen aL the Lime of the s i Le visit.
Thanks for the opportunity to review Lhis proposal. Should you
have any questions regarding Lhe above comments, please call nie
at 248-7325.
Sincerely,
Kelly Rogers
!asst. District Forester
cc: Burning Mountain FPD
Norm Clasen
- 18
Public Hearing for a Preliminary Plan for Cedar Hills Subdivision, located approximately two
miles northeast of Silt, immediately north of and adjacent to Peach Valley road (CR 214).
Applicant: Spring Valley Land Company (Norm Clasen). Don DeFord questioned the noticing,
posting and proof of publication. Roger Neal, High Country Engineering, answered the questions.
Mr. DeFord determined posting, noticing and proof of publication were adequate and the hearing
could proceed. Lee Leavenworth also questioned Mr. Neal regarding the checking of adjacent
property owners. Eric McCafferty entered the following exhibits into the record:
A. Proof of publication
B. Return Receipts
C. Application and all attachments
D. Project Information and Staff Comments and all attachments
E. Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1978, as amended
F. Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended
G. Letter from Kersten's
H. Petitions
I. Letter from John Buchanan
Mr. Leavenworth requested that exhibit J. be the Preliminary Plat from the prior hearing.
J. Preliminary Plat from prior hearing
K. Map from Mr. Leavenworth with overlay
L. Map from Mr. Leavenworth without overlay
M. Roger Neal's map of Lot 12 analysis
The property is on the north side of CR 214 in an area where agriculture has been the dominant,
historical land use. The site exists in native vegetation consisting of sage, grasses, cottonwoods,
pinion and juniper. Topography is varied, ranging from rolling meadow to steep slope. The
Roseman Ditch traverses the southern and western portions of the property.
Adjacent land uses are predominantly agricultural, although there are a number of single family
homes in the vicinity and BLM owns land adjacent to the northern boundary of the property.
The proposal calls for developing the 77.5 acre tract into a 20 lot subdivision, consisting of 18
homesites and 2 lots of open space. Lot size will vary between 2.1 and 5.7 acres with average net
density being 4.3 acres/du. The applicant is proposing a phased development scenario whereby
the project would be developed in two phases. There are existing homes on lots 1, 18 and 19.
This project was presented in Sketch Plan form to the Planning Commission in April, 1995, and
Preliminary Plan presentation to the Planning Commission was in October. The applicant
withdrew the original Preliminary Plan prior to a scheduled hearing with the Board of County
Commissioners.
Review Agencies commenting are:
Colorado Division of Water Resources - Stated it appears that West Divide contracts are
sufficient to mitigate injury to decreed water rights; and a recent letter states the proposed water
supply would be adequate.
Division of Wildlife - Property is critical deer habitat; property owners will bear the cost of any
wildlife damage. Have recently reviewed covenants and they appear to meet DOW regulations.
Would like wording addressing nuisance wildlife changed.
Bureau of Land Management - Stated concerns regarding access to public lands; concerned with
soils, visual quality, vegetation and others; stated that parts of the subdivision are underlain by
coal resources reserved to the United States. Have given limited consent to the proposed access
trail.
Colorado State Forest Service - Comments regarding wildfire hazards and mitigation steps.
Colorado Geological Survey - Cited concerns regarding on-site drainage; suggested only most
level portions be developed; recommended lining of the Roseman ditch; and others.
Burning Mountains Fire Protection district - Recommended on-site ponds be upgraded and
appropriate fire hydrants be installed.
Kenny frost Native American Consultant - Walked the site and gave clearance as no above ground
archaeological sites were identified.
Public Service of Colorado - Request 12 - 15 foot lot line easements; need easements for crossing
the ditch.
Members of the general public have reviewed the proposal generally responding unfavorably to
the development, and the letters that have been submitted as well as petitions have been
circulated to the Commission.
Major Issues and Concerns - Water Supply - for this subdivision would come from a central well
and two existing wells. Lots 19 and 20 would share an existing well and lot 1 would continue
using and existing well. The water for the remainder of the lots would come from a central well.
If the wells serving lots 1, 19 and 20 prove to be insufficient to supply water, then these lots could
be added to the central system at a later time, at an expense to be borne by the individual lot
owner.
The central well to be used was pump tested on June 16 of this year at a time when water was
running in the Roseman ditch. Static water level in the well was 73 feet and total depth is 160
feet. After 220 minutes of pumping the well stabilized for the remainder of the test. The well was
pumped at 23 GPM and it was the opinion of the engineer conducting the test the well could be
pumped at this rate indefinitely. Recovery data for the well indicated the well recovered at a rate
faster than the drawdown rate.
Estimates concerning the number of people per home and the amount of water used daily indicate
the peak demand month would be July, using almost one acre foot of water and total water use is
estimated at about 9.2 AF per year. It has been estimated that, at the time of build -out, there will
be a larger instantaneous peak demand for water than can be provided by the well alone, thereby
requiring water storage. A 60,000 gallon water tank has been proposed and would be built during
Phase II of the project. This tank would also provide water for fire fighting purposes.
Additionally, a second well has been proposed to be built during phase II, which is intended to
provide mechanical reliability if the main well or pump should fail.
It would appear that the above average water year and the irrigation ditch would contribute to an
unnaturally high water table in this area when the well was tested. In fact, the engineer
conducting the well test speculated the quick recharge rate of the well was probably influenced by
the irrigation ditch and nearby springs. This would seem to suggest that the water table of the
aquifer was at an unnaturally high level at the time the pump test was conducted.
The applicants engineer has submitted information taken as recently as December 20 that showed
the static water level approximately 10 feet higher than when the well was tested. If this is still
the case, then the available drawdown within the well has increased and would appear to
demonstrate increased viability of the well. Because the water supply has been subject to a
considerable amount of speculation, staff requested the opinion of the State Engineers Office as to
the adequacy of this well. The State Engineer responded stating that at 23 GPM and with
adequate storage this well can adequately supply the proposed uses.
By all accounts, 1995 was an abnormal water year and the applicants engineer has suggested
conducting an additional pump test if the static water level falls to 75 feet or more.
A water quality analysis has been performed which has indicated high concentrations of sodium
and higher than recommended levels of solids and turbidity. It has been recommended that the
use of individual reverse osmosis systems be used and perhaps additional filtration equipment if
the dissolved solids and turbidity remain high.
As far as augmentation water is concerned, West Divide has issued water allotment contracts
which do cover the four wells to be used.
Sewer - The proposal specifies the use of ISDS for each homesite, and from the Soil
Conservation Service soils information, it would appear that the soils may have limitations for
septic systems. Five test holes were analyzed and yielded results ranging from 6 MPI to 86 MPI.
The state Dept. of Health requires that systems be engineered if per rates are quicker than 5 MPI
or slower than 60 MPI. It would appear that engineering of septic systems may be required for
many of the lots. Staff recommends a plat note address these limitations.
Roads - The interior of the subdivision would be accessed by a cul-de-sac approx. 4200 feet in
length, built to 2 different standards. Phase I of the project and the initial 2300 feet of the
roadway would be built to the Rural Access standards, requiring a ROW of 50 feet, 11 foot travel
lanes and 6 foot shoulders and a gravel surface. The remaining 1800 feet, built during phase II,
will be built to semi -primitive standards and is proposed to terminate in a cul-de-sac. County
regulations require this cul-de-sac to have a minimum 45 foot radius.
Sewer - The proposal specifies the use of ISDS for each homesite, and from the Soil
Conservation Service soils information, it would appear that the soils may have limitations for
septic systems. Five test holes were analyzed and yielded results ranging from 6 MPI to 86 MPI.
The state Dept. of Health requires that systems be engineered if perc rates are quicker than 5 MPI
or slower than 60 MPI. It would appear that engineering of septic systems may be required for
many of the lots.
The applicant has added an emergency access, to be built as a part of Phase II. This emergency
access road will provide a link between the upper and lower portions of the subdivision as well as
serve as a driveway to lots 10 and 11 and is proposed to be gated from above and below to
restrict unwanted uses. Staff recommends the gating be done in consultation with the Burning
Mountains Fire Protection District to ensure unimpeded access by emergency vehicles.
Additionally, the slope of the emergency access road will require the developer to adopt building
practices that will cause the least amount of scarring and erosion.
All roads shall be dedicated to the public but maintained by a homeowners association, which shall
include snow removal.
Two traffic studies were conducted, assessing the impacts to both CR 262 and CR 214. The
traffic study for 214 used data collected in late September by County Road and Bridge generated
a computer model showing that, at buildout of the subdivision, 214 would have an estimated peak
traffic level of 85 VPH and would operate within the best level of service. It was further
estimated that this level of service would continue up to 129 VPH.
In an effort to mitigate impacts to roads in the immediate vicinity, the applicant has offered $4000
to the County for area road improvements.
Potential Runoff - The drainage basins on and off the site which contribute water flows across the
property have been identified and the 25 year and 100 year peak flows have been calculated. A
25 year flow would be expected to have a flow of 114 cfs and the 100 year flow would be 195
cfs. It appears the location of the Roseman Ditch may intercept the majority of water generated
from these flows and it will be necessary to design culverts and road ditches adequate to handle
these expected flows. Additionally, a detention pond has been proposed for Lot 13 which should
help to decrease the severity of a flow event.
Lot design/development - It appears the applicant has given considerable thought to the solar
aspect of designated building sites and the majority of these should be able to take advantage of
passive solar energy. It is difficult to predict the impact on viewsheds from this development, but
it is staffs opinion that homes built on the southern portion of the property would be visible from
Peach Valley road and the homes on the northern portion of the property would probably not be
highly visible.
Fire Protection - The Burning Mountains Fire Protection District has requested that the ponds
used for fire fighting purposes have dry hydrants installed as well as adequate access for fire
trucks, and the applicant has further proposed K -turns which should allow emergency vehicles
ample ability to turnaround. Phase II would incorporate the water storage tank and the addition
of two fire plugs that would be served from the tank. It is not immediately clear if the District has
-2/-
concerns regarding the emergency access road and attempts to confirm this have been
unsuccessful.
Zoning - The property is within the A/R/Rd zone district and all lots are in excess of the 2 acre
minimum requirement. Given slope of the tract, the placement of building envelopes and leach
fields may be constrained. County regulation specify that all lots shall have a minimum of 1
contiguous acre of less than 40% slope designated as a building envelope. It would appear that
lot 12 may be constrained by this regulation. Variances to the building envelope requirement are
allowed with additional engineering submittals.
Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan - Subdivision regulations require the consideration of
subdivision development on compatibility with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Agriculture - might not be compatible
Housing - There are existing, platted subdivision lots in the area with buildout being approx. 53%
There are no provisions for affordable housing
Subdivision is situated away from incompatible industrial uses
Recreation/Open Space - is compatible
Transportation - May be impacts to surrounding roads, no impact fee in place
The applicant is offering monies to offset some of the impact
Traffic will be limited to one intersection
Roadway design has been conducted in consideration of potential emergencies
Water and Sewer - Soils on-site do have constraints to ISDS use
It appears there is an adequate legal and physical water supply
Environment - Relatively steep slope on the property
Mitigation of erosion and visual impacts will be necessary
Based on these findings, staff recommends APPROVAL of this preliminary plan, subject to the
listed conditions.
Discussion regarding the issues of road shoulder widths, radius of road, traffic study,
revegetation, phasing, timing of phasing (within one year for phase 1) was held.
Lee Leavenworth, attorney representing the applicant, Norm Clasen, Tom Zancanella and Roger
Neal discussed the issues of density, wildlife, wildfire recommendations, soils and foundation
engineering, fire protection, water supply, adjacent zoning, compatibility with adjacent
properties, building envelopes, open space lots, irrigation rights, lot design, traffic studies on CR
262 and CR 214, road crossing improvements, access points, drainage, option parcel has been
lost, individual septic systems designed by a professional engineer, entrance change, legal water
supply from the West Divide Conservancy District, wells, water tests, minimum yield if another
test is required.
Comments from members of the audience and the Commission included flash flooding, water,
recharging of wells, runoff, wetland area, drainage, access, traffic impacts, emergency road,
revegetation, access points on the Roseman Ditch, homeowners association, articles of
incorporation, lighting, density, building envelopes, ditch water, ditch maintenance, Road &
Bridge comments, and property rights.
Anna Price moved to approve the Cedar Hills Preliminary Plan with 19 conditions with additions
of County Attorney's Office. Cheryl Chandler seconded. Motion passed 3-2.
alb
Z
2:0
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
)c3.),tm ill 01 N;1lural Resources
1 113 Sherman SU eel, Roon, 715
Denver, Culu(a(lo 11(12( 1
Phone 1.10.1) 1166-21)11
FAX (.107) 1166-2161
September 6, 1995
3EP .1 1 1995
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
GA -96-0002
x;I'AIzr(.4I N r OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Runic:
(;ove,nor
lanu•s 5. Io( hhc:,d
F.,a•culive Direc In,
Michael II. Long;
Division 1)61111)f
Vi, ki
%lde (;1ulol;isi
an,1 I)i,e( lu,
Re: Proposed Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision -- West of Newcastle and North of Peach
Valley Road (C.R. 214), Garfield County
Dear Mr. Bean:
At your request and in accordance with S.13. 35, we have reviewed the materials submitted
for and made a field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision indicated
above. The following comments summarize our findings.
(1) The general geology of this site consists of older alluvial (stream -deposited), colluvial
(mass wasted down slope by gravity), and loess (wind -deposited) deposits' which overlie
predominantly sarld and shale bedrock of the Wasatch Formation. The area is on the south
side of the Grand Hogback and drainages originating on it have downcut through these
materials and form small ravines and drainageways which dissect the parcel. These drainages
can carry relatively heavy flood and debris flows during infrequent heavy rainstorms that
occur in the area.
(2) The geologic constraints to development of this parcel as planned are moderate to
severe, but will be easily surmountable if taken seriously in road -construction plans,
structural designs, and locations for structures and other improvements. We wrongly
recommend that only the most nearly (naturally) level parts of the proposed lots be used
as building sites. The proposed road layout as shown on the submitted topographic map is
reasonable considering overall terrain conditions, but the kinds of materials that it will
traverse will almost undoubtedly contribute to abnormally high maintenance costs for it.
Extreme care should be taken to adequately maintain all drainage -control structures, roads,
and driveways in the subdivision.
(3) The irrigation ditch which crosses the parcel should be adequately lined so that slopes
-23
Mr. Mark Bean
September 6, 1995
Page 2
below it are not destabilized by excessive infiltration of: surface moisture. The same
precaution should be taken with respect to landscaping irrigation.
(4) Because of the variable "soils" conditions indicated in (1), we recommend that each
building site be investigated by a qualified soils and foundation engineer. It is reasonable
to anticipate that specialized foundation designs will be necessary for many, if not all, of the
lots.
If the recommendations made above are followed and made conditions of approval of this
subdivision, then we have no geology -related objection to it.
Si
erely,
ries M—Soule
(ngineering Geologist
NUVeIIWGI 16, 1996
Mr. Elio MeC ' f lei 1 y
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cedar Hills Ranch (214 Road Gal field County)
Dear Eric:
Wo Ilavo mot with lepiesentativos of the Coder Hills Subdivision and have reviewed their
proposal to plias() the lire protection canto: supply for the Coda: Hills Subdivision. The first
phase will p: ()vide a fire protection water supply for lots 1 ,(2 open space), 3, 4, 14, 15,
16,18, 19, and 20. The first phase will provide a dry hydrant as shown on sheet 7 of the
preliminary plans. I have also attached a typical derail of the hydrant that will meet the
needs of tiro 13u: piny Mountains Filo p: nloction dist: ict.
Bullring MoUlllaills Fi:o protection district wEllor supply needs for phase two of the Cedar
Hills Subdivision will bo met thl ough the use of rho existing dry hydrant and two additional
fire plugs connected to the 60,000 gallon domestic water tank es shown on sheet 7 of the
Cedar Hills preliminary plans. Phase two will provide a fire protection water supply for lots
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, '11, '12, ("13 open space), and 17.
Thank You,
Donald L. Zordel,Fire Chief
Burning Mountains I=PD
25
K,cnru9 9 rust;
'Mut iv€ 1tnericc,i-Com tit tont
'P.D. Box, 1257
Glenwood. fipriri is. Co(orac[o
flEGU2
7,,i ''' 1 '1,.....s -)i.. I. 1 j , 1
1 i
1
�r. � �i l3 !till
/t l; r�i .1. If l
August 20, 1995
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Coirimi331o11
109 eth street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 01602
Dear Mr. Bean:
/ntr{du� tion
The proposed Cedar Hill sub -division 13 located just north of county road 214 in the NW 1/4,
S 'c. #6 of T. #6 S., R. 91 W of the 6 p.rn. NE 1 /4 of Sec. 1 T.6 S., R. 92 W. of the 6 p.rn., in
Garfield County in the State of Colorado. A surface resource inventory and Native American
consultation for the project \J83 conducted by Kenny Frost, Native American consultant and a
member Of the Southern Lite Indian Tribe. The purpose is to aid in the identification of any
Native American sacred sites and/or any archaeological sites.
F:?I••I r4�.7,r,fC:7i
The proposed Cedar 11111 sub -division area survey 13 located just north of C.R. 214 ,with an
approximately 5 700 feet in elevation. This parcel of land totals approximately 7 7.5 acres and
privately o...v.ned by Mr. Clasen. As there are no nearly constructed road or trails within the
3ur.icy area, primary disturbance in Uie area are games trails made by animals.
85•CA'Qt-OL'/ /fi/Orlik/IOn
This area in and around the proposed Cedar hill the heart of lite
Territory and was used 83 camping area by the Utes in the spring and winter months as they
traveled across the Flat Tops in the Summer. Farming \dere some of the activities that took
place in the late 1 600's to present.
The field survey was conducted by myself, Beth Giles, an archaeologist, and Nr. Norm Clasen.
The terrain has smell hills. plants such as juniper, native grass and sage brush can be found on
the surrey Site.
fur.
1- he attu.....e. the ground :E;urveti, and (:.1.111.1in,.11
approval 0r., the Ce(lar 11111 tourd.
li 140ii Finij (Fee 1.0 Gall -.11. the windier I i.r)let.1 t.-,11 I he f palle
11 t.he
ricere.1!4 ur:E; ,
tlati.,,:e tant
MEMORANDUM
TO: SUBDIVISION REVIEW AGENCIES
FROM: MARK 13PIAN
DATE: JULY 31, 1995
RE: CEDARS 1111,LS RANCII PRELIM 1'I,AN
RIVERBENI) FILING 115
ril'l I__ t_,
' AUG 0 I'S I 99 11
C3 FIFIELI) GO(.4:f1-Y
Inclosed is a copy of the CLDAR 1IILLS RANCI1 ANI) RIVLRIII-21ND FILING #5
PRFLIMINARY PLAN submittals. Per the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984
and C.R.S. 30-28-136, 1986, as amended, these documents are provided to you for your review
and comment.
The Preliminary Plan will be reviewed by the Garfield County Planning Commission on
September 13, 1995. 111 order to have your continents meet the statutory requirements your
cbmmenls need to be received by this office no later than 21 clays after your receive this packet.
I appreci,lle your help. If you have any questions or concerns about this submittal, please feel
free to give nye a call.
TV
@.)CJ //ea/(;.t1T7wJ c :,2 a Sii� l 1
P011 t',z? /i)i.r);(/ — X75 sJk-( -'I .S
(13L Q S T) J)1 l4 s i BA: cc /i/.,,,;YJ
SO (J7; 77 CM A -I 2 L.:.SS
TO SA1i-v r--.L1J i LTJ (JLS LC' �l c
1�11/tn_ biJ JJ. 7L7,1 5"/O w=
Lif r -AU✓A Y /=/l�rl
.11-76 )2- __Jj,.j- Till_ Ani[!!
FAL,/ i T1 .ss L S ?,2
/y,¢6 t i Lis r
£•11S /-1. i _a
,
.2
U
Cf)
J
cc
n
111
U
11-1
0
n
n
Q
(1)
(1)
LL
10
(0
0
0
L
El
a)
(t,
.1J
0
)�"3°JI) NMOCAW ICI
8
CZ)
r-.
n
0 0
5; 8 0
(1 j°.J NAA.00IAN\q1CI
8
DA IE
10 -Jun -95
10 -Jun -(15
10 -Jun -05
10 -Jun -05
10 -Jun -05
10 -Jun -05
10 -Jun -115
10 -Jun -05
1(1- .1,0! 95
10 -Jim -PS
10 -Jun -95
I0- .Inn n5
10 -Jig !I!i.
0-Jun-nG
10 --.0111..'(3
10 lull- 11O
17 -Juu-05
TAIILE 1
CLDAII HILLS f IANCI I WLLL //3
PUMPING -(EST DATA
11ME WA1(=I1 DIIAW
LEVEL DOW[I 1 1' 1/I' q
01:50 PM 73.17 0
01:57 PM 79.13 0 11
1 23 O PM
01:50 PM 00,75 7.11 2 23 GPM
01:59 PM 01.12 0.3 ,I 23
02:00 PM 01.03 (1.7 4 23
02:01 ('M 02.13 0.0 G
23
02:02 Ph1 (12,33 0.2 0
23
02:04 PM 02(10 (I,3 11
23
(12:00 I'M U2 07 0.0 IO
02:00 PM 23
02.71 0.5 12 23
02:11 f'01 03.17 10 0 16 23 OPM
02:10 f'M (3].17 10 I) 20
23
02:20 I'M 113,42 10.3 3U
23
02:30 PM U7 42 10.!I 40 23
05:30 f'M 03 (10 10,4 220
23
00:00 I'M 117.07 10 G
421 23
10:55 AM U3,60 10.3 126(1
23
CEDAR HILLS RANCH WELL //3
RECOVERY -I ESI- DA -1A
I)AIIT: WA1(:II 1)f1AW
LLv1:I. DOWN 1 t' 1/1' 0
17--Jun-n5 10:50 AM 03,50 10.3 1200 0
17 -Jun -95 10:57 AM 0 OPM
77. I J 4.0 1201 1 1201.0 0
17 -Jin -0!i 1:00 AM 76.17 2.0 1204 4
310.0 0
17 -Jun -(15 11:01 AM 74.03 1.7 1205 G
203.0 0
17 -Jul -11!1 1:03 AM 74.07 1,6 1207 7 101.0
0
17 -Jun -05 I 1:07 AM 74,12 1.3 1271
11 116.6 0
17 -Jun -95 1 1:17 A01 74.00 0.0 1201
21 01.0 0
17 -Jin --n5 11:27 AM 73.113 0.7 1201
31 41.0 0
FEB 06 '96 10:381:a11 LENVEIII•ICRTH nssoC
P.O. Bpx 1908
1005 Cooper Ave.
Glenwood Springs,
CO 81602
Norm Clasen
Cedar Hills flanoh
P. 0, Box 1155
Basalt, Co 81621
ENGiN>r~"E't1IING CONSULT/ANTS'
Re: Cedar Hills Ranch Well #3
Dear Norm:
(970) 945-5700
(970) 945.1253 Fax
11;:
As per your instructions, we have continued to monitor the water level in Well No. 3 to
determine its seasonal variability. Figure 1 attached is a graphical representation of the
water level in Well No.. 3. We have updated the graph for your review. As you can see
the water level in the well is beginning to show the expected winter decline, Water level
readings were taken on January 10th and 29th 1996, the water level was 65.5 feet below
the top of the well casing on both dates. The current water level is still well above the 75
foot level that would require the pump test to be run.
If you have any questions, please call our Glenwood Springs office at 945-5700.
Very truly yours,
Zancanella and Associates, Inc.
Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E.
President
cc: Lee Leavenworth
Roger Neal
Norm Clasen
TAZ/til/95213.1evel
edar E- iI1s t anch ell #
11 1111
11111 11 I 11111
i0i 0 ' II Pillill 1111t
Ili IIMI
111 di 111'111 11
III 1 Ill III 11/1 11111 1111111 111111111111111111
iii i
I IIII 11 1111 11411 MI
011 11°11 11114
1 I: 11 111 III
1111
11 II 11 II 1 I 1 I III Ill
0
0
n
cO
0
14)
---How?)) itOT.Aff :'ITO
• ,
/ 011.1
1111 1 1 1C.! i
. • ,•>ij 1 !...Dr 10 011
OU
1/bM
1 /OW
(/3)111
31111 1 3 C? 1.,;) 1 1
11.1 1.
11.11011 .1dou Aq
p>? 0.10111)11,.' 1)111 :•311 1 .33.3 .101 I 11111'1
' , •
...•
t, ,1!.!", •
t..16/1.111
nithou!..: - -
toQltl OCIV!10"103 NO11014111' ON V V1L)
>t5cI
.)/ 1 )111 3 1 1..1
L./ I )111 (-*13 111
3.>')> 1.1.(: • 1)
/ ,C.)11.1 (...; 3 1..)- 1_1
11111 (..; 1 • 1)
l'•/3/l11 I 1(.3 • 0
1.0 11 1 1.11) • (.1
3 /1.)111 1 11.10 •
1
C.11)111
1.1l11 (.13•:1) [
[PAU (3
(.1111 1 1
110M 1111,;
13111 1 1
V/.1.)111
r/liM
1/1-"
1./.1.1111
C/1)111
1j111 1 1 1•1.:
/:-.1 03:1.1>)t 1.11 1 1' 3
1,311(.10AU11101
11;,•1
C.1`04,,,
11
• •
.(uz):d.uT.
(d)pl-Qqdol_td
(t'T)12um
(ow)wnuapc(41
(u1/00P°!--1Q5uQW
(n3)Edd
(n1H)A2-tiD.T.ik-InI
(c.s.0.-.)Q3Y" 1@0u*P-x
GP!: (OS
(3:OD)0Q.LId-xeD
(-20;)14)
( COD D J&3 t L.! sc1 Q)t tVT‘;'2,"4
( COD ) k..3 !-•"1: I Q>(.( :o.':TOUGt-lci
(1,709) 0.1-Volann.q
( ID) OP'-,1.0‘1Lt
(N)WmcooQ0
(b4)wnTsa0BQK
1/6m 00000
t-:11-.)(11 000 ' 0
1711)13 (,/,
V/601 000000
3/01.11 (1.30'0•
C/I'm
1/6m L11o.(.1
C/1..m nm.m.o
(•i)
1:1111)-()
L,661 09113'
AlL) 3)lu3. .l-101)
11 M "3
re.OLE,
win mtvri
LL
3:6/0'!„/9
04(5 )
±);') poomt_to [E)
tr...1 [ oktuaue'..?,
. ,
)1(),Imi Av:}11.A'IvNv
111L-Zt,t 1\101id
• 'INTI AV V .LHON
l
OD _ UV] _ncr
r
J.)1VIIMIN 0 NilOf
•,
ponleocra,oina
•ON .tottioisn
• I •
:tiiOJJ pa A103011
•1 •
,Rocolvod from:
1 •
G��
435 NOR'rtl
JOAN C. K.,Eltf'Alt'1' & CQ.
i
AVENUE
fl
ti
'1_AI-I11IZA1.1I1 I [
P1101411 242-7010 • GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 01501
ANALYTICA1. It1:I'OItT
:raI• 61 L., I 1 a unci i\(ilJ(Ii:. 1411'.�y
'1'. 1,11111:1:
1. () Ii(.,',: 1'x(11.1/ 1 O(1 ('4 t,:1111)1• AVG.,
G 1131)w0(:1(1 Sr11- i it() s , (:(_1 01602.
(
170::
Customer No. I at,oraluly No. __ Sample
'Date Received
ar1.101 e
it/2O/MI5
Herl)]C3.(.1t 7:
2 , 4-1:1
2 ,
eeticides :
End r] n •1
Li r1(lar)
Age 1'.11uxyGI-11 t;x..
T'oxtti been)
3-
1)ato Ituputlutl_
wrxker ,
1
37(12 i 1 ' 111,(�ri)c..ilire'Wilti31't:.1_.illiLE3
C i,n t,1i;1'1 :ie 1. 1:1y Cc' 1(1. 111=:.111.. 0t
(.Idt•t It: 1 (1 Cci'tll-Il:y, Ilt,to 11.h
11111(' 1 ',' . 1 995
<(I 011111 II /1
< (I C' (1(1 ,; toil,/ 1
1.1 , 1.1(.11111 1
1•I 11111111,1.
1111 (1 )
\ U . (I(1 1
(Y1
`, NOTE; bre i")^(-1111
Wiitbr ollti, 19c11
I r 1
11 . I log./ I
(I. 11.1 Inf1/ 1
11 (11 11)::: Hot: 1.
I 1 1111'1 Int 1,1 I
. (1.1 tiltl,•'
(1. 11(1`1 ,111(1/' I
t_
Ili 1.
1 111 1:0 I (.1'it11, t 11,1'11 . t;11` ,.I:11-11:1 1 1 11 111' 1111c t
1`1r'•tlf1Lt 111ti:(I:I I.IIr:l1I11 (1)(,111(:1rijEt 1tt;I'f: (.rtr1)
Director: 13. 13atier '
-COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
INORGAINIC CHEMISTRY LABORATORY
.4210 E 11TH AVE. DENVER, CO 20220
(303)691-4726 '/7 77.
SAMPLE NUMBER: 2520'1;
DATE:
REPORTED BY:
P1"/SID :'t
SAMPLE DESCRIPi :OH: GRAND JUNCTION LAE\ NANCY BAUER
ADDRESS : 425 NORTH AVE
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 21501
COLLECTED BY:
11hERE • Z \.NC 2742
DATE SAMPLED: / /
DATE RECEIVED: 07/0G/25
LEE: 250M
TYPE: 7
COMMENTS:
ANALYSIS RESULTS
ALPHA
ELT,
SOLIDS, TOT.
65
14
1300
MCL = MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL
MSL = MAXIMUM SUGGESTED LEVEL
NLE = NO LIMITS ESTABLISHED
EAL = EPA ACTION LEVEL
PC;/L
oCI/L
mg/L
COUNTY:
PHONE
I..CL_50
02/00/95
JRS
3032427618
PC;/L
p<C i /'_
.WIli1d0>
WIRVAL
.,44406ect
Zancanella & Associates
Terri Lance
P.O. Box 1908
Gl ermood Springs, CO 81602
lJ
Haze. .-lesearch, Inc,
4601 Indiana St • Golden, Colo. 80403
Tel: (303) 279-4501 • Telex 45-860
FAX: (303) 278-1528
REPORT OF NIALYSIS
DATE September 28. 1995
URI PROJECT 002-96D
IIRI SERIES N0. I58/95 .
DATE RECD. 09/05/95'
CUST P.0.# None Recd
SAMPLE N0. I58/95-1
SAMPLE IDEIFIFICATION: Clasen Well 3 in Garfield County
08/31/95 @ 1700 by Samuelson Pump Co.
GETECTI01 A'IALYS1S
PApIPETER RE UL T LIH(T E':_[r39 RAIELT_IL Lan -I
Gross Alpha(*Precision*),pC1/1 (7) 29(-12) 3 EPA 900.0 09/20/95 LO
Gross Alpha(=Precision*),pCi/1 (T)** -k 5(+12) 3 EPA 900.0 09/20/95 LO
Gross Beta(+Precision*),pC1/1 (7) 0(1-14) 20 EPA 900.0 09/20/95 LD
Uraniun,rx3/1 (T) 0.035 0.002 ASill 02907 09/20/95 R?
Uraniun,pCi/1 (T)"k 24 1 ASM 02907 09/20/95 RP
By:
Robert Rostad
Laboratory I'lanager
CODES:
(T)=Total (D)=Dissolved
(S)=Suspended (R)=Recoverable
(PD)=Potentially Dissolved
<=Less Than
*Variability of the radioactive disintegration process (counting error) at the 95Y confidence level. 1.96 x
sigma.
Certification Authority Lab ID's:
US EPA Region VIII - CG; CT - PH -0152; KY - 90076; NH - 232895-A: IIY ELAP - 11417.
*-*Uranium results reported assuming the activity of natural uranium is 6.77 x 10'' Ci/g.
*-**Excluding Radon and Uranium.
Received from:
Customer \o. ._
Dale Reccl.eJ
Sample
JOHN C h,'l1Alt"I' & CO.
i
435 NORT -1 AVENUE
CT
10/18/9:
Nitrate(ri)
Nitrite(N)
Ni trate+Nitrite (N)
Antimony(Sb)
Selenium(Se)
Beryllium (Be)
Free Cyanide(CN)
Nickel (Ni )
Thallium (T1 )
L A H 1 r A 1 ti 11
CC
PIIOP C 242-7618 • GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501
AN.',L' 11f_iI_ ItEI';I(1
Zancanella and Associates
T. Lance
PO Bo:: 1900/.1005 Cooper Ave.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Labora trirV "o
0033
Dile Rcpunnl
003,_°;
Clasen Well
Garfield County
Oct. 17. 1995
(1. 0 mg/1
<0.01 mg/1
0.211 mg/1
<0.001 mg/1
<0.002 mg/1
<0.001 mg/1
<0.002 mg/1
<0.001 rng/1
<0.001 mg/1
Sample__
Me L 1-, od
water
10/29/95
Date
Tested
05.067-901.4 10/23/95
D3867-908 10/18/95
D3867-908 10/23/95
Ern 200.9 10/23/95
D3059 -93r 10/23/95
EPA 200.9 10/25/9;
SM9500E 10/25/95
Ern 200.9 10/23/95
EPA 200.9 10/23/95
ASBESTOS: ;2 1•IFL1: NIOSII 7900K 10/25/95
NOTES: "<" Means "less than" (none was detected, lower limit of
detection is given) . References are: SM = "Standard Methods -for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater," 19th Ed. , 1995. EPA = "Methods
for the Chemical Analysis of plater and Wastes," 1903. "0" Methods
from ASTM "Annual ljook of ASTM Standards."
*Asbestos by phase contrast microscopy, modified NIOSH 7100 method;
MFL = million fibers >10 microns per liter.
Director:
rt. Bauer
.0.7
/ 5623.0
/ l ) ,, \,.' .."•;...,i' _-' 7'
\. `p1M: ntr/,' AS' co JAI 1 .: ' \(
11 _ /7 r
\\l\ k1< 1 f I,l .'\,.5
\�1g 1)) I 4\�.
--x
•
21////
/1
)
•11
\t,. i1
fi
J41 \
1\ rmY. n.
7 - -=
)))/ /, _
Yk
I\ •\411.1i;
11\ ` 11\>\\I
5616.5
x
,1
J'
5616.5
//".• ,1
Y�ar
j
a1M (
r
l:.r
k11,.?1- - 1 1 } ;( •-i
., A,/\_1
r/
56125 \
i
I_o
(7;
1'
X
5597.2
1 ( I
1)
\
\
5500 1 N. \` /•
/
, I
x
558.) 0
/
)
....1.111,14
5567.5
�(
c�-,— • tf?- 1
� o�C�_1i1SB9:
0
J:.. —J:'- _,555 5551.Q
#1 Lot 14
#2 Lot 11
113 Lot 11
t�4 Lot 13
#5 Lot 5
80 MPI;
86 MPI;
6 MPI,
68 MPI;
15 MPI.
•_/ • 66•0a\-__•
=
?fl
S,
•_ ''',.
_ . . --- ,.
• -- • 1.-, s,l
• • II
- I: : •
v' 1, 6
.
. ,_......,
,,•-• -• •
•A,
• -'---- ,1,!-- ^
, ) ...,
'i - •,__i 11
c , 1 ...
1, •„„•‘. ..;',...ks_ro3 .N:,1_ --T.--))) ' (
_(.)/
\ : . ' i,' ' • 1 / 1
1 "- .N. - '''s. ' _,.. ••••-i......._7'S.,-...-:•-," > X.(
--s'•--,_ .. . 1
,/' _, ' j' /1--: • .. / .' - r•
(,_....-
,..._,- / ..) ,:l s•-. ,
1//!f
. 1 '' - •. \ :' -' -: • ,
, ! . S
.),, -. ....-.: . iN I V ' ' '
,-,...-,p_ ,.•\ !,..c, 1 .(_,
i.•\ ,„ , ,I. , no- 2 ,,)
. ' . • CI,
---- )1 '---- • /1,1 '''00\,.. s :: . /r \'.' 1/' I/
i • 1
. .. N ' . :.‘.:.:. \-.) 'inr \ •- I' • . ''',_-_-- • -'
, ; . ':•'-:--:•"--,-:-,_, , \ _ 1,... ,
C... \ - -
4". :, •• , ii, il-,..:". -.. ''-'•:-.'7,',. -
1 • 1 f •-,:. ....,. • N • )..
.... \....(i
-:, ,?,,'..7, °) .4.1.4/I.144.,•!kl :. F--...,---,
7 \..\: 1-.,,,.1-- „1.4 \,- 1 .\
kBtirOingse4.,,- '1
.,..,---. ,-, '7-7",'' • ":.- : • 21
• .7 . I.
.•;.... .,-)
\ • ,,,/ (.-1 1„- , '''• — - ',..
I ' :) .,i. ,i .) 7_.,.....:::,,,lij, i , i ,._-,. ), L
..... L.) .
> ,
_ , 1‘ .1 . ) '
...... ,i, , .
-
•
, ;' • ' 'r---1 . •
,,,...-_-_--/=\[ .1- .,;) -- j,..r
i • • ,1 ,t{ V ,
, .L.)-- A \ ' -.S -1
14 \ .-_, ....\,.. ,,,- •-..._,, ---,, -`\,'\• .--.- -
, \ A. • \-- . '"1,-,.. s• ',•-• 'l* ' 0
• -% -y_.-...L. ___, 1- \ 'tt• -' ,• '' •
; ' ' • - - •- '1
1?..,.; --. . . • ; :___, __ .1, ( ''''' • ;. :11\V,;;:i. , . ) j-.____-'::\' I' -.'‘ :.'21'
: • '-,,_,- .. ; r4.• i:*.
' 1 `.-'; ',:"‘ " - .
1 i j-- I : •
1 iiiiI. '
:,--,-- ,\
• - 1 '..5,
IT-
\
'I
-1,
. •
•
•
I I
ii(?.,..,.:,--.-- i:, : ,(- ..
(7,' ..,..iii''s.,,,.\-,,.)-......:-...,.,-4,.:,.!•, --'',
1 ,... .; . ..;,; ..- , ,, •_,
1 i.-:_,-, ,•,.,-,-- 17 -.
: • ,'
— 77:-&-,::„.- .,- 1 .' id ly, \C nt\ ? i ,`.,:'',' ''('-, '•-••-:•-•
' - . ',1)(,•,-) •I• V.-- 1 - 1,-,-:- -- ,
.
-• ' ' ..''' ' T-:-.77-. )' , / ) f _ . . .
. • •
55
7-
:-±.
f ,
1 ., N-1, S,
-`'--- --A:1 -
,‘• • \,--, )1. tO(Y)'-' *N-: 1 1:\• •,,,,,•
.4_. ,?, , I?
K. .1
::
/ 1
- '
n
• ,
1:- 1
•
. d •
.1"
1
• 111/
.".
. ))
'(
, •
'
1 t.
)?J
t
',,./. .. ...S ,- •f'--‘- ---).... .\ -''. )' -1 •, )' ....1\ '. \1, ,.".•,)'\". ,)-,• 1- - '_-1 , . .'1Y) ' :
: 1.
•
: L . C\f ,, \•,- ' I, „ (1J! , -/
''''\I ) I, . 1, ;,s:',.t•,cc"• , •':, .. ‘, 11
•
,....,.• ••,: ',/„---Uin,-.), \'• `
• :. t: , ,
, .. L.i
—y1l,_•1,\1._.i./,."0• _
i) (i1)S
-:•),•,:
i 1.) ' ' :1.:; ., ,',. .-•'7-!::_;W:--..-1--
t• //,.'[..... (,-. )T4 jr ' .
••,
..saik:C\1+05 i f
I ' ),
) 1 -
77-,....... •".-. ' 4°1 ' . . '; i ( ( •:'
\ 'rr,- - • 1 ; ;'. i ..
(3\\\ n.--. --„.....l •\ . i 1„..,i..-0,-,,,,----/1. _ i "_)
1.- - i' ---g--f:,,('-1..;.,:-_,..7.—:(-_-..,
11•
,), ',(„,.• _. n :; ^a• 11
,
III -._ ,
,
i, -,,fi
-
_—,----
1 I \ - ritsi lI
.1,,ETE- 1 1
l"---------:7:‘ _\, •-•
•
2;J
‘4, AR Er.
414
..,
- - ' -a; ' '15 • • . ...______
I - •. ,:-- — -7,--,-• 1 • 5- • 5 , r ' - - -
7_./ t7,
' - I, 1 ..-/
. ____, . ..._ ... ,-,-,-.::-.s. : • \.1 . • -,. - .. _ __,- --'.',
r
•. 5
' / \k ‘ • ', ' . •
,5(-- . , ----
/'-' ,' , . _ •„:',41.-J
_ 13, • :.:1-: ..•-,_ I
\/ ...,-.--,--.1-.:-. .•;--,:_,J .•,- • ;-'
....• --r-:..{, ....._•:), ./-•__I-: • '
//ri-
,,-.:-.:7 -->.-- • • \),,- ft-_,- f.,----
,/,/ ' • /..- --ii •.' . ,r l'it=',--'•.,•' '.
ClUe TR t-
NGINL-CRING
• t,
a
. •
-74-4*- DI rite* bf‘ tic now
s._.
/ • - - _1\
- .
(
8 '
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEEFIING, INC. c...Eibr\n, s le,c-mv,E-7,1(3fs)
923 COOPER AVENUE C.)) )p,rs,
GL.ENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 1307 • -1.0) II/1( 0P-15 2CX)0
(303) 945-8676 • FAX (303) 945-2555
77,ortstritorIn. .771, 411.111,=4.1•._