HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 PC Staff Report 01.10.1996PC 1/10/96 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, R91W 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: 0/S South - East - West: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE 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. H. 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 trave es the southern and western portions of the property. See vicinity map, page 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 vaiy between 2.1 and 5.7 acres, with approximate, net density of 4.3 acres per dwelling unit. The applicant has proposed 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, Tots 1, 18 and 19 have existing hones. D. Background: Sketch plan review by the Planning Commission was conducted in April, 1995, and Preliminary Plan review was conducted at the October, 199.5 meeting. The applicant withdrew the Preliminary Plan prior to a scheduled hearing with the Board of County Commissioners, has made adjustments and refinements, and is now back for Preliminary Plan consideration by the Planning Commission. 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 of23 G.P.M. and with adequate storage the well can adequately supply the proposed uses See letters attached on pagesy. /'' B. Garfield County Road and Bridge: Has not supplied comments, to date. 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 pro osed ccess trail through the subdivision. See letters attached on page . if . E. Colorado State Forest Service: Comments regarding wildfire hazard and mitigational steps that can be taken. See letter attached on pages17 F Garfield County Planning Commission: Minutes from April 12, 1995 meeting where Sketch Plan was discussed. See minutes attached on pages " 7.0. 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 for potential of necessity to be engineered. See letter attached on page U. 7 I. Burning Mountains Fire Protection District: Phase I` Recommended a dry hydrant be installed at the pond; Phase II: Recommended two (2) additional fire hydrants and a 60,000 gallon water tank. See letter attached on page 23 J Kenny Frost - Native American Consultant: Gives Native American and cultural clearance as no bove >round archeological sites were identified. See letter attached on pages K. Public Service of Colorado: Requests 12 to 15 foot front lot line easements for joint trench facilities; easeme -its 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 Tots 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 pupping 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 2741 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 fI 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) December 20, 1995, showing the static water level to be approx.mately ten (10) feet higher than when the well was tested, see measurements, page® . 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 2 . However, by all accounts, 1995 was an abnormal water year and it is dircult 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 remove the dissolved solids and excess turbidity. See water quality report, pages 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 I-Iealth 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% ofthe systems will need to be engineered. See percolation rate information, page 34 . 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, 1 I foot travel lanes and 2 foot shoulders. Strictly speaking, County subdivision regulations for rural access roads specify shoulder width of 6 feet. 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, all roads will be chip/seal surfaced and shall 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 variance to allow grades up to 14%. Although planned as an access road, this road would serve as a driveway for lots I0 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). 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 level, as defined by the "Highway Capacity Manual"). This model further estimated that Level of Service "A" would continue up to 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 area of the 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 to convey the stormwater runoff for these areas. See Drainage Basin map, page 31 In addition to the Ditch conveying the majority of stormwater off-site, a detention 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 staff's 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 ofthe 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. It appears that development of lot 12 may be constrained by these regulations. H. 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 industry and commercial centers. Recreation/Open Space: The proposed development include provision for access to adjacent BLM lands. 5 ..„ , 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 That proper publication and public notice and posting were provided as required by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 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 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. VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plan for Cedar I-Iills Ranch Subdivision, subject to the listed conditions: I . 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. 6. 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. 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. 8. That the applicant shall pay $200 per lot in School Impact Fees prior to the approval of the Final Plat. 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. g so 110/ \ \ k. WARE 17-71:4"'"") it \Its\ $.,„,.`c••• DENX1 11 , I?) R!. , I ;I' , ' 1 • I f 1 )11.V, • 11.1 ‘11Ni. )) ) • 1 .1,1 (I )‘ I. I 1, ) .1 f • -) • .. . ,s • 11 , ( c..s.:1 1' • ' • , , h,1 ( .. )t S I • IL (// • ( .I ( , 1;1 c:•-• : I•11 ( 11 AN1) ,i1'5 . - _-' ---:-."...__.._-___.__.. \_1__,i ,, 9" I'• L.... .,-, - .,_ ...----5 , (' -- 1 " -- I 1 / , ..,..,6(''I , - _%_1_ /_,,3/4 -7-•.-'....: -''`,'' I /.T\.T ---','\\ Il ItrI--i\--•,-..:.'.. ," .'•,.. ...r-7. ...- '.-.. . • ;veil,- 41'9 . - f _:./1.•:`.-* .L0' \ pi II ' !iii;pi Ail • . :------..7 . 1 \iH/- r- ' 2 -: v\ 1 \\ (' 11 51, c•i }/; ..11(C': sf-1 77::..-2//...\.' :I" ...'‘...'-... 1‘l'c''.6 . • li 1 hjt \ \t(";;.,.- . • .:„..j::.r..j... . \ ....'.. •,, \ • , ; .14 --- ---:-. " -T1 . , /11,- 1)N.., . If.'" :-'- -- '\ 0 ' ' I -... .,. iiiii.--:. ' 5 )1( '1( /. : ; • . (I( ' (' 1 1 L_6264';'( \A ,,._•.,\''Y'- :- 1.)\•,/ Et? I I' • \ • v ‘1.4,, I _ - • •I 011 • YOU • • • off VICINITY MAP *iv 9 rt. IL,. OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER I )ivision of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1.313 Sherman Si reel, Krion-111111 Deriver, Colorado 110203 ('hone (303) 866-15111 FAX 1303/ 1366-35/19 Mr. Mark Bean, Planner Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 80601 Dear. Mr. Bean: STATE OF COX, , r 10 41 . August 17, 1995 0 • Roy Rnnun Govenwr lames ti_ lot hhcarl rx0 ulivc hire( tett 1 ill 1). Simpson Slalc lnitinecr RE: Cedar Hills Ranch, Preliminary Plat E1/2 NE1/4 Sec. 1, T. 6 S, R. 92 W, and W1/4 NW 1 /4 Sec. 6, T. 6 S, R. 91 W, 6th P.M. Water Division 5, Water District 39 We are in receipt of your subdivision referral to subdivide approximately 77-1- 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 30-28-136(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. i . 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 our 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 30-28-133(3)(1), C.R.S., the applicant is required to submit adequate evidence that a water supply that is sufficient in terms of Mr. Mark Bean August 17, 1995 Page 2 quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to 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 945-5665. Sincerely, Jv?,4 Mr. Kris Murthy 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) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 STATE OF COLORADO December 1, 1995 ciL Mr, 995iL Mr, Eric D. McCafferty Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan NE '/4, Sec. 1, T. 6 S., R. 92 W., and NW Y , Sec. 6, T. 6 S., R. 91 W., 6th P.M. Water Division 5, Water District 39 Dear Mr. McCafferty: 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 #3. (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 #3 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. DEG 0a199, Roy Romer Covernui lames S. Lochhead Executive Director I lal D. Simpson State engineer Sincerely, C—� Steve Lautenschlager Assistant State Engineer SPL/JD/jd cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer James Lemon, Water Commissioner, WD 7 401. STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Perry 0. Olson, Director 606 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 November 6, 1995 Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Eric: REFER TO For INilrlli e - For 1'cohle I have reviewed the proposed covenants for the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision and I have determined that they do meet Division of Wildlife regulations regarding subdivisions. In addition, the Covenants sufficiently address DOW concerns I 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 sante values. Respectfully, k -0-)7(l, Y. Don Crane District Wildlife Manager cc: Norm Clasen DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swill, Vice -Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member • William R. Hegberg, Member • Maik LeValley, Member March 28, 1995 Mr. Dave Michaelson Garfield County Planning Commission 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Michaelson: r r i l i ,1.1 t 1785g (7-880) In response to your request for comments regarding the proposed Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision, I offer the following statements for your scheduled April 12, 1995, Planning Commission review of the 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 to 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 height 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 Lo 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 BLM-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 to 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 the 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:CO1423/1000/CEDARHLL.L'PR IN REPLY REFER "10: I United States Department of the Interior i 4 t I BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Glenwood Springs Resource Arca1' ti{`� TY 50629 Highway 6 and 24 P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado X1602 8300 (7-880) 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: 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. Norm 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 use 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 Jim Byers or Francisco J. Mendoza of this office at the address above or (970) 945-2341. Enclosures Sincerely, 041— Michael S. Mottice Area Manager 1. Map of access point to BLM land CC: Clasen -a- f)--(7? April 5, 1995 Dave Michaelson Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 CO1V FOREST SERV ICE State Services Building 222 S. 6th Street, Room 416 (;rand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone (303) 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 to 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 irnportant 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 at the head of drainages. -Remove all vegetation within ten feet of all str•uctr.rres. This area should be maintained 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 hie chances of a crown fire. -All lots located above the irrigation ditch should have a water storage facility accessible to fire department vehicles, with 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 Norm Clasen at the time of the site visit. Thanks for the opportunity to review his proposal. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please call me at 248-7325. Sincerely, Kelly Rogers Asst. District Forester cc: Burning Mountain FPD Norm Clasen •1 GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 12, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT Jim Snyder Herb Nelson Steve Anthony Dick Stephenson Anna Price Cheryl Chandler Stacy Ehlers Calvin Lee STAFF PRESENT Mark Bean, Director Don DeFord, County Attorney Dave Michaelson, Planner Meeting called to order. Roll call taken with John Foulkrod and Philip Vaughan absent. Carter Jackson and Bill Kight reported on the Open Space/Trails Committee. Mr. Jackson told the Commission that the Committee has developed a mission statement. Dave Michaelson told the Commission that the Open Space/Trails Committee will be submitting an application for GOCO funds. Don DeFord, County Attorney discussed the letter he has written to the City Attorney regarding the alternate route on Midland. The City Attorney and the City Council have told Mr. DeFord that the city plans on annexing the property that lies in Garfield County. Mr. DeFord's recommendation is not to act and discuss this further. Herb Nelson moved to table the motion until the next meeting. Stacy Ehlers seconded. Motion passed by voice vote. Public Meeting for a Sketch Plan Review for Southgate Subdivision, located north of State Highway 82, two miles south of Glenwood Springs Town Center. Applicant: Southgate I-1omesites Limited Partnership (Robert Chatmas, General Partner). Dave Michaelson entered the following exhibits into the record: a. Staff Report b. Application Mr. Michaelson summarized the project. The properly currently includes a single family residence on the western edge of the development, which would be excluded from the development plan. The applicant has proposed to develop eight single family dwelling units. The property would be accessed from a former BLM right-of-way which provides access to SH 82. Water and sewer would be provided by the City of Glenwood Springs. Review agencies comments included the City of Glenwood Springs, Glenwood Springs Department of Emergency Services, Garfield County Attorney and Division of Wildlife. Issues and concerns included soils/topography, including rockfall, debris flow, moisture sensitive soils, and overall mitigation plan, lot and block design, zoning, roads, open space and water and sewer. The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one year from the date of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission within this period, the applicant shall submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Division for review and comparison with the original application. Robert Chatmas and Dean Moffat addressed the commission and discussion regarding the issues of rockfall, annexation into the City of Glenwood when the property becomes contiguous, zoning of the property, density, upgrading of water line, access, fire protection, commercial versus residential development, and visual quality. Continents from the planning commission included roads, access, traffic, rock fall, legal liability, and wildfire protection. Public Meeting for a Sketch Plan Review for Cedar 1 -lilts Ranch Subdivision, located approximately 1/2 mile north of I-70 and approximately four miles west of New Castle. Applicant: Norm Clasen Dave Michaelson entered the following exhibits into the record: a. Staff Report b. Application Mr. Michaelson summarized the proposal. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 77.50 acre parcel into 17 dwelling units. The application and mapping also included an option parcel of 39.9 acres with eight dwelling units. The applicant intended on developing the two parcels together and having one homeowner's association. Access would be from a single roadway off of CR 214, with total cul-de-sac length of 3675 linear feet. The option parcel would be accessed from an extension of a cul-de-sac. Water would be provided by grouped wells and sewer by ISDS. Review agencies that have commented on the development included Division of Wildlife, Garfield County Attorney's Office and the Bureau of Land Management. Issues and concerns included soils/topography, lot and block design, zoning, roads, and water and sewer. Sketch Plan comments are purely informational. Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one year from the date of the Planning Commission review. if a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission within this period, the applicant shall submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Division for review and comparison with the original application. Norm Clasen addressed the commission and discussed outcrop, alignment of the trail, fencing, easements, drainage, covenants, access, wildlife migration, water wells, grouped wells, cul-de- sacs, building envelopes, deed restrictions for the park area, Herb Nelson commented that supposedly there are Indian burial grounds and artifacts on the property. He suggested that the applicant meet with Kenny Frost and discuss these issues. Other comments included culverts, drainage, ditches, fencing along the ditches, traffic, road impact fee issue, mitigation to several areas of CR 214, and cul-de-sacs. Don DeFord told the applicant since he is going to use the grouped wells, they qualify as central water system and at Preliminary Plan will have to have the design to meet County standards and easements will have to be shown for the systems. Mr. DeFord recommended that the applicant start working with the State Water Engineer regarding the wells and the system. Public Meeting for a Sketch Plan review for Petts/1-lolmes Subdivision, located approximately seven miles northeast of Carbondale. Applicants: Robert Pelts and Cathleen Holmes. Dave Michaelson entered the following exhibits into the record: a. Staff Report b. Application Mr. Michaelson summarized the project. The property is located along the Eagle County/Garfield County line, south of Coulter Creek. This parcel was part of a subdivision exemption application presented the Board in 1994. The applicant has requested an exemption to allow the division of an 89 acre parent parcel into four parcels of approximately 72.6, 7.5, 6.7 and 2.3 acres in size. k. 5TATE OF COLODO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Dcl»rtrnenl of Natural Resources 1 313 Sherman Slrcet, Roost 71.5 Denver, Colorado 110201 I'hone (303) 1166-261 1 FAX (303) 1166-2461 September 6, 1995 SEP .1 i 1995 .. •li Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 GA -96-0002 )Et'ARFMIEN f 0) - NATURAL RESOUfZCES Roy Romer (.;Qv( -fn) rr limes 5. Loehhead Exec -Wive Dire( Inr Mic Wel 11. Long Division I)irec for Vi( Id Cowart Slate (;rotnl;isl and Dire( lur Re: Proposed Cedar I-Iills Ranch Subdivision -- West of Newcastle and North of Peach Valley Road (C.R. 214), Garfield County Dear Mr. Bean: 1. At your request and in accordance with S.B. 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 sand and shale bedrock of the Wasatch Formation. The area is on the south side of the Grand I-Iogback 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 strrongly 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 Mr. Mark Bean September 6, 1995 Page 2 below it are not destabilized by excessive infiltration ol surface moisture. `1'he 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 cerely, 2�T /la nes M Soule engineering Geologist November 15, 1995 Mr. E►ic IVIG:Caller ty Garfield County Planning and Zoning COnn►►►ission 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 RE: Cedar Hills Ranch (214 Road Gar field County) Dear Eric: We have met with lop esentatives of the Cedar Hills Subdivision and have reviewed their p►oposal to phase the fire protection water supply for the Cedar Hills Subdivision. The first phase will provide 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 detail of the hydrant that will meet the needs of the Burning Mountains Filo protection district. Burning Mountains Fire protection district wator supply needs for phase two of the Cedar Hills Subdivision will be met through the use of the existing dry hydrant and two additional fire plugs connected to the 60,000 gallon domestic water tank as 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, 1 1 , '12, (13 open space), and 17. Thank You, z Donald L. Zordel, Fire Chief Burning Mountains FPD rroslt; Native. 1rriericu1. Cortiati[twit; P.D. Lio;x. 1257 (fer ipootf. Spri.ri s, Co[ornr.[o 01602 tri August 20, 1 995 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Commission 109 8th street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81 602 Dear Mr. Bean: therodaueloR The proposed Cedar Hill sub -division is located just north of county road 214 in the NW 1 /4, Sere. #6 of T. 4'6 S., R. 91 W of the 6 p.rn. NEI /4 of Sec. 1 T.6 S., R. 92 W. of the 6 p.m., in Garfield County in the State of Colorado. A surface resource inventory and Native American consultation for the project was conducted by Kenny Frost, Native American consultant and a member bf the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. The purpose is to aid in the identificcation of any 1,Jative American sacred sites and/or any archaeological sites. The proposed Cedar Hill sub -division area survey 13 located just north of C.R. 214 with an approximately 5700 feet in elevation. This parcel of land totals approximately 77.5 acres and privately o... ned by Mr. Clasen. As there are no newly constructed road or trails within the 3urvey area, primary disturbance in the area are carne, trails made by animals. b YC�Q/ OL'i /if rrfiZ5't jr'i;7 This area in and around the proposed Cedar Hill :sub -division is a,ithin the heart of Ute Territory and was used as camping area by the Utes in the spring and winter months as they tr=aveled across the Flat Tops 1n the Summer. Farming were some of the activities that took place in the late 1000's to present. The field survey ,;;•as conducted by myself, Beth Giles, an archaeologist, and Mr. Norm Clasen. The terrain has small hills, plants such as j uni per, native grass and sage brush can be found on the survey Site. 0 t-te the. ground ;.:11.11.1 'Altura! :lei beef, 'Jr....est for appt-civ..7,1 on the. liedat- no uou Finu ple.a:,.)r . feel f ree. to c_..:911 roe :It the number li.E..ted on the fir.3t page of the re nO r t . i rel u r , fi t MEMORANDUM TO: SUBDIVISION REVIEW AGENCIES FROM: MARK BEAN DATE: JULY 31, 1995 RE: CEDARS HILLS RANCII PRELIMINARY PLAN R I VERBEND 111.1 N(; 115 AUG 0 3 1995 II I GAFF =1 D C.O(kfl-Y Enclosed is a copy of the CEDAR 1 TILLS RANCI I AND RIVERBEND FILING #5 PRELIMINARY 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. In order to have your comments meet the statutory requirements your cbmmenIs need to be received by this office no laser than 21 clays after your receive this packet. 1 appreciate your help. 11 you have any questions or concerns about this submittal, please feel free to give me a call. /1LL 3_S� 70 1 21G LJr J.3 — J)l co,l r P,-! L 1 k_ r_) L/T/Lir/ .s,Nsir- CI i,,L,t1,ij0LJ ,-1 fit) L./7 t,,r/ �!✓.1�J C J SS' 1C1 S_ -72v3 C—tISiZiM.JLS Lc' 114 _t3uitn_ bk.' /.7-1.: Lor _AL✓A A. 3- LL //Ju �.i�S �I-l3iv%S d' L026.- -26- CEDAR HILLS RANCH WELL 3 DR W1OWN vs TIM m (1) LL co ca CO Total Available drawdown (17°)IM OuANVHCI 8 r1 o c, I ri 8 8 oU OM) NAA.00IAA.VICI 8 LU 1 _U 8LL 8 TABLE 1 CEDAR HILLS RANCH WELL //3 PUMPING TEST DATA DA 1E LIME WAJEr1 UMW 10 -Jun -85 LEVEL DOWN 01:58 PM 73.17 1 r I!1' 16 -.1w) -R5 0 0 Q 01:57 PM 10 -Jun -RS 79.13 0 U OI:50 PM 1 10 -Jun -95 h1 60.75 7.0 23 GPM 01:59 P 2 i6 -Jun -05 © 0.3 23 GPM 02:00 PM 3 10 -Jun -R5 01.03 0.7 23 02:01 PM 4 10 -Jun -05 02.13 p 0 23 02:02 PM 5 10 -.Jim-R5 02.33 8.2 23 02:04 PM 0 10 -./011-05 02:00 PM O�.SO 0.3 23 0203 0 10 -Jun -R5 0.5 23 02:00 PM I0 10 -.tun -95 02.71 0.5 23 02:11 PM 03, 17 12 10- Jnn n;, 10.0 15 23 02:1n Ph1 10 - Jun 95 02:20 PM R3 1 7 10 0 20 23 GPM l0 -Jun -95 03.42 10.3 23 02:36 PM 03 42 30 10 -Jun --0510.3 40 23 05:30 PM lo-•hnr--n0 00:00 PM 03 00 10.4 220 23 17-,hrrr-0 5 03.03 10 5 23 10.55 AM 424 03.50 I() 3 23 1250 23 CEDAR HILLS RANCH WELL //3 RECOVERY TEST DATA 1)41r= Wn1E(1 DrIAW LEVEL DOWN 1 17--Jun-95 10:50 Af.1 17 -Jun -95 03.50 10.3 1 1/t' 0 10:57 Am 1201 1200 0 17 -Jun -R5 77.13 0 GPM 11:00/h4 2.0 1204 1 1211.0 0 17-Jrr-05 76.17 11:01 /1 h1 4 310.0 0 17 -Jun -R5 74.03 1.7 1205 11:03 AM1 .5 1287 17-J00-05 74.07 263.0 0 1 1:07 AM1.3 1271 7 101.0 0 17-J011-95 74.42 11:17 AM 0.8 1201 1 1 ltb.6 0 17 -Jun -9,, 74.00 11:27 AM 21 73.03 OI.0 0 0.7 1291 31 41.6 0 1✓ ZCif .or JIaL�r,.0 U) 6' a) CD f') Erse Ll 0 r- -• 3 _3 c 11 1 0 ion !� 1 e 1 II R ."s`..,",;,]',111;,;',"", 341 SNOTS IA IO USI s 1 i i 1 1 oz 11 11 Received from: Customer No. JOHN G. KEPIIAR"I' & CO. 435 NORTH AVIINUE Cil Li111 • PIIUNII 242-1(110 ANALYTICAL Illii'(MR'l' Zancari 1 1 a Lv A,,;1-1(- Y Glenwood Spr i is-; , C(1 (970) 9`15-5700. 6/20/95 Date Received Lab,Rnumber :75702 amply; IU Clasen Well (;(,l'.l l f11 d Cty (. .- Juno 17 190!-) Lu111:r, • GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 111501 3702 wCI l cyr Laboraluly No. _ Samplo rsenic(As) Barium(Ba) cadmium(Cd) ;hromium(Cr) 1'.iaox'ade (r) L"ead'.(Pb):. er, cury (Hg) itrate(N) Sel'enaum(Se) ^ilver;(Ag) blor(Co/Pt unit) Concuctivity@25 (leg. C odliurn(Na) alc]um(Ca) Magnesium(Mg) ;ota'ssium(K) hioride(C1) Sulfate (SO4) Pheno , A 1)c<a 1 :i n i ty (CSI C0 A1kaiiniLy(CaC031 iCrarbonuto(1'1003) Carbpnate(CO3) is'olved: Solicls rdne s (CaCO3) Turb id'i ty.(NTU ) r-(orpnB) pper'(Cu ) on'( -Fe') Mangenese(Mn) lybdenuln (Mo ) nmania (N) Phophate(P) pa(go L ()t ., 1. al, 1) Dsto Reported 0/1/95 Lcjr 111 111I<1 n0 >11c1r!(!r;t ed 1>y 0/.10. ri ,111.. 0.00 : t rilci /'1 i (. (15 Init / 1 (I (1.1 Inc!/il 1 O 1110/ 1 ()jinn(' ri 9 /i l 01.0(1.1 I. (1 1 1'14'1 / 1 0.00A u1c1 / 1 (1.05 MQ/1 2.71 mu /.,1 '0.001 09/1 0.(1';'15'=11 0.00000 mq/..t (1. (102 'mq/.I 4.7 mu/1 1 0. O mcl / 1 0.000 p'!rl /•.,l n.01 9 / I (I .05 md/1 0.0000 )l gA1 (1 no o L t 1 c .1 a l 1.1'(1 i 1:. 7 no nff ic-ia 1 ililii. 1,1011 111'1110:.1/c:i no r -,i L1(:icr 1' mi t ;t.11l 1119/.I --- 2(I mu/1 7 Ifiti/ I r, ' i L1 0;1 is 11 (11 t., Ir o /, t 125 m9/1 1 5.7. 1111(/ I no oC11c16 1 11111 1. I ii 9/.1 2170 1119/ 1 21-;9 mg/1 0 tiOl/.1111,' orrlc.101 1 11111. nim r, ' I e l' :I c:1 CI I 1 1 1 u 1 t `ill l mu/1(.� 1 11 L1(1/1 111-. 1-. 1` I I c: 1 u 1 1 11(11 1. (1 riul/..1 nn (>(=r1r.1��I 11111it. 1 0:31 m0/.1 5001 111g/ 1 l,; uric/,1 200 1l I / .1 I-', - 1 0.0(10 mg/1 nn or t i c:l a l I Hil l t, (1.11(1.1 lti9 1 1 . 0 mg/1 (_1.0(1 111(1/,1 (1. 3 1111/ 1. 0.0 I 5 mg/.1- (1 . (15 mgt./ 1 0.015 11:1(1/.1 • no C,l•ric::ic1I 1 IInti1'..: (1,Al ul(I/.1 110 of 1:i01 ii 1 IIn) l•.' 0.09 u11 1 / 1 r1 c:i i.., I. r.1 1 Et 1 1 11111 1' ,. i1.(it 11 1,0;1,1 5.9 11.1/1 1( f<4.' JOHN C KJET 'ART & CO. • \CTI 1111/11- _ 433 NORTH AVENUE PHONE 242-70NI GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 ..• • • Sample water ANALYTICAL REPORT .Z.d TIC d nci cs o e Rocalvocl from; T. 1,cdislc, PO box P.J00/100!.., Glenwood SpirdngEt, CO 81602 Customer No. IaboraimyNo o/20/95 patoRecolvM 0/1/P5 DatoRofmried I , , ) .';Srfi 'e.t)1 e 3792 ) •4 1),1-5,01c.1 11(1 '. WEt:1: e.l'',..1_,:illii t s .-,,•,...,.!, 7,-...,..., CI a:3s.:-Jrs Wi,., 1 '1!' ! • . triet by Colo. DerIL: Garf its Id Cc;unty. HealLh June 1',.. 199!) I ..Herbicadef-..1: 2,4-D 2,4-5TP TestIcides: Endr n La nciane: • Methoxychlor Toxaphene 0uul mc)/.1 mc1/..1 < (1 0 I < CI 0 II s."..0,0(141 .00_1 U.1 mq./1 (1, (11 mc(/ H.0002 -111q/1: 11. 0114 .; .1114/ 1: .1 . Mg,/1 0.1.105 ,III4/1 1 • s •••....; ,', - ;..,.01;';:.-'• . , ...i,'.' ..i,;*. •,;',",i•tir.;',',.. . , :`.f,', ::•':','..' •-•u;''• ,t'l • ,' ,; •,,,., . • ' .''Cr;.•,• . • , )1' •1.1 • : • • • .A,1,t, Limitcli given are from C1 rII., ),-,1) tt,.(jift',4,1Hil 1li Dr j • WEteY Reuulationo, 1991 1,1Hi-An4 "1 ;)fl r.hon" (none,. N46'FI .••• Direct:or:, El: Bauer' :COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 'INORGANIC CHEMISTRY LABORATORY .4210 E 11TH AVE. DENVER, CO °0220 (303)691-4726 '172 DATE: REPORTED BY: SAMPLE NUMBER: 95301 ('1"/SIG ". SAMPLE DEECRIPT;OH: GRAND JUNCTION LAE\ NANCY BAUER ADDRESS : 425 NORTH AVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 COLLECTED BY: Z \N'C 3743 DATE SAMPLED: / / DATE RECEIVED: 07/0C/'S £CTT__3: 2 250M TYPE: 7 COMMENTS: ANALYSIS RESULTS ALPHA EFTA SOLIDS, TOT. 65 1 4 1300 MCL = MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LE`/EL MSL = MAXIMUM SUGGESTED LEVEL NLE = NO LIMITS ESTABLISHED EAL = EPA ACTION LEVEL PCi/L pCi/L mg/L COUNTY: PONE : 08/09/95 JRS• 3032427618 L:),IITS L'.CL=5 J pCi/L pC1 / L HAZEN Zancanella & Associates Terri Lance P.O. Box 1908 Gl erwood Springs CO 81602 Hazen Research, Inc. 4601 Indiana St- • Golden, Colo. 80403 Tel: (303) 279-4501 • Telex 45-860 FAX: (303) 278-1528 REPORT OF A!LALYSIS SAMPLE NO. I58/95-1 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: Clasen Well 3 in Garfield County 08/31/95 @ 1700 by Samuelson Pump Co. PA RA,T. R DATE September 28. 1995 URI PROJECT 002-96D IIRI SERIES NO. I58/95 . DATE RECD. 09/05/95 CUST P.0 -p None Rec'd DETECTI04 A'IALYSIS RESULT LI1�IT N_:ir2g G SI. LZE E sala Gross Alpha(-Precision*),pCi/1 (T) 29(i2) Gross Alpha(+Precision*),pCi/1 (T)*** 5 Tit 3 E 900.0 09/20/95 LD Gross Beta(+Precision*), i/1 (T) ( ) 3 EPA 900.0 PC 0(+14) 20 09/20/95 t� Uranium.mg/1 (T) EPA 900.0 09/20/95 LD Uraniun.pCi/1 (T)** 0.035 0.002 AST1i D2907 24 1 09/26/95 AS111 D2907 09/26/95 82 RP CODES: (T)=Total (D)=Dissolved (S)=Suspended (R)=Recoverable (PD)=Potentially Dissolved <=Less Than By: Robert Rostad Laboratory Manager *Variability of the radioactive disintegration process (counting error) at the 951' confidence level, 1.96 x sigma. Certification Authority Lab ID's: US EPA Region VIII - CG; CT - PFI -0152; KY - 90076; NH - 232895-A; NY ELAP - 11417. ***Excluding Radon and Uranium. **Uranium results reported assuming the activity of natural uranium is 6.77 x 107 Ci/g. r 3 Received from: Customer No. .. Date Received Sample J r, ti JOHN C KEPHART & CO. JXJ 435 NORTH AVENUE 10/18/9` Nitrate(N) Nitrite(N) Ni trate+Nitrite (N) Antimony(Sb) Selenium(Se) ^a it PHOT, C 212-7618 • GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 8I501 \N,>,LY1ICAL REP(.R1 Zancanella and Associates T. Lance PO Box 1908/1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 !_aburatory No. ___00 33 Date 12cp"rtc,1 0037 Clasen Well 3 Garfield County Oct. 17. 1995 C)•"'(_' me/1 <0.01 mg/1 0.20 mg/1 <0.001 mg/1 <0.010=' mg/1 Sample Method D3867-908 0387-905 D3867-905 EFA 200.9 03859-93A Water 10/29/95 Date Tested 10/23/95 10/18/95 10/23/95 10/23/95 10/23/95 Beryllium(Be) <0.001 mg/1 � anide(Crd. EFA 200.9 10/23/95 Free C �' ) < 0. 002 mg/1 1 SM45OOF 10/23/95 Nickel (Ni ) Thallium(T1 ) <0.001 mg/1 <0.001 mg/1 FPA 200.9 EPA 200.9 10/23/95 10/23/95 ASBESTOS: NFL* NIOSH 7400* 10/23/95 NOTES: "<" Means "less than" (none was detected, lower limit of detection is given) . References are: SH = "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," 19th Ed. , 1995. EPA = "Methods for •the Chemical Analysis of Water and Nantes," 1983. "D" Methods from ASTM "Annual !Book of ASTH Standards." *Asbestos by phase contrast microscopy, modified NIOSH 7400 method; NFL = million fibers >10 microns per liter. Director: F+. Erauer — ` s. r - 1 -CAA-Tlk Jj\ f19/ -t)F:vt.tE50/ ,• , _ _ . - . I/ 0.7 1 --•- \,`, `‘.. \\ - --=i-- f)11' I ty •-Ci-.\ - 't \•- '-. '-:•• ...\-- [.....,'• :1 I III, .' \ :--z•- \\--,'./{/ , \\ •s_ ,/(cls (/ ;-•- \- - ?):q•9 -11 C -\.t\ ‘:`•--;.:,--)i 34.1 ry•rwunc..,fl r • (,/ :--,-;,,,(4' . ) VI \\ 1.1' ,r-z57i:r4,,/i ... ,- l .., -‘ \\\.:' I , (,'(/ /, ,,'P - • ' ' ' -1),) ) ., ,)). 1 / / / ,-- ( ( .---,4 -,-- -------_-"? 11 \111 k11.(. T4 y ( . ••• .--,, • 0,, v, ? ,\ -_ : . /?,,,ii , ,t, \,,\.,_...,.......,... •:: --.-. .-:,_ \ •__ ...I 1 ) ?I (/'rj-,_,L . \ \ ‘• •\• - .-- ---- • - • ) (‘, ' ... ,/ . -1 \\,• \ ,/,.../,..„_.•• \\\\ : --, -\ , - _....___•- , •-. i - 4 .------ --,\ ) \ , • ,/, -. 10 .. ,_...,,, ,- .\ ,.,. ,.. _.::„.,.,,„:„. .. , .; ..,... , . , --„ ...-....... ----....:,:-.2. . :'......:-.,-_,—.-__,.....:-.,......„_-_;,....,, .. — ,--,..,-;•__i_-_,::::-..)---„,_ --2--)._ (1,-,` I . )1 , X 5623 0 ) ///, • / : Rv - • _ 5594- t \ • -•," ' • ( \' 9 \ • r •I Ws \ \\,.„\Ssoi 3./ 5597.2 5588.1 5581 0 X c).14 r ,./ - so , • -.---_:-.7_-_- ( • --- ) , --- -- - _,,,,.t....; 2 • - •• ri..,,...,r''),_-: - -(N-. • Pf'- - - . .....„-_,..n,( _ . 7.17-71- \ \ • ‘ , ) ' ( (i H, ,.--15- ..‘», ' s._.., :L....... .: .i_. - _.----:::-_-=\ )) ',' , ) --.../i ;-- , = . ..,,,_:- .- _.--....= , ,-,. .. 1 (:1-(7.--, < `,- . E :1.1443 '\ '-.----__,• i /- t \----, ' ..'" ..--- -:,,•,. ,_ r / .- . . ,.11, /.. .:- • ;,)-). . ,1 ( , 1' V ... . •• .."- ': -, _ >i (1 / t:;-..---:—.\. . • . ) , , , )‘ \ ( • - \'•:)(i) r. tf \ \ - ' '(••.' . ---"-T-.,?,--:_,-,..______'_i ---,--' ''''\,' • - ' '• `,... '-.. . „ J --I- '-'1''''-'). .i ',1.._ /- ",....\\'• „...,,,i • ._ :....,....;:, -••,, ' , i . -... \ ,:. „ ) ) / / ' - , • \ • ) ( .• . 1 s, / /,•1/ 1 ‘) ) //I :.. : '. • . 2 I . ,.. c--, 2. _ ,,, ', ///: ,,•:"(, . yr /...,,- // . --. X".. .--:-‘._ ./• / -' \ \ ' ‘\ ---- -- ' 4.- \ , • \11(1 ,_, - • ---...•-•-•,,• - .._:_:•:...--,7i,„;-___\\ f ( ...'-.)1,„1 AL,•, --' • .----- , s,-----'/./. ( I .( ..---- 7----- ---,- i' k ' ) ./. /0/7 I) ) ' , C., .. ,^ .--. /. ) I ) , • . ,1,1 , _ . , . • 1( .,,, ../ I •• - --) .__ -."'S--:,‘ ' ))) 0 iii-kY 1. • ).1,,jVi' - '-'-'''''----.... ' -----• ' )1 \'•'\‘‘..: -- ._„:„:„,-;-- ) / --'1( . .. \ '••••=----_,--. // f/ ' ' ' ( ' 1 7 / / I / I• ; ' N • `-' `-'-' - - ,) ( N. .. ..1 .., ,. - ..... ) .,\ 2.....,':-' ••:' -1 • ''..:` \ .\ • . . __::.• ..-- 3 212,1, LI; ,.. . .,_ ',....` ' ,....,- \ '',‘•'- -•:..1---"-=-.--,--- .„--- , , ,4 i.:-.,. n, , . ----(:.„.._=-,......._..,,,,_„„,. (1 71 • ),--- - - ,----)\, _K • .1; /- MIMI A TY. ntrot, 3- 556 7.5 • CeAk 556.5.7// _ • 6, A.., 5551.Q ,31-. ( 1'5569 5 - #1 Lot 14 #2 Lot 11 #3 Lot 11 #4 Lot 13 #5 Lot 5 80 MPI, 86 MPI, 6 MPI, 68 MPI, 15 MPI. •-••••c, • • — 5 17 0 0 fl /, 6145 H. 71 I. • L ne, I/ 11 I ,ff 31 �. 6 0 I^� 22 l.. /// o,.i t<sn f 4 0 °,4/,7,177 )� 1 ' . I, -.I 4. ' /11 • L, I!' lam\\ B00 „r,14/ )2t-1 s? i ) %5902. 005 Sin1k J5600 ( • WARE • 1. 7o ENVER'- OU,I TRY NG/N££R/NG is n (110 GPANpE nG1 I)5 I' OW L I; -- . lam. /' 1 -// 1 • �1 _ (% ' _l� 737.7 55,10 '' 55// - D f r'"A i by -1 bc now • I _ ( - ":(g!=-Z— _ (g/ 5 I'mo, — - HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. C_Ehf\12 1-111..1.7) 923 COOPER AVENUE OAF=SITE I_>P,r-v„ GL.ENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 1`307' . 1 II/110/c I7, (303) 945-8676 • FAX (303) 945-2555 20001 rX91t'�m"'tJ.,µyX2 '/^. vra ?: +-L:4::et• i',t^n.Ap.,... ,YM,,. Cvi47S"3"�r.;iYRtlF�h r..;•,,w; Y.'Z'.T.:C1':T;4,47 5Gyi