HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 CorrespondenceUnited States
Department of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
2425 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
8160 1
May 25, 1984
Cynthia M. Houben
20L4 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Ms Houben:
I have reviewed the Deer Creek Estates Subdivision. It isstated on page 9 that the silt Punp canal Ditch runs through the
proposed subdivision. It is important to keep a right-of-way forthe ditch conpany to make repairs to this systen. Too many times
we have subdivisions forgetting about the irrigation canals that
have been in place for nany years.
On the same page the write-up refers to ponds that will be
used for retention. some method will need to be established to
make sure the ponds are maintained after the subdivision is com-pleted.
Erosion problems presently being caused by water running overthe sides of the ditches should be addressed before constructionstarts.
Sincerely,
^.?
-4/d*4
Stanley Woodyard
District Conservationist
SW/te
nu r
I
ii
i;
lri lyiti{ Z l tg84
o
u/|.i.. i i-r, e{,t. ptANNER
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
After review of the above
fo 1 1 owi ng commen ts :
GARFIELD COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945-8212
Cindy Houben, Planner
Ed Feld, Environmental Health 0fficer'3:
Deer Creek Estates Sketch Pl an
June 1, 1984
referenced subject, I present the
Page5andBinc
maximum dai ly f1 ow, wnot coincide is a 1.5used, al though requi rIndividual Sewage Dis
uncommon mi sunderstan
Although the applicant considers
i nterim method of wastewater di sposal ,time and any property owner should beand any repai r of thei r "own system".
cal cul ati ons of water and wastewater
do not coi nc i de . The reason i t doesor for wastewater calculation that was notSection 4.01C of the Garfield County
System Regulation. This is not an
and should be easily remedied.
I ude
hich
fact
ed by
posal
di ng
Page 8 includes a proposal to have two or more houses share0ne system. I would recommend against this situation as it willhave no effect on the size of the system(s) and any costdifference would be negligible. I recommend the applicantpropose an individual sewage disposal system be provided forevery lot (residence).
" septi c systems " to be an
"interim" could be a 'long
responsible for the maintenance
A written assurance of some kind should be provided that
abandonment of " septi c sys tems " be made when central co l ltcti onfacilities are provided by Silt after annexation.
P1 ease contact me shoul d you have any questions.
8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8I602
ccrLClIlAtr'o trIEPAFITMENT
Richard D. Lamm
Governor
CIF HEALT}I
Thomas M. Vernon, M.D.
Acting Executive Director
Mty 1t, 1984
Cynthia Houben, Planner
Garfield County Department of DevelopmentP.0. Box 540
Glenwood Springs, C0 BI5O2
Re: Deer Creek Estates Sketch plan
Dear Ms. Houben:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the sketch plan for Deer Creek EstatesSubdivision.
f am concerned with the request for future re-subdivision of each of theLots. ff the plan is for ultimate high density residential, sewers should beput in at this time. If septic tanks are to be used, the density should stayat the 5 acres requirement. The plans for the subdivision should be finalizednow, by the subdividor, and not left open ended.
If you have any questions, please cal_I me.
Sinc ere 1y,
I'oR DIRECToR, WATER QUAIITY CONTROL DMSION
JTr*,*?qEiT-nl
,u_ .iuN 11s84 i;i li
cAliFrrLD co. prnrlririlf
tu Biberstine, P.EDistrict Engineer
JCBldd
222 south 5th street, Room 2J2, Grand Junction co Bt5oL-27G8 (loilz+a-lvo
(c-e,*,;
RICHARD D. LAMM
Governor
2818H
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
'1313 Sherman Street_Room g1g
Denver, Colorado 90203
(303) 866_3581
June 7, 1984
Ivls. rynthia M. Houben
C,arfield County Plaruring Detrnrtment
P. O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, @ 81602
Re: Deer Creek Estates
Dear Ms. Houben:
We have reviewed the material submitted for the above referenced
suMivision. Ttre Ilown of Silt has been protrnsed as the source of water.
Unfortunately, we have no information available to determine the capability of
the Tlown. llherefore, we request that the Ibwn subrnit the following
inforrnation to you and this office:
t. A surmary of water rights owned or controlled by the Ibwn.
2. the yield of these rights bottr in an average and a dry year.
3 Itre present demand on the system and the anticipated demand due to
conrnitments for service entered into by the Town.
4. A map of the service area.
When this information is submitted for review, we wiII return conrnents to
the County. Until that time, we must ask that this protrnsal be held in
abeyance.
Sirrcerely,
fua A*HaI D. Siry>s6n, P.E.
Assistant State Hrgineer
li
. ' .,,J.,
HDS/KCK:ma
cc: Orlyn Bell, Div. E:9.
,)
$$P
cA-84-0004
afiJ}q',g
RICHARD D. LAMM
GOVERNOR
JOHN W. ROLD
DIRECTOR
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING _ 1313 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) S66_261 1
June 6, L9B4
Ms. Cynthia M. Houben
Garfield County Department
of Development
P.O. Box 640
100 8th Srreer
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
It*r *"a 4 ..,,,, , .
0AIF'Ii 0 c0.Pl
Dear Ms. Houben:
RE: DEER CREEK ESTATES, SKETCH PLAN
We have reviewed the narrative and sketch pJ.an for Deer Creek Estates near the
town of Sil-t. Geol-ogic and t,opggraphic conditions on this property are generally
unsuited to residential- development as described in the sketch plan document. The
area is made up of a complex of surficial--geologic materials and bedrock which
wii-l greatl-y affect safe devel-opment of the area. No geoLogic report of any scope
was included with the revi.ew materiaLs.
Some of the geol-ogic prob1ems on this property include:
1) Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are l-ocated on the floor af pit slopes of an
o1-d gravel pit. The materlals on the pit fl-oqr are not suitable for onlot sewage
disposal- (extremely rapid percolati-on rates in gravel), or the gravel has been
removed, exposi-ng the underly-ing shal-e or sandstone bedrock (al-so not sui.tablefor seruage disposal). In additionr the stabil"ity of the partiai-]-y, recLained pit
watrl,s and sl-opes shoul-d be eval-uated before placing residential- structures belowor on them.
2) Topography across the gulches and "Eesast' which comprise the subject, property
is steep; uany access roads and dfiyeways c(ossing 15 to 20 percent stopes are
shown. One 400 foot section of the roain proposed access road is shewn crossing
14 pereent sl-opes. Large cuts and fil.I.s necessary to create reasonable road
grades may be unstable due to the incompetent cl-ayey Wasateh Formation bedrock,
which outcrops all- al-ong the steep gulches which must be crossed to get up tothe mesa areas. Drainage and erosion of the steep slopes and roads has not been
adequateLy addressed.
GEOLOGY
STOBY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE
i,''
,j/
:: I
lillrt
{
:
.Al,Jt{Fft
a Ms. Cynthia M. Houben
June 6, L984
Page 2
3) tr'lindbloun sand and silt deposits which mantle the upper surfaces of "si1tEesat' are potentially hydrocompactive and could cause leachfield failure if
sewage disposal- facilities are constructed on these materials. Foundation damagecould al-so occur due to differential compaction and adverse settlement of theselow-bearing strength deposits.
4) Wasatch Foruation bedrock ls at or near the surface over a majority of thesite. As noted in the sketch p1-an narrative, many springs of irrigation-water
seepages occur in this area. Conventi-ona1- septic leach fields are generally notcomPatible wi-th the site geology, and could .r,r". improperly treated sewageto seep out along the gu1-ches, or along steep slopes below building sites.
Subsurface sehrage disposal could also cause slope failures by saturating clayey
bedrock on the steeP slopes in this area. No geologic report, or percolation testresults were presented in the review materials.
From the items noted above, it should be clear that this area contains significantgeologic probleus which the present development plan does not take into account.
We reconmend against the use of on-lot leach fields in this area. Connection tothe sewer system should be used at the outset of development. We also reconrmendthat the 22 Lots not be all-owed to subdivide further unless reasonable access tosuitabl-e buil-ding sites can be provided.
The type of subdivision proposed by this sketch plan may not be economicallyfeasible if geol-ogic and topographic constraints are to be adequately addressed.If this project is pursued as proposed, a detailed engineering-geologic reportshould be prepared by a qualified geol-ogist to address the geologic coneernsoutli-ned above. Due to the multitude of geoLogic problems associ.ated with thissketch p1an, and the present l-ack of a detailed geol-ogic report, we cannot
recorunend approval of this proposal. If you have any questions or require furtherassistance in this matter, p1_ease contact our office.
Si-nc
.<<_{O"".,-\
Bruce K. Stover
Engineering Geologist
vtP
BKS-84-014
EncLosure
.,
TOWN OF SIt?a
P.0. Box 174 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303)876-2353
t,}
t,Jurne 2On 19E14
Ci ndy Hor-rberr
G;rr-{ i eiI d Llor-.rnty F l anrri ng Depar-tment
F ll F-tc':< b4t-t
GI enwood Spr- i ngs " CO 816t)2
Dear Crndy:
l-ir-
JUN 2 2 i9B4
GIIflTIEL[) CO" PI.ANilE8
The Silt
develc:per'E
Jrrne 1 1th .
Board of
of Deer-
REF: DEER trREEK ESTATES
-[rutstees Iistened tcr a prnposal bv
Creek Estates ab the regutlar- mee'ting
tlre
ci{
At the conclursi.on o{ tegtimony. twrl rnoti.ons were presented
and pas;sed. The f i rst moti on deni ed tr:wn water to the
proposeri sr-rbdivi:;ion. The discLteisicln of the motion noted
that {:he tcrwn coltl tJ not mept the water neerds of Deer Cr ee[':
Estat-r.s wi thout e:.ltensi ve ancJ e:.lperrsi ve addi ti ons atrcl
:;af eqltards to tlre e:r i sti ng system. Thecte i tems are Bt:
cost 1 y that the clevel. oper-s were not approached wi th a
pr-upros.aI ;\=, they have already stated tlra'E ttrey cor..tId not
meet the {i.rrancial r-equtirements.
Ttrer se,conrJ motion, passed utnanimouts,ly" cal led f or tlie
st.rbdivit;ir:n to meet .aI1 requirementg o{ a sr-tbdivi:;ion
local-ed wittrin ttre Town of 5i lt. l-he prcijetrt is within the
SiIt ar-ea of inf Iurence and is 1i.;terd irr the potential gr-owth
porti nn u{ the Si I t Cr:mprelrensi ve Fl.rn as rutral resi dent i aI .
I b. j. s obvi or-r$ ttrat the town bor-rndr i es wi I I EoJne day
En(:or1pass the arEa. Tlre developmentr aE proposedo is
=r-rbst-arrt i arl 1 y bel ow town standards.
I n ttie rnot i 6rn , the hoard i nstrutcted ttre admi ni strator- to
EE€t[,] compl iance with town ordinantres, in thiE matter. For
yoLrr irrformation. I have enclosed copies o{ 5:llt Drdinances
on Eubclivi.sions and the eoning that are appropriate.
F I eas,e l:: eep Jne i nf orrned of aI I acti ons on thi s m.qtter.
Si ncer-el y.
Bi l I f,repeaut
Acting Aclministrator
GARFIELD COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING i ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILOINGi 945-8212
October 9, 1984
Flr. GarY Berschauer
Post Office Box 883
Rifle, Colorado 8I650
Dear Gary:
My records show that the Deer Creek Estates Subdivision Sketch Plan was
reviewed Oy the Planning Commission on June 13, 1984. Section 3225 of the
Subdivision Regulations state that the Sketch Plan comments shall be valid
for a period of one (1) year from the date of the Planning Commission
meeting. Thus, you must proceed with the Deer Creek Estates apPlication
no later than,lune 13r 1985, if you wish to retain the comments made by
tfre Planning Commission in June of 1984.
I have enclosed a copy of the minutes from the June 13, L984,
Commission meeting. These minutes are your-record of comments
Planning Commission. Also enclosed is a coPy of Section 3225
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations-
P I ann ing
made by the
out of the
If you wish to discuss the requirements or any of the comments made by the
elanning Commission, please feel free to contact me at this office.
Sincerely,
Cynthia M.
DEPARTI\,IENT
Planner
Houben
OF DEVELOP}TENT
CMH,/vts
Enclosures
GARFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE I 09 8TH STREET. SUITE 306 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 8I 50I
PIANNI}IG OO.{MISSIONI MEETI}{G
MEI.BER^S PRBSENf COTJNIY STAEF PRESENI
Arnold I'tackley
Barbara Iorah
Allan Bowles
John TxiP
IaVerne Starbuck
Dennis Stranger, Dir ector
EVeIyn I"IcKay A)
7
({'
June 13, 1984
I!:e meeting was called to order. RoII call was taken with nale Albertson,
Dick Stepkrenson and DaIe l'lcPherson absent.
Ihe minutes of uarch 14 were approved witLr a change in text in @ftONvilCOD
HOLIOW, statement of Mr. Wafnei, a change in lrcation from Rifle to SiIt
in DER CREH( SUBDI\ESION, and one sSnlling change'
IaVerne Starbuck nnde thre motion of approval and AIIan Bowles seconded'
Itre motion carried unaninously-
Barbara Iorahr made a motion that the minutes of April IIth be approved
with AIIan Bowles seconding. Itre motion carried unanirnously'
of tkre DePt. of DevelPnnt
I'Iark Bean, Sr. Planner
Cindy Houben, Planner
Glenn Hartmann, Planning
Technician
Steve Zwick, Asst. CtY
Attny.
Eleanor Haring, Recording
Secretary
Barbara Lorah made a motion that tkre minutes of l4ay 2nd should be
until the tapes can be reviewed to determine if wording can be
regarding scfro-ot mitigation. IaVerne Starbuck seconded the motion.
l[tre motion carried unanfurously-
Arnold l,tackley made a motion ttrat the minutes of May 9th be approved with
tt a change ii spelling of two person's names in tkre RIFI;E BROArcASTING
audience corron ris. fVelyn l{cfray seconded the nption and it carried
unaninrously.
held
added
Gtenn Hartmann stated ttrat based on nunerous annexations to loca1
municipalities and zone changes throughout the County, ttre ugiating of the
Zone District Maps was undertaken. I{r. tlartmann said new or utrrCated
insert maPS havJ been developed for the municipalities due to the
annexationl. llc rezoning of @unty land is involved except where a
rezoning haSpened to occur on the same maP section. Where this is the
case, tf,e map was also listed appropriately under rezonings. tBdating the
*u1i"ip"t iniert InaPs required -bn{ extending the municipal boundaries'
ttew oultines for trre inserts were added to ttre 1"=1000' scale Zone
District IITEIPS covering the areas surrounding tLre municipalities'
Mr. Hartrnann shoioed the maps to the Planning Cormission anO answered
questions pertaining to them-
t1r. Ilartmann also noted that the maps were sent to all ttre local towns for
tkreir inspection.
Barbara Iorah made thre rrction to the Board of County @nrnissioners that
the inaps ac.curately reflect tLre rezoning and chan$es to municpal
boundaries and reconunend that threy be aSproved and adopted' IaVerne
Starbuck seconded the nrotion and it carried unaninously.
ADOPTION OF NEW AND T]PDATED C"ARFIE[.;D COUI{TT ZO{E MAP.S
ZOIIIIIG OF A PARCEL OF IAND SOLEH OF RTF'LE
Glenn Hartrnann stated that thre zoning was for a parcel of land south of
nirr.. this parcel is 1ocated in the sw v4 and sE L/4 l{tl 1/4, Section
15, T5S, R93W; bordered by t}e I-70 right{f-vray, County p5ad 320 and tne
aifle Rest Area Highway oepartnent property and consists of approxirnately
3L.42 acres, 7 lots with 6 properLy o$/ners'
-1-
Mr. Hartrnann said the site had no zoning classification under the C;arfield
County Zoning Regulations and ttris was due to confusion regarding ttre
extent of Riflers annexations soutkr of the Colorado River.
Mr. Hartmarun continued withr thre Site EscripLion, Project Description,
Review Agenc.y and Staff Conrnents.
l4r. ttrartrnann informed the Planning Corrnission that the property owners
r,.rere notified at least three rnonths ago and the response eras favorable and
from a site review it was evident that uses are corpatible wittr the
prolrcsed zoning.
Itre next action, I{r. ttrartrnann said, would be a public hearing before the
Board of County @nunissioners and the property owners luould be notified by
certified, return-receipt rnail along wittr all adjacent landowners.
A 30 day notice of ttris reeting will be published in the newsIEIEr.
EVeIyn l{cKay made the rption ttrat the Planning @nrnission certifies that
the unzoned parcel of land described in the staff packet be zoned to
Agriculturialr/Industrial zone district and Lhe Planning Conunission
CIrairman be authrorized to sign a certificate, witfr the Assistant County
Attorney being directed to draw sarne for the sigrnature. the rnotion was
seconded by laVerne Starbuck and carried unanirncusly.
DEER CREtsK BSTATES STJBDNISION SKEIEI{ PIAN
l{ark Bean inforned the Planning @nrnission ttrat this was review of the
Sketch PIan and there would be no motion of approving or disapproving.
Individual conrnents applicable to thre project will oe recorded in the
minutes and forwarded to thre applicant.
Qpthia Houben presented an additional letter to the Planning @nrnission
from the Colorado State C;eologicat Survey and one frqn ttre Division of
Water Resources.
tls. Houben continued that this application was for I22 acres to be divided
into 22 single family lots ranging in size from 2.5 acres to 19 acres.
tre proposal also requested that further subdivision be considered at strch
tifie a central wastewater disposal system is feasible. Frrrther
subdivision is described as 44 total lots on I22 acres. Ihe property is
located in Section 2, T65, R92l{; Iocated approxirnateLy 3/4 of a mile east.
of Silt, north of Highway 6 e 24 on Davis Point.
Irts. Houben gave infornration from the staff packet regarding relationship
to thre Comprehensive P1an, site description, project description and
Comprehensive PIan trrclicies. She then read ttre following Sketch PIan
Comrnents into the record:1. Zonirry/@ryrehensive Plq4:
a.The proposal lies within the ltown of Silt's t'laster Plan
bor.rndaries which indicate a desired rural residential
density of one dwelling unit per 2 L/2 acres.
Ttre protrnsal suggests further suMivision of the proposed
locs at such tine a central sewage system is feasjJcle. this
request should be in accordance with Section 7 of the
C;arf ield County SuMivision Regulations regarding
Resubdivision.
b
-2-
2. Access
a.TLre applicants propose to utrryrade @unty Rd. 2I8.
Presently, tkris is a non-rnaintained County Road andwill need considerable work to neet @unty Road standards in
terms of widtbr and grade.
b.Ihe road along the southerly boundary of the property
continues east from the County Road. (The @unty Road is
ot:.J-y L/3 of a mile in lengtLr. ) At one time, this riras the
old 5 & 24 R.O.W., however, it is unknown as to wtrethrer or
not the State still owns ttre R.O.W. there. It is trnssiblethat tie R.O.W. was abandoned and went to the surrounding
landowners. Etermination of the R.O.W. orrmership will needto be made prior to Preliminary Plan submittal.
c.fn a letter dated March 1, 1984 received from the Ttorrn ofSiIt, the Ibwn l,lanager rnade ttre following conunent: "Ttre road
of princiSnl access (C;rand Avenue) must be hard surfaced to
City standards. "
d. A letter received from the Town of Silt, dated l,tarch I, 1984
makes the following conmrent regarding internal roads for theproposal. "f,lis area shares many hazardous slopes andgrades. Irlo road grades should exceed 7* due to need forfire and ambulance services. "
e
f
h
Road intersections with lessshould be redesigned to
alignment.
thran lnrpendicular alignnent
provide near perpendicular
g
3 Water
a.
c
d.
e.
4. Sewer
b
Building enveloS:es requiring road cuts on slolns of 25t or
greater should be eliminated.
AIl ditch and drainage facilities should be located outsideof road right<f-ways, except for short perSnndicular spans.
The @unty Road Sulnrvisor has noted thrat the internal roadswitlrin the proposed suMivision crculd not be effectively
maintained through County maintenance.
Irown of Silt - A letter dated March 1, 1984 received from
the Ibwn of Sitt notes that "Ttris area would be best served
by town annexation and develotrxrent."
On l4ay 2L, L984t BiII Crepeau, Acting Iblvn I\4anager for ttre
Tlown of Silt indicated in a phrone conversation, that Deer
Creek estates would not be serviced by city water without
annexing to the town.
Prior to subrnittal of Preliminary PIat agreernents for water
supply shaIl be finalized.
the County Ervironmental Healttr Officer noted that tle
calculations for water and wastewater maximun daily flows do
not coincide in the application. A I.5 factor for wastewatercalculations was not used as required by 4.01C of theGarfield County Individual Sewage Disposal System
Regulations.
Fire Protection: Itre proposal does not include any waterstorage for fire protection purposes. Itris needs to be
addressed at Preliminary Ptan.
The County Brvirorunental Health Officer feels that ttre costdifference involved in the sharing of a septic system and
each Iot having itrs own system is negligible. In addition,
rtre Ervironnental rpalth officer noted that scrne kind of
assurance should be made that the abandonrnent of septic
systems take place wtren central collection facilities areprovided.
a
-3-
a.
b.
c
d.
5. Visual
c The County Ervironmental Health Officer has noted that if
developnent occurs on this parcel ttrere rnay be a need to
have individual septic disposal systems designed by a
Colorado registered professional engineer due to slow soil
percolation slopes and bedrock.
C.Colorado Epartment of Healthrs letter indicates that if theintent ot the subdivision is ultimately to have higher
density, then it rnakes more sense for central sewer to beput in place at this time and not left olnn-ended.
5. SoilsTTopography
the SoiI Conservation Service information suLxnitted wittr theSketch PIan indicates nroderate/severe limitations onportions of the property. Ttre soils retrnrt indicatedbasically 3 classes of soils in the project area. Ihelimitations section of thre soils report listed some
trrctentiaI problems concerning septic tank absorption fields,
dwellings and local roads and streets. Particular soilsalso limit develo;xnent by having a high content of stones
and having steep slopes. Ihe report also indicates that the
soils are easily eroded and run-off diversion structures are
needed for any roads constructed on these soils.
Itrere is evidence of erosion within tLre proposed subdivision
as seen on site review. tris should be evaluated further at
Preliminary PIan.
Ihe Soil Conservation Service made a comnent noting that ttre
erosion problems in the subdivision are being caused by
water running over the sides of tkre ditches. the letter
suggests that this problem be addressed before construction
begins.
Ihe application represents that geologic, soils and design
isues can be adeqr:ate1y addressed at Preliminary Plat.
Itre applicants propose to eliminate erosion and unstable
slopes, wLrere possible, through proper construction of the
roadways and tLre planting of vegetative cover.
a.A portion of ttre developnent would be highly visible fronthe 6 a 24 and I-70 transportation corridors. Arysignificant road and driveway cuts would be visible forquite sone distance when approaching the developnent from
the west. Building envelopes reguiring significant road
cuts should be eliminated.
7. Drainage
a Soils Conservation Service's letter indicates t]:e need to
keep a right-of-way along the ditch for ditch conpanies to
make repairs to this system. Itre prolrcsal suggests thatpords be used for water retention. Itre Soil Conservation
Service suggests that solne nrethod be established to makesure the ponds are maintained after the subdivision is
completed.
a
-4-
t
a.
10. C,enera1 Design
a. A portion of Iot 17, southr of the proposed road easement
snaU not be allorryed to have a building site. This area
shatl be legally defined and it shall be noted on subsequent
plats that no building permits shall be issued for this
area.
b. Consideration should be given to the reoesign of Iots I5r
16, 19, 10 and 2l Lo access off of the nrain suMivision road
thus eliminating the need for a cul-de-sac.
Dan Kerst, Attorney for Iandcor Inc. cl-arified that there grere no
inrnediate plans for iesubdivision and when the tinre came, thre applicant
would go through tLre ent,ire process again. !1r. Kerst stated that the
applicaits carunot get SiIt water and therefore witl develop a legal and
physical water Plan.
PLANNIIre CODIVIISSION C0I'IEI\IIS :
I. Ar Mackley that ttre applicant o<plore the possibility
of fencing the ditch easement.the concern is that the ditch
will lnse a hazard to young children.
2. Barbara Iorah said by Preliminary PIat there should be answers to
the Colorado Geological Survey questions regarding leach fields
and ottrer problems noted by ttre Ceological Survey.
3. IaVerne Starbuck stated that tLrere should be a more det'ailed
report regarding building envelopes on sites 10 & 22 at
Preliminary PIat.
4 IaVerne Starbr:ck said that re-evaluation be done on sites II & 12
regarding access and the need to fill in the ravine crossingr at
Preliminary PIat.
ADDITIO}JAL STAFF OVIMBII:
8. Easernents
Dennis Stranger said that there should be
Bureau of Reclarnation at Preliminary
abandonment of the easement on LoL 22.
The SiIt Canal and thre Ware and Hirds Ditch run through the
proposed lnrcel. Iib agreerents have been reached between-thi developer and the appropriate canal and ditch
authrorities concerning the easements. Prior to sukxnittal
of Preliminary Plat, all ditch, utility and access easernents
shall Ue aefined and agreed upon between the developer and
the appropriate entitY.
1 a letter frqn the
Plat concerning the
Ttre neeting was then continued withr discussion on tne protrrcsed revisions
to the Conprehensive Plan. It was decided that a special nreet.ing r^rould be
set for JuIy 18th to rnake cLranges to the docurent-
l'leeting adjourned
htd,"bJ-"a.
Barbara Lorah
Secretary
BLlemh
-5-
RICHARD D. LAMM
Governor JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
2BI8H
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street-Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-ss81
June 7, 1984
Ms. C\r/nthia M. Houben
Garfield County Planning Departnent
P. O. Box 640
Glenwood SPrings, @ 81502
Re: Deer Creek Estates
Dear !ts. Houben:
We have reviewed the material submitted for the above referenced
subdivision. The Tbwn of Silt has been proposed as the source of water.
Unfortunately, we have no infornration avliflUte to determine the capability of
the Town. Iherefore, we request that the 1bwn subrnit thre following
infornation to You and this office:
1. A sunrnary of water rights owned or controlled by the Ibwn.
2. the yield of these rights bottr in an average and a dry year.
Itre present dernand on the System and the anticitrnted demand due to
conrnitments for service entered into by the Itown.
4. A map of the service area.
When this inforrnaLion is submitted for review, we wiII return conrnents to
the County. Until that time, we must ask that this proSnsal be held in
abeyance.
3
Sincerely,
fu^ Z*
HaI D. Simpsbn, P.E.
Assistant State frrgineer
/
L
HDS/XCK:ma
cc: Orlyn BeIl, Div. ftrg.
qP,)
GARFIELD COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANNf NG / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945-8212
May 21, 1984 MAY 2 3 1984
woco - FtELo sEEVlcEs
Re: Deer creek Estates sketch Plan t €l'll?T[ftttfi3Llo"
Dear Review Agency:
Enclosed is a sketch Plan for the Proposed Deer creek Estates
subdivision. ttris proposed su6ivision is located approximately one mile
east of Silt off CountY Road 218.
This proposal is scheduled to go before the Planning conrnission on June
13, 1-984-. You are welcome to attend this meeting and present.your
;;,;*;;i" at this time or we would appreciate receiving any written
coirments you have no later than june 4th so that we can incorporate them
into our review for the Planning Cormnission'
If you have any questions, Please do not hesitate to contact me at this
office.
SincerelY,
&,1,^-t/-ut a77 Ob*-ba-
Cynthia M. Houben
Planner
CMH/emh
encl.
IOO 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 8I 602
cA-84-0004
A g$Lrt9
(0!-i'
RICHARD D. LAMM
GOVERNOR
JOHN W. ROLD
DIRECTOE
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING _ 1313 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611
June 6, L984
Ms. Cynthia M. Houben
Garfield County DePartment
of Development
P.O. Box 640
100 8th Street
Gl-enwood Springs, Co1orado 81601
i
I :.:l:i
*rr*"* A ,,,
JUIU L l i9B4
Fltin c0. PtAit!,iEQ
i
I
I
ii,i
$i_
c48
Dear Ms. Houben:
RE: DEER CREEK ESTATES' SKETCH PLAN
We have reviewed the nirrative and sketch plan for Deer Creek Estates near the
town of Sil-t. Geologic and topographic conditions on this proPerEy are generall-y
unsuited to residential- development as described in the sketch plan document' The
area is oade up of a complex oi surficiaL-geologic materiaLs and bedrock which
wil-l- greatl-y aifect safe development of the area. No geologic report of any scoPe
was included with the review materials.
Some of the geologic problems on this property incl-ude:
1) Lots 1 , 2, 3, 6, 7, g, and 10 are l-ocated on the floor or Pit slopes of an
oid gr"rr"1 pit. The materials oo the Pit fl-ogr are not suitable for onlot sewage
dispJsal-.(extremely rapid percol-ation rates in gravel), or the gravel- has been
remlved, exposing tn" ,roa.rlying shale or sandstone bedrock (al-so not suitable
for sewage disposal-). In addition, the stabil-ity of the partial-J-y reclaimed pit
watrls and s1-opes shoul-d be evaluated before placing residential- structures bel-ow
or on them.
2) Topography across the gulches and "Eesas" which comprise the subject proPerty
is steep; many access roads and driveways crosqing 15 to 20 percent slopes are
shown. one 400 foot secEion of the main proposed access road is shown crossing
14 pereent s]-opes. Large cuts and fil-Ls necessary to create reasonable road
grades may be unstabLe due to the incomPetent c1-ayey Wasatch Formation bedrock'
which outcrops a1L al-ong the steep gulches which must be crossed to get t'p t9
the mesa areas. Drainage and erosion of the steep sLopes and roads has not been
adequately addressed.
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE
;; iI
J
Ms. Cynthia M. Houben
June 6, f984
Page 2
3) Windblown sand and silt deposits whlch mantle the upper surfaces of "silt
mesarr are potential-ly hydroconpactive and could cause l-eachfield failure if
sewage disposal facilities are constructed on these materiaLs. Foundation damage
could also occur due to differential compaction and adverse settlement of these
low-bearing strength dePosits.
4) I^Iasat,ch Formation bedrock i-s at or near the surface over a majority of the
site. As noted in the sketch plan narrative, uany springs of irrigation-water
seepages occur in this area. Conventional septic leach fields are generally not
compatible with the site geol-ogy, and couLd cause improperly treated sewage
to "."p out along the gu1-ches, or along steep slopes below building si-tes'
Subsurfac" ""r"g- disposal could al-so cause slope failures by saturating clayey
bedrock on the steep llop"" in this area. No geol-ogic report or Percolation test
results were presented in the review materials.
From the items noted above, it should be clear that this area contains significant
geologic prob1ems which the present develoPment pLan does not Eake into account'
W. .."o*end against the use of on-lot Leach fields in this area' Connection to
the sewer systeu should be used at the outset of development' We also reconnnend
that the 22 Lots not be allowed to subdivide further unless reasonable access to
suitable building sites can be provided.
The type of subdivision proposed by this sketch plan may not be economically
feasible if geologic and topographic constraints are to be adequately addressed'
If this project is pursued as proposed, a detailed engineering-geologic report
should be prepared by a qualified geol-ogist to address the geologic concerns
outlined above. Due to the multitude of geol-ogic problems associated with this
sketch plan, and the present l-ack of a detailed geol-ogic report, we cannot
recommend approval of this proposal-. If you have any questions or require further
assistance in this EatLer, please contact our office'
Sinc
{6\/{
Bruce K. Stover
Engineeri-ng Geologist
vtp
BKS-84-014
Enclosure