Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 CorrespondenceLOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH KEVIN L. PATRICK JAMES S. LOCHHEAD • • LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW November 20, 1981 Mr. Davis Farrar, County Planner Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Davis: 1011 GRAND AVENUE P 0. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 5160Y TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261 4: 410 %40 Our firm acts as Special Counsel to the City of Rifle. It has come to our attention that there are currently pending before Garfield County two subdivision proposals that intend to rely upon the Rifle Village South Metropolitan District for water service. During our work for the City of Rifle, we had the opportunity to become somewhat acquainted with the water rights owned by the District. Although our information may be incomplete, it is our understanding that the District has no approved plan for augmentation and may not have any significant quantity of augmentation water available to it. Therefore, because of the proximity of these developments to the City of Rifle, we would request that the County seek an early determination from the Division of Water Resources of the adequacy of the District's water rights to serve the two proposed developments that are seeking approval of Garfield County. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P. C. LEL/j cc: Mr. Daniel W. Deppe Stephen L. Carter, Esq. Leavenworth • • COUNTRYSIDE DEVELOPMENT LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS S. W. and Lola Marie Anderson 0016 Remington Rifle, CO 81650 Homer B. and Aletha J. Abel 0275 - 332 Road Rifle, CO 81650 2177-202-01-033 2177-202-01-034 2177-202-01-035 2177-202-01-036 2177-202-01-037 2177-202-01-038 Lee Johnson 2177-202-02-001 0170 Highway 325 2177-202-02-002 Rifle, CO 81650 2177-202-02-005 2177-202-02-006 2177-202-02-007 2177-202-02-008 2177-202-02-009 2177-202-02-010 2177-202-02-015 2177-202-02-016 Martin O'Brian and Iris Diane Harvey 24341 Highway 6, #6 Rifle, CO 81650 Steven C. and Susan L. Alexander P.O. Box 10746 Aspen, CO 81612 G. JoAnn Livingston 720 East Third Street Rifle, CO 81650 Douglas Newton and Cynthia Fenney 670 Village Drive Rifle, CO 81650 Charles E. and Elaine M. Mattingly 755 West 2nd Street Rifle, CO 81650 Rex G. and Carol D. Huffman 626 Village Drive Rifle, CO 81650 Charles F. and Vicki L. Todd 0694 Village Drive Rifle, CO 81650 1 2177-202-02-017 2177-202-02-018 2177-202-02-019 2177-202-04-032 2177-202-04-033 2177-202-04-034 2177-202-04-037 MP • • Robert D. and Sheila M. Schlisner 0558 Village Drive Rifle, CO 81650 Wade Douglas and Pamela Jean Vaughn 0580 Village Drive Rifle, CO 81650 Carl W. and Violet Hardrick Carl A. and Penny Hardrick 1277 - 01/2 Road Loma, CO 81524 Patricia Nadine (Strand) Tyler 1310 East San Miguel, #7 Colorado Springs, CO 80909 Frank W. Cossey, Jr. 0156 County Road 130 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 2 2177-202-04-038 2177-202-04-043 2177-202-04-044 2177-202-04-045 2177-202-05-051 IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5 STATE OF COLORADO Application No. W-1310 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION •) FOR WATER RIGHTS OF SAMUEL ) 1;00.):.0W ANDERSON IN THE COLORADO ) RIVER IN GARFIELD COUNTY RULING OF REFEREE F= 1 L_ 1.) IN V✓1' DiVLiion 1;0. .1 DEC1 21W2 GT TE OF COLOR/\D.J / 'I „ Vi/ ? DY DErt.7s, Tho above entitled matter having been referred to the undersigned as Water Referee for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado, by the Water Judge of said Court on the 12th day of July, 1972, in accordance with Article 21 of Chapter 148, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, as amended (Chapter 373 S.L. Colo. 1969), known as The Water Rights Determination and Administration Act of 1969. And the undersignod Fafcree having made such investigations as are necessary to determine whether or not the statements in the application are true and having become fully advised with respect to the subject matter of the application does hereby make the following determination and ruling as the Referee in this matter, to -wit: 1. The statements in the application are true. 2. The name of the structure is Anderson Well No. 2. 3. The name of claimant and address is: Samuel Woodrow Anderson, Route 1, Box 140, Rifle, Colorado. 4. The source of the water is a well having a depth of 12 feet. 5." Tho well is located in the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 of Section 20, T. 6S., R. 93W. of the 6th P.M. at a point whence the Northwest Corner of said Section 20 bears N. 01'30' W. 599 feet. 6. The proposed use of the water is domestic, irrigation and all other beneficial uses. 7. The date of initiation of appropriation is August 1960. 8. The arrount of ':later claimed -is: Absolute - 1.0 cubic foot per second of tiro; Conditional - 3.96 cubic feet per second of time. 9. The well is not registered in the Office of the State Engineer. 10. The applicant has applied 1.0 cubic foot of water per second of time to the above uses. 11. Applicant intends to enlarge the facility and apply an additional 3.96 cubic feet of water per second of tiro to tho above beneficial uses. The Referee does therefore conclude that the abovo entitled application should be granted and that an absolute decree for 1.0 cubic foot of water per second of time and a conditional decree for 3.96 cubic feet of water per second of time is hereby awarded to the Anderson Well No. 2 for domestic, irrigation end all other beneficial purposes, with appropriation date of August 31, 1960, subject, however, to all earlier priority rights of others, and to the intogration and tabulation by the Division Engineer of such priorities and changes of rights in accordance with law. As to the 3.96 cubic feet of water per second of time condition- ally awarded, an Application for a Biennial Finding of Reasonable Diligence shall be filed in June of 1974 and in June of every second calendar year thereafter so long as the claimant desires to maintain the conditional water right or until a determination has been made that the conditional water right has become an absolute water might by reason of the completion of the appropriation. It is accordingly ORDERED that this ruling shall be filed with the Water Clerk and shall become effective upon such filing, subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 140-21-20 CPS 1963 as amended (1971). It is further ORDERED that a copy of this ruling shall be filed with the appropriate Division Engineer and the State Engineer. Done at the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, this /Z day o , 1972. i7D protrst r...i3 filed in thin i ntto: ;nJ for•: cine, ruli^r. in corfirr,ed a_- i,: ;: c•; r.d, end is modc the Juc. ent cnd Decree of this court. iVts-/ ,atur Judo Dated: BY THE REFEREE: t:�fe Peferee Water• Division No. 5 State of Colorado i • • Lincoln DeVore 1441 Motor Grand Junction, Colo 81501 (303) 242-8968 Sisk & Reynolds Enterprises 767 Cedar Court Rifle, CO 81650 RE: Gentlemen: October 7, 1981 SUBSURFACE SOILS INVESTIGATION BLOCK 6A - FILING 1 RIFLE VILLAGE SOUTH RIFLE, COLORADO Transmitted herein are the results of a Subsurface Soils Investigation and Foundation Recommendations for the proposed development of Block 6A, Filing 1, Rifle Village South Sub- division near Rifle, Colorado. Respectfully submitted, LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. By: �s „�- Gary": Krzisn i., P.E. Gran: Junction Office Reviewed by: GMK/jb LDTL Job No. 41082GS i-{ • Colorodo Springs, Colorado Pueblo, Colorado Grand Junction, Colorado Glenwood Springs, Colorado Evanston, Wyoming 4 • • ABSTRACT: The contents of this report are a Subsurface Soils Investigation and Foundation Recommendations for the proposed development of Block 6A, Filing 1, Rifle Village South Subdivision near Rifle, Colorado. Topographically, the site is approximately level with a slight grade to the northwest toward the Colorado River. Both surface and subsurface drainage are fair to poor. The foundation soils encountered during drilling were noted to consist of moderate density clayey silt. A`shallow foundation system would be most appropriate for use on this site. Shallow foundations designed on the basis of a maximum bearing capacity of 2500 to 3500 psf would be appropriate. In order to resist the potential swell if these soils become saturated after construction, a minimum pressure of 600 psf will be required. Because of the mildly expansive nature of the foundation materials, we would recommend that the foundation system be well balanced and heavily reinforced. All floor slabs on grade must be constructed to act independently of other structural portions of the buildings. -1- • • Adequate drainage must be provided at all times. Water must never be allowed to pond above the foundation soils. Surface and subsurface drainage must be carefully designed and controlled. A perimeter drain would be recommended around the building exterior. A Type II Cement would be recom- mended in all concrete in contact with the soil on this site. More detailed recommendations can be found within the body of this report. All recommendations will be subject to the limitations set forth herein. The information herein has been obtained to obtain a general and preliminary indication of the soils which will probably be found under presently unknown types of structures proposed for the site. Site specific information must be obtained beneath each proposed structure after its exact location is determined, since the soil types and conditions differ across the overall site and the type of structure proposed is not known. This report is intended to identify general soil conditions on the site, as requested. Fout test borings spread over 22 lots on a 4.11 acre site, can only be used as an overview of the soil conditions and not for site specific design purposes. -2- • • GENERAL: The purpose of this investigation was to determine the general suitability of the site for con- struction of a subdivision for residential buildings of presently unknown size and number of units. Characteristics of the individual soils found within the test borings were examined for use in designing foundations on this site. Although Lincoln-DeVore has not seen a set of construction drawings for any of the single family dwelling units proposed, we believe that they will be basically frame structures of more or less conventional design. Foun- dation loads for structures of this nature are normally light to medium weight in magnitude. The topography of the site is rela- tively flat, being located on an alluvial plain of the Colorado River. The ground surface in the vicinity of the site has an overall gradient to the northwest towards the river. The exact direction of surface runoff on this site will be con- trolled to an extent by the proposed construction, and therefore, will be variable. In general, however, surface runoff will travel to the northwest, quickly entering the Colorado River. Surface and subsurface drainage on this site can be described as poor. -3- • The foundation soils encountered on this site consisted predominantly of alluvial deposits. The deposits are placed by past flooding action from the nearby Colorado River. These soils were deposited over bedrock of the Wasatch Formation. The Wasatch Formation can broadly be described as a system of sedimentary rocks (sandstone, silt - stone, claystone) of Tertiary Age. Formational bedrock is generally relatively stable in terms of hydrocompaction and solutioning. Some of the finer grained rock tends toward a low to moderate expansivity. Material of this formation was not encountered during our subsurface exploration program and it is felt that formational material will be sufficiently deep that it will not affect construction or performance of the proposed foun- dation systems. -4- • • BORINGS, LABORATORY TESTS AND RESULTS: Four test borings were drilled across the general Block 6A area and are located approximately as shown on the attached Test Boring Location Diagram. The test borings were placed in such a manner as to obtain a reason- ably good profile of the subsurface soils. All test borings were drilled with a power -driven, continuous auger drill. Samples were taken with a standard split -spoon sampler and by bulk methods. The precise gradational and plasti- city characteristics associated with the soils encountered during drilling can be found on the attached summary sheets. The representative number for each soil group is indicated in a small circle immediately below the sampling point on the Drilling Logs. The following discussion of the soil groups will be general in nature. A portion of the area is overlain by a silty sand deposit (see Boring 2) that may be fill or, possibly, a colluvial deposit from upslope areas. It is believed to be fill, however. In general, the site soils profile is that of a single layer system with occasional localized variations. The upper 25 feet is predominantly clayey silt, with occasional isolated silty sand deposits. -5- 1 1 1 • • Soil Type No. 1 classified as a clayey silt (ML/CL) of very fine grain size. The predominant soil type for foundation bearing at this site, Soil Type No. .l is of low moisture content and plasticity and of moderate density. These soils have a slight tendency to expand upon the addition of moisture with swell pressures on the order of 620 psf being considered typical. While this magnitude of expansion should not be sufficient to affect the heavy struc- tural members of the building, it can cause some movement beneath light structural members and floor slabs on grade. These soils will have a slight tendency to long-term consolidation under applied foundation pressures. However, if the allowable bearing values given are not exceeded, we feel that differential move- ment would be tolerable. This soil group was found to have an allowable bearing value on the order of 2500 to 3500 psf maxi- mum. The exact magnitude of the allowable maximum bearing pressure must be verified on a site specific basis, although a pressure of 2500 psf could be used for presumptive design of footings. A minimum footing pressure of 600 psf should be maintained to resist the possible swell of this soil type as it becomes saturated. Some areas of softer, lower bearing soils were noted which are too soft to be expansive. -6- • • Soil Type No. 2 classified as a silty sand (SM) of fine to coarse grain size. Soil Type No. 2 is non -plastic and of moderate density. In themselves, these soils will have virtually no tendency to expand upon the addition of moisture nor to long-term consolidation under applied foundation stresses. Granular materials, such as these, do have a tendency to rapidly settle under the initial application of static founda- tion pressures. However, these settlements are characteristically fairly rapid in nature and should be virtually complete by the end of construction. In any event, if the allowable bearing values given in this report are not exceeded and if recommenda- tions pertaining to inspection, reinforcing, balancing and drain- age are followed, it is felt that differential movement can be held to a tolerable magnitude. At shallow foundation depths across the site, these soils were found to have an average allow- able bearing capacity on the order of 2500 psf. This soil type is not believed to occur extensively across the site as a native deposit, being encountered only at isolated locations. It is not expected to occur as bearing material at most building locations. This soil type appeared to be fill in Test Boring No. 2. At this point, the sands appeared to be dense and capable of supporting the given loads. However, unknown fills must be treated with caution as they tend to vary considerably from point to point. No free water was encountered in any of the test borings to the depths drilled on this site. True -7- 1 • t • • free water should be fairly deep in this area, and hence, should not affect construction. However, the nature of the foundation soils in the area is such that the formation of areas of perched water is quite possible. If these wet areas are encountered during foundation excavation, some pumping is possible. This is a temporary, quick condition caused by vibration of the equipment on the site. If this should occur, it can be stopped by removal of the equipment and greater care taken in the excavation process. If this does not stop the pumping, properly placed coarse rock should be worked into the soil or properly designed geotechnical fabric could be applied to the earth face. The foundations could also be redesigned based upon lower bearing values if large amounts of seepage are encountered. It is emphasized that minor pumping is a temporary, quick condition and should not affect the structure after it is completed. -8- tat • • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Since the exact magnitude and nature of the foundation loads are not precisely known at the present time, the following recommendations must be somewhat general in nature. Any special loads or unusual design conditions should be reported to Lincoln-DeVore so that changes in these recom- mendations may be made, if necessary. However, based upon our analysis of the soil conditions snd project characteristics previously outlined, the following recommendations are made. It is recommended that a shallow foundation system consisting of continuous footings beneath all bearing walls and isolated spread footings beneath columns and other points of concentrated load, be used to transfer the weight of the proposed structure. Such a shallow foundation system may be designed on the basis of a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2500 psf as an overall site average. Higher maximum bearing pressures are feasible at specific building locations but should be verified on the basis of a site specific examination of soils prior to finalizing the designs. As previously mentioned for the typical clayey silts at this site, a minimum pressure of 600 psf will be required. It should be noted that the term "footings" as used above includes the wall on grade or "no -9- s • footing" type of foundation system. On this particular site, the use of a more conventional footing, the use of a "no footing", or the use of voids will depend entirely upon the foundation loads exerted by the structure. We would anticipate the use of both the conventional and no footing foundation systems (possibly with some voiding for very light buildings) to be used at appro- priate specific lots on this site. Regardless of the foundation type used, it is recommended that the foundation components be balanced to lower the possibility of differential movement. This balancing will help the buildings move more or less as single units, rather than in a differential manner. The foun- dation system should be proportioned such that the pressure on the soil is approximately the same throughout the building. The judicious use of voids beneath very light walls will help balance the structure, as well as to develop the minimum design pressures dictated by the expansive clays. Using the criterion of dead load plus approximately one-half the live load, the contact pressures should be balanced to within +300 psf beneath all load bearing walls throughout the residential units. For the sandier soils, isolated interior column pads should.be designed for pressures of slightly less than the average selected -10- 1 1 1 1 • 1 for the bearing walls. On the clayey silts, isolated pads should be designed for pressures of slightly more than the exterior wall average. Using whichever criterion is applicable, we would recommend balancing these internal pads on pressures of approximately 150 psf more or less than the average of the exterior walls. To help ensure that the structure moves more or less as a single unit rather than in a differential manner, we would recommend that all stem walls be supported by a grade beam capable of spanning at least 15 feet. This grade beam would apply to both interior and exterior load bearing walls. Such a grade beam should be horizontally reinforced continuously around the structure with no gaps or breaks in reinforcing steel unless they are specially designed. Beams should be reinforced at both the top and the bottom with the major reinforcement being at the top. All interior bearing walls should rest on a grade beam and foundation system of their own and should not be allowed to rest on a thickened slab section or "shovel" footing. Where the stem walls are relatively shallow, vertical reinforcing will probably not be necessary. However, where the walls retain soil in excess of about 5 feet -11- • • in height, vertical reinforcing may be necessary to resist the active pressure of the soils along the wall exterior. To aid in designing such vertical reinforcing, the following equivalent fluid pressures can be utilized: 50 pcf for well. -draining granular wall backfill It should be noted that the above values should be modified to take into account any surcharge loads applied at the top of the walls as a result of stored goods, live loads on the floor, machinery, or any other exter- nally applied forces. The above equivalent fluid pressures should also be modified for the effects of any free water table. The bottom of all foundation com- ponents should rest a minimum of 3 feet below finished grade or as required by the local building codes. Foundation components must not be placed on frozen soils. Where floor slabs are used, they may be placed directly on grade or over a compacted gravel blanket of 4 to 6 inches in thickness. Under no circumstances should this gravel pad be allowed to act as a water trap beneath the floor slab. A vapor barrier is recommended beneath any and all floor slabs on grade which will lie below the finislied exterior ground surface. All fill_ placed beneath the interior -12- • • floor slabs must be compacted to at least 90% of its maximum Proctor dry density, ASTM D-698. All floor slabs on grade must be constructed to act independently of the other structural por- tions of the building. These floor slabs should contain deep con- struction or contraction joints to facilitate even breakage and to help minimize any unsightly cracking which could result from differential movement. Floor slabs on grade should be placed in sections no greater than 25 feet on a side. Prior to constructing slabs on grade, all existing topsoil and organics must be removed from the building interior. Likewise, all foundations must penetrate the topsoil layer. Any interior, non -load bearing par- titions which will be constructed to rest on the floor slab should be constructed with a minimum space of 12 inches at either the top or bottom of the wall. The bottom of the wall would be the preferred location for this space. This space will allow for any future potential expansion of the subgrade soils and will prevent damage to the wall and/or roof section above which could be caused by this movement. Adequate drainage must be provided in the foundation area both during and after construction to -13- • • prevent the ponding of water. The ground surface around the building should be graded so that surface water will be carried quickly away from the structure. The minimum gradient within 10 feet of the building will depend upon surface landscaping. Bare or paved areas should maintain a minimum gradient of 2%, while landscaped areas should maintain a minimum gradient of 5%. Roof drains must be carried across. all backfilled areas and discharged well away from the structure. The existing drainage in the area must either be maintained or improved. Water should be drained away from the structures as rapidly as possible and should not be allowed to stand or pond in the area of the buildings. The surface drainage across the entire subdivision must be care- fully controlled to prevent infiltration and saturation of the foundation soils. All backfill around the buildings should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of its maximum Proctor dry density, ASTM D-698. Roof drains must be carried across all backfilled regions and discharged well away from the structure. A subsurface peripheral drain, including an adequate gravel collector, sand filter and per- forated drain pipe, should be constructed around the outside of the building at foundation level. Dry wells should not be -14- 1 1 1 1 • • used anywhere on this site. The discharge pipe should be given a free gravity outlet to the ground surface. If "day- light" is not available, a sealed sump and pump should be used. No major difficulties are anticipated in the course of excavating into the surficial site soils that consist of clayey silts with occasional gravel and small rock fragments. Because some basement construction is feasible (either full- or half -basements), it is possible that some safety provisions such as the sloping or bracing of the sides of excavation over 5 feet deep could be necessary. Any such safety provisions should conform to reasonable industry safety practices and applicable OSHA regulations. The soils on this site were found to contain sulfates in detrimental quantities. Therefore, a Type II Cement would be recommended in all concrete in contact with the soil. Under no circumstances should calcium chloride ever be added to a Type II Cement. In the event that Type II Cement is difficult to obtain, a Type I Cement may be used, but only if it is protected from the soils by an impermeable membrane. The open foundation excavation must be inspected prior to the placing of forms and pouring of con- crete to establish that adequate design bearing materials have -15- 1 1 1 L • i been reached and that no debris, soft spots or areas of unusually low density are located within the foundation region. All fill placed below the foundations must be fully controlled and tested to ensure that adequate densification has occurred. Previously existing fill, found to be inadequate for supporting the struc- ture, can be identified and removed at the time of inspection. It is extremely important due to the nature of data obtained by the random sampling of such a hetero- geneous material as soil that we be informed of any changes in the subsurface conditions observed during construction from those outlined in the body of this report. Construction personnel should be made familiar with the contents of this report and instructed to relate any differences immediately if encountered. It is believed that all pertinent points concerning the subsurface soils on this site have been covered in this report. If questions arise or further infor- mation is required, please feel free to contact Lincoln-DeVore at any time. -16- SOILS DESCRIPTIONS: •ROCK SYMBOL USCS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTIONS' SYMBOL DESCR/PT/ON 5 ' MBOLS 81 NOTES: SYMBOL DESCRIPTION X/ -x/ .6•60 SEDIMENTARY ROCKS Free 9A2 Standard penetration drive Numbers indicate 9 blows to drive the spoon 12" into ground. ST 2- I/2" Shelby thin wall sample Wo Natural Moisture Content Wx Weathered Material Free water table ,0 :;:"'.00. o: P:' CONGLOMERATE SANDSTONE Topsoil N Man-made 0000. 0:o 0:0 oo: 0:0 Fill GW Well -graded Gravel - - — :-.--:-'=7 SILTSTONE = _ L. 0000 0000000 0000 GP Poorly -graded Gravel -==- SHALE 0 0 o a 0 GM Silty Gravel x x x x x x CLAYSTONE COAL NI "o 000/GC Clayey Gravel ,.:. SW Well -graded Sand LIMESTONEwater IS' Wx "Form. ram YONatural drydensity T.B.•-Disturbed Bulk Sample Q Soil type related to samples in report Top of formation Test BoringLocation Test Pit Location + SP Poorly -graded Sand % - DOLOMITE Z 1111 SM Silty Sand •',-_,_ MARLSTONE I I vv /� i SC Clayey Sand h t r LI GYPSUM ML Low -plasticity Silt _ _ Other Sedimentary Rocks ,--7-1, IGNEOUS ROCKS CL Low -plasticity Clay \\,,ti It i\."\\ GRANITIC ROCKS i /� +++ + +•i• DIORITIC ROCKS i- ' ��� NEM MONOL ono Low -plasticity Organic Silt and Clay Iit MH High plasticity Silt :�/.•/j. V.:.› /i •a.:!< _=' GABBRO RHYOLITE A CH High -plasticity Clay -_/_ Z/=.2- 7_ OH High -plasticity Organic Clay t A Seismic or Resistivity Station. Lineation indicates approx. length a orientation of spread (S = Seismic , R= Resistivity ) Standard Penetration Drives are made by driving a standard 1.4" split spoon sampler into the ground by dropping a I4olb.weight 30". ASTM test des. D-1586. Samples may be bulk, standard split spoon (both disturbed) or 2-i/2" 1. D. thin wall ("undisturbed") Shelby tube samples. See log for type. The boring logs show subsurface conditions at the dates and locations shown ,and it is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. _'N�-- di ,,,, ANDESITE !Niff eQaopn •o�A: .;oG O,.I 1 i ao BASALT TUFF a ASH FLOWS Pt Peat IN GW/GM Silty Well- graded Gravel, 6 ° 0 0 0 ° ° ° GW/GC Well -graded Gravel, 0 Clayey ,o;i=!: °. . °• °� nr �� r F ,- 4 A BRECCIA & Other Volcanics Other I neous Rocks g METAMORPHIC ROCKS 00.Co 00•' •o•,g0 ° ' 00 00 00 0 GP/GM Poorly- graded Gravel, Siltyv GP/GC Poorly -graded Gravel,--:/ Clayey Iliii��� GNEISS `NIPGC/GM IF1011 D� �° yP. >'+ „� ppppi A GM/GC Silty Gravel, Clayey Clayey Gravel,J—J Silty SW/SM Well -groded Sand, Silt SW/SC Well -graded Sand, Clayey %��� i SCHIST p.�77 % r.?)01; ;•.'% PHYLLITE SLATE METAQUARTZITE iv It SP/SM Poorly -graded Sand, Silty SP/SC Poorly graded Sand, 000 000 O P O MARBLE v /1/17 fl/ HORNFELS JIIII! iJiIit;' MNSC/SM YeY SM/SC Silty Sand, Clayey Clayey Sand, Silty CL/ML Sllty Clay s �`0, SERPENTINE l.\ Other Metamorphic Rocks 0 LINCOLN TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO. Coordo Springs, Puebo Glenwood Spring., FM1°Nrose, Gurnison, Grand Junction.— WYO.— Rock Springs EXPLAN4TION OF BOREHOLE LOGS AND LOCATION DIAGRAMS TEST HOLE No. TOP ELEVATION 3 r5 �. 7- 7-20 25 r - SAME, MBO. DaAdj(- T "5 - S 4'4 - SA/c7 IT/.1L.- CL, c tAY6Y_ S/4T r)C 7 Sort! .21..4,uo. / Me:D. DOA/ ..1i — SM, 5/LIVs.m'JD, R To So.-. — bRavdL, f.Ea. I DF.r+sa jr Si L r, 712 -r So HS SAND, — Mac. De/45g -SAM ,,,--SgME, Looses ia1,Z +�orq•3/. �tlhz L..1„. I4.2 ��4►.Z we.y4.3/ 10 15 20 25 z 7'- /oB2GS /a 41d7 oc.47i aA/S LINCOLN DeVORE ENGINEERS• GEOLOGISTS COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS, PUEBLO , GLENWOOD SPRINGS, GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE , WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS r^ • Soil Sample ,'fL-a SUMMARY SHEET Test No. 4/682 J Location B� GA- f-%;- /-,P.Fi.‘ I/.«dica-.�--,P,F,...6-,cv Date /49 -i -8i Boring No. Depth Test by XS Sample No. / Natural Water Content (w) % In Place Density (To) pcf Specific Gravity (Gs) SIEVE ANALYSIS: Sieve No. % Passing 1 1/2" Plastic Limit P.L. /5--•9 % Liquid Limit L. L. zz.Z % Plasticity Index P.I. 6a.3 % 1" Shrinkage Limit 3/4" Flow Index O" `Do•(> Shrinkage Ratio % 4 99.63 Volumetric Change % 10 q6.9 Lineal Shrinkage % 20 987 MOISTURE DENSITY: ASTM METHOD Optimum Moisture Content - w° 40 9B . i 100 952 200 139-2 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS: Grain size (mm) % ____2/o Maximum Dry Density -Td pcf California Bearing Ratio (av) 0/0 Swell- Days % Swell against ZD psf Wo gain_'�S % BEARING: Housel Penetrometer (av) psf 0 oz 49-/ 0 ops SI. Unconfined Compression (qu) psf Plate Bearing• psf Inches Settlement Consolidation % under psf PERMEABILITY: K (at 20°C) Void Ratio Sulfates ppm. . SOIL ANALYSIS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO LDV -09 9. • • SUMMARY SHEET Soil Sample SM Test No. ¢14782 G5 Location c 6 4 - 2 So. - ewe, CC) Date v -z 9- 81 Boring No. Depth Sample No 2. Test by frs Natural Water Content (w) % Specific Gravity (Gs) In Place Density (To) pcf SIEVE ANALYSIS: Sieve No. % Passing 1 1/T' 3/4." 1/2" 376 si 4 /rho •v 10 '34-Z y'z.¢ 8d. Z 75. / 20 sa.s 40 4/. 3 100 26..0 200 ,?4 ,y HYDROMETER ANALYSIS: Grain size (mm) 0/0 Plastic Limit P.L Liquid Limit L. L. % Plasticity Index P.I. % Shrinkage Limit % Flow Index Shrinkage Ratio % Volumetric Change % Lineal Shrinkage % MOISTURE DENSITY: ASTM METHOD Optimum Moisture Content - wo Maximum Dry Density -Td pcf California Bearing Ratio (av) Swell- Days Swell against psf Wo gain.__% BEARING: House! Penetrometer (av) psf Unconfined Compression (qu) psf Plate Bearing- psf Inches Settlement Consolidation % under psf PERMEABILITY: K (at 20°C) Void Ratio Sulfates ppm, LDV -09 SOIL ANALYSIS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 1 1 1 i 3 / \COM PACT \\\� \ PoLy \t/ \ It CA22y • A NRTr vE' L-A far KLoo2 LENS F/ BENEATH SAND �I LTE2 C1. RAvrt COLLEcr,Q /// BACK FIL, \\\ OP To WALL AS 5HoWN. SAND F, LTEE G eAvEL Co ELECTOR FLOG IC Cont PA GTED NArrvE EA2TH F3 ACID 1=' ILL N\\N\;k // \ \\ W// �. ALL // FILrEZ. FABerc QIZA.VEL C o LL6cra1z. M 1N, 43-0 044.A Fta4 WALL, DEPTH ✓KIE3 A¢OIJIJD Bu1LOI.r , ,r4.2.". M1N. 4S•AwAy FCO. WALL. I4S DEOTN VA21E5 3;4 oJ�4'PEr. AeO✓.,D 150ILD/u SPREAD Foorwel ryPE M/N. 45' AWAY F/Z0A4 WALL. DEPTH VARIES A2ouw1D BurLDrNG. / M,N. 21. n_ 4 or G"PErrr.. Pr PL. MHsi .'j,1: GrrADIE B IFAM FILTER FRBKIG MAY 8E ANy TYPE, .IJ -LAK. To CELANESS CO211 /N,2AF/ /40_ FLoC2. 00 OmO 0 O D o o o 0 0 4S o O 0 00 0 0 0 00 O FILTE2 FA V.Ic 3 oe4`IFEeF PIPE- <a %LADE TO our -Ler. POLYCTN yLEN6 /=1LM - A BovE t BELOW D2A/N. M rN. 45°A JAV Vee rw 4.Ar.L. DE P'>74 VAR:IGS Aeon -No 81,,,1LDrN y, MIN. 2." S 3,401a 6" PE -x=. P1pE F 1 L r z FA IM/C ALTEJICNA'rf UNDER -SLAB, 1NrEelomt rypE NOTES: .Size of perforated pipe sand filter varies with amount of seepage exsected. 4" diameter is most common. .Gravel size depends on size of pipe perforations: 85% gravel> 2 x diameter of perforation. .Sand filter must depend on native soil and must follow the Terzaghi-Vicksburg Criteria: 1) 15o filter- + 2) 15'o filter < 3) 50% filter - 12 to 58 150 base :5'0 base mase This is required for stability and length of filter life. The sand filter may be replaced with an approved filter fabric. .All pipe to be perforated VCP, PVC or Orangeburg. .4" flexible pipe may be used to depth of 42 feet, but must be carefully graded. 3" flexibl pipe may be used to a depth of 7 feet and should be carefully graded. .Rigid pipe only to be used below a depth of 7 feet below ground surface. .All pipe to be laid at a minimum grade of 1.4% around building foundations. .Outfall to be free, gravity outfall if at all possible. Use sump and pump only if no gravity outfall exists. .Conditions can vary considerably, and each site may be variable as to quality of sand or gravel required. All sites should be inspected to determine the amount and'quality of sand filter required, unless a filter fabric installation is used as shown. TYPICAL SECTIONS PERIMETER DRAIN & FRENCH DRAIN LINCOLN DeVORE ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS, PUEBLO, GLENW000 SPRINGS , GRAND JUNCTION , AMONTROSE , WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS public Service Company cf Colorado 13, d, BOX 152 • RIFLE, COLO. 81650 December 17, 1981 Sisk & Reynolds Enterprize 767 Cedar Ct. Rifle, Co. 81650 Gentlemen: Block 6A, Rifle Village South Filing 1, known as Country Side Subdivision is within the certificated service area of Public Service Co. and service will be provided in accordance with the Rules & Regulations currently on file with the Colorado Public Utilities Comission. L.A. "Bud" Graham Consumer Service Rep. phone 625-2210 • Tim Reynolds Sisk and Reynolds Enterprise 767 Cedar Ct. Rifle, Colorado 81650 Mountain Bell P. 0. Box 2688 Grand Junction, Colo. 81502 December 28, 1981 Dear Mr. Reynolds; Regarding your request concerning the provision of telephone service, I submit the following information about the subdivision, Country Side Subdivision in Rifle Village South, Rifle, Garfield County, Colorado. 1. Mountain Bell is a supplier for telephone service in the area. Mountain Bell is a private utilities company, and as such, is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, and for inter- state rates, is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. 2. An estimate of schedule for installation of facilities in the area cannot be given at this time, until specified information can be supplied as to telephone facilities required. Upon receipt by Mountain Bell of the requirements, it may be determined that certain costs will be espected to be borne by the developer. Please be advised that as of this writing, a committments for providing service cannot be met until studies are completed. These studies will of necessity, be made upon receipt by Mountain Bell of the services and locations of services required by the developer or owner. Yours truly, • Howard Mizu ima Assistant Mk ager - Residence ELDORADO ENGINEERING COMPANY / CONSULTING ENGINEERS / REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS • • January 19, 1932 Mr. Davis Farrar Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Country Side Subdivision Dear Mr. Farrar: I have read the concerns of your office relative to the above mentioned project. I have talked with Ed Carpenter of Paragon Engineeering concerning the domestic seater plant. He said the system was a three cell aerated lagoon with a capacity of 0.123 mgd. This capacity converts into 208 residences of which 65 are used. Therefore, this leaves approximately 143 taps available. He also mentioned that the district owns 14 acres at the lagoon site and the lagoons can be enlarged if the need arises. The lines leading to the lagoon system are a 12" interceptor line and an 18" interceptor line. The above mentioned project is designed to have its 8" domestic sewer line connect into the 12" inter- ceptor. Both of these lines have the capacity to carry the sewage. The drainage plan has been revised to meet your concern of the off-site drainage, (see the drainage plan) even though I have never encountered your concern at a preliminary stage, especially when it was noted on the drainage plan that there was a problem and it would be solved before final plat submittal. The other four concerns you noted will be answered by Timothy Reynolds and Clifford Sisk. If you should require any more information, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Barney Fix, EIT BF/jlw J January 14, 1982 Garfield County Planning Commission 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: Rifle Village South Metropolitan District is currently supplying domestic water service to lots in the Rifle Village South Subdivision. There are presently 43 connections served from an interconnected spring and Anderson Well #2 located in NW4 NW+, Section 20, Township 6 South, Range 93 West. Water from this well is purchased under contract from -S.W. Anderson , who holds a decree for this well. Copy enclosed. Pumping performed when the well was first used indicated a potential supply of about 5 cfs. I am informed that the well can produced 450 gpm (1.0 cfs) upon demand. A 6" diameter pipe distribution system serves the subdivision including the proposed Colorosa and Reynolds Subdivisions (49 & 22 lots respectively) . The District currently has a gravel filtration boxj chlorination facility and about 26,000 gallons at storage. The master water supply plan for the District shows the following: 1. Additional well supply a. Anderson Well #1. Decree 1.0 cfs abs, 3.96 cfs cond. Priority August 1960. b. Anderson Well #2, Decree 1.5 cfs abs, 3.46 cfs cond. Priority August 1960. 2. The district under its current regulations can and does require dedication of water rights which attach to the land within the District which seeks development. They can be summarized as follows: a. Last Chance Ditch. Owners of land within the district have the following interest: Minority Stockholders 254 shares 4.485 cfs . Formerly McLearus 370 shares 3.68 cfs. Other interests 420 shares 4.502 cfs. 12.667 cfs . Dedication of these rights would provide adequate early priority right (May 5, 1888) for augementation. b. Clarkson Ditch. Priority 176, April 15, 1944. 12cfs. Property - ownership about 65 Acres. c. J.F. Pierce Ditch - no adjudication d. W.A. Skelton Ditch - Priority claimed September 10, 1894 Adjudication pending for 10 cfs. e. Sidehill Ditch, priority 119BB - April 1, 1900 - waste & drainage. Page 2 Garfield County Planning Commission January 13, 1982 3. A water trE-msmission main of 10.0 MGD capacity to serve an ultimate population of 22,000 persons (or the equivilent) from a principal supply source in the NI of Section. 20. to a terminal storage near the airport. 4. Storage reservoirs of appropiate size located generally near the source of supply, near the mid point and at the terminus. Phase I of the Master Plan is now in existance. Phase II is construction of the first increment of the transmission main to T.angenbaugh Blvd. and a 500,000 gallon reservoir near this point T. Phase III may be construction of a second transmission main, development of additional supply and a second storage tank. Other phases as directed by growth pattern and demand. The district now has the funding capability to proceed with construction and implementation of Phase II. Rifle Village South Aletrpolitan District also furnishes sewer service to the District. An 18" interceptor main starts east of Tangenbaugh Blvd. on Airport Road and delivers sewage to the District's treatment works at the western end of the district, south of Interstate 70 and adjacent to the Colorado River. The present treatment works consist of a 123,000 gallon/day aerated lagoon system, to which 151 residential and commercial units (151 EQR) are connected.. Additional taps have been sold bringing the committed capacity of the plant to The 80% limit which requires planning for expansion to begin. This limit was reached on January 8, 1982, and a site application is currently being prepared for construction to proceed in 1982. It is anticipated that the committed taps will not require service until 1983. Tap fees have been paid in advance, and money is in hand to proceed forthwith. At present connected loads, the treatment plant is non -discharging, but operates under a NPDES permit which must be renewed by July, 1986. The district has a certified operator. As you can see, the District is moving vigorously to keep up with demands on its systems, and has the financial ability to do so without need of grants. The Board of Directors are committed to fulfilling this obligation, and will do so. Very truly, you} js ; Edward F. Carperiter P.E. - L.S. ELDORADO ENGINEERING COMPANY/ CONSULTING ENGINEERS / REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS 823 BLAKE AVENUE / P.O. BOX 669 / GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 / 303-945-8596 January 19, 1932 Mr. Davis Farrar Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Country Side Subdivision Dear Mr. Farrar: 40 I have read the concerns of your office relative to the above mentioned project. I have talked with Ed Carpenter of Paragon Engineeering concerning the domestic sewer plant. He said the system was a three cell aerated lagoon with a capacity of 0.123 mgd. This capacity converts into 208 residences of which 65 are used. Therefore, this leaves approximately 143 taps available. He also mentioned that the district owns 14 acres at the lagoon site and the lagoons can be enlarged if the need arises. The lines leading to the lagoon system are a 12" interceptor line and an 13" interceptor line. The above mentioned project is designed to have its 8" domestic sewer line connect into the 12" inter- ceptor. Both of these lines have the capacity to carry the sewage. The drainage plan has been revised to meet your concern of the off-site drainage, (see the drainage plan) even though I have never encountered your concern at a preliminary stage, especiall,y', when it was noted on the drainage plan that there was a problem `, and it would be solved before final plat submittal. The other four concerns you noted will be answered by Timothy Reynolds and Clifford Sisk, If you should require any more information, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Barney Fix, EIT BF/jlw • Sisk & Reynolds Ent. 767 Cedar Ct. Rifle, Colo. 81650 January 19, 1982 Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81601 Dear Mr. Farrar, our letter of December 15, 1981, the items you found Regarding y application for Country - missing or incomplete in the preliminary platin form Count side Subdivision should be satisfied with the following Items 1, 4, 5, and 6 are answered by information enclosed. Item 2:s aces. Lots 1-11 will each have two off street parking spaces. Lots 12-22 will each have three off streeiparkingspaces. Item 3: a of the sb- Geological information is found on pages es s 3 3 aannd providede 4 owsuh surface soils investigation by Lincoln preliminary plat application. This should satisfy your request for additional information. Sincerely, Timothy, Reynolds RICHARD D. LAMM Governor • • OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 February 19, 1982 Mr. Davis S. Farrar Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Countryside Subdivision JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer `'z4 198 - Dear Mr. Farrar: We have received the above referenced subdivision proposal. The pro- posed 22 lots would be located southwest of Rifle across the Colorado River. The Rifle Village South Metropolitan District is named as the source of water. Our files contain no information concerning the District, however, information prepared by Paragon Engineering was included in the transmittal. The District is supplied by junior wells, one of which was adjudicated in Water Court Case No. W-1310 in March 1973. The engineer's report indicates senior water rights in the Last Chance Ditch are held by landowners within the District. Such rights could be used in support of an augmentation plan if dedicated to the District. Unfortunately, there is no indication that the District is acquiring senior rights or that they are actively pursuing a plan for augmentation. Without an augmentation plan, use of the wells would be subject to curtailment when a valid downstream call was in effect. Since no information has been presented to indicate the District has or is actively pursuing a plan for augmentation, we must recommend this proposal be held in abeyance. Sincerely, Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Assistant State Engineer HDS/KCK:mvf cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. Land Use Comm. February 22, 1982 P.O. Box 1302 Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Bookcli i Soil Conse Ston Ulsti ICI Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Dear Mr. Farrar: The Bookcliff Soil Conservation District has reviewed the Rifle Village South Subdivision. We felt the soils report was very good and should be followed by the contractors. An on-site investigation would be beneficial to the construction of foundations. Proper surface drainage will be extremely important. Heavy thunder- storms in this area can cause excessive runoff from the surrounding terrain. Areas that are disturbed by construction should be revegetated if they are going to be exposed for a long period of time. Fast growing grasses such as annual rye will help control erosion on these sites. Any canal passing through this area should have an adequate right-of-way for maintaining the system. Please notify us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Warren Dodo Secretary WD/te CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT • Developmental Impact1view No. 819 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 (303) 242-2862 February 22, 1982 Mr. David S. Farrar, Planner Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT -- COUNTRYSIDE SUBDIVISION P4'8 2 yae 100 Dear Mr. Farrar: We have reviewed the material you submitted concerning the referenced subdivision and find that we are unable to comment because the location of this development with respect to state highways in the vicinity is not clear. We suggest that the developer use an updated base map which locates state highways (including Interstate 70) and county roads in the vicinity of this proposed development and that the plan be revised to indicate how access to these facilities would be obtained. The previously submitted material is enclosed and we would be happy to comment on the access aspects of this subdivision when adequate information is provided for our review. EG/jme cc: Prosence File Very truly yours, R. A. PROSENCE DISTRICT ENGINEER if By ED GEBHARDT rl DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION PLANNER [ARF IELD COUNT(114 Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 91601 PHONE 945-8212 2014 BLAKE AVENUE February 25, 1982 Tim Reynolds Clifford Sisk 0796 260 Road Silt, CO 81635 Dear Tim and Clifford: I am writing regarding your preliminary plat for the Country Side Subdivision. The Planning Commission has requested that I send you a list of items that they are considering as possible concerns for review of your plat. I have briefly discussed these with Tim Reynolds previously. They are as follows: 1) Dedication of a 50 foot right-of-way on the access roads with the provision for acceptance for county maintenance. 2) Some provision for a small park space to serve your sub- division. 3) That streets be paved with an asphalt mat as opposed to a chip and seal surface. I am also enclosing a copy of the letter I have received from the Division of Water Resrelating regarding thisletter,availability of please water. If you have any questions contact this office. Sincerely, Davis S. Farrar Planner DSF/lw enclosure _ MAR 1y82 40140 ��rf ADO rn 1/ FOREST SERVICE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY COLORADO STATE FOREST SERVICE • Petroleum Building 1129 Colorado Avenue, Rooms 217 & 218 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone 303 / 242-7518 February 26, 1982 Davis S. Farrar Garfield Co. Planning Dept. 2014 Blake Ave. Glenwood Spgs., Co. 81601 Re: Block 6A- Filing #1 Rifle Village South Dear Mr. Farrar: We see no problem with this proposal relative to Wildfire Hazards. Sincerely, John W. Denison District Forester RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR March 3, 1982 rt0 Att • COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611 Davis Farrar Garfield County Planning Dept. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Farrar: JOHN W. ROLD DIRECTOR __AIM"? 81982 (400 RE: COUNTRYSIDE SUBDIVISION We have reviewed the plat and reports for this property near Rifle. Additionally, the site was inspected by personnel from our office on February 25, 1982. In general, the natural drainage in this area is poor and disintegrated and will have to be carefully controlled in order to inhibit rapid erosion of the fine silty alluvium along the steep cliffs several hundred feet north of this property. Fairly severe erosion of this bank can be expected to continue and gullies could eventually undercut the property in 15 or 20 years unless proper drainage control measures are incorporated to slow this erosion. Additionally, these soils could be fairly susceptible to hydrocompaction which could damage improperly designed structures due to differential settlement. Rip -rapping the existing drainage gulley proposed for use must be done carefully and under the supervision of an engineering geologist since improper design and installation may cause piping failure of the fine alluvium around the rip -rap. Drainage facilities installed should be inspected and maintained so that failures do not occur which could aggravate the sensitive erosion problems affecting this development. If the drainage control design and structures are supervised and approved by a qualified engineering geologist, future erosion problems in this subdivision can be minimized. Sincerely, Bruce K. Stover Engineering Geologist It cc: LUC e . GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE Mr. Davis Farrar Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 March 5, 1982 D 'L Mak 8 ist ; '` l�9 rs ([• • • • • Dear Davis: The City of Rifle Planning Department has reviewed the preliminary plat for the Countryside Subdivision and has the following comments: 1. The Countryside Subdivision is within 125 feet of the Conestoga project which was under review for annexation to the City some months ago. Although the proposed Conestoga project has been informally withdrawn from our review process, there is still a good chance that the property will at sometime be annexed to the City, as the area is within the City's primary development zone. Development of the Countryside property should be consistent with City standards including: a. Minimum 50 foot rights-of-way including curb and gutter and four foot wide attached sidewalks on both sides of the right- of-way. A 50 foot right-of-way requires five feet of additional right-of-way to be dedicated parallel to the existing 40 foot right-of-way on each side. b. Paved streets --chip and seal is not an acceptable street surface under existing City standards and projected traffic loads for this subdivision and general area. c. Twenty-five foot front and rear yard setbacks should be applied to the proposed lots to be consistent with City standards. 2. Should City setback standards be adopted, Lots 11 and 12 will not be buildable due to the triangular lot configurations. 3. Staff still feels that the design of the project could be improved particularly within the cul-de-sac area and the far western portion of the project. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, do not hesitate to call. lw 337 East Avenue P.O. Box 1908 Sincerely,_ c g racy E. Timms Assistant City Planner Phone 625 - 2121 Rifle, Colorado 81650 a WGoof- cHOME OF "OIL SHALE" U.S.A. • # • Sisk & Reynolds Enterprises 767 Cedar Court Rifle, Colorado 81650 Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen: This letter is to inform the Garfield County Board of Commissioners that Clifford L. Sisk and Timothy 0. Reynolds hereafter known as Sisk & Reynolds Ent. are submitting for preliminary plan review and ap- proval of the subdivision of Block 6A, Rifle Village South First Filing, as Countryside Subdivision. Block 6A is owned jointly by the following: Clifford L. Sisk 767 Cedar Court Rifle, Colo. 81650 A deed of trust is held by: Sylmar Corp. 0263 295 Rd. Rifle, Colo. 81650 Timothy 0. Reynolds 0796 County Rd. 260 Rifle, Colo. 81650 Block 6A consists of 4.39+ Acres and is proposed for division into 22 R-1 building lots. This subdivision proposal is in compliance with all county planning and zoning regulations and is designed to be harmonious with the existing adjacent development. As such we respectfully request approval. Sincerely, /// (' / Cliirfiord L. Sisk Timothy, Reynold/ F. 04 0 • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Richard D. Lamm Governor March 10, 1982 Frank A. Traylor, M.D. 1876 rhr. Execytive Director MAR 1 1 1982 G ,<tclu UQ. rL ;.4ER Mr. Davis S. Farrar Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Preliminary Plat for Countryside Subdivision, Garfield County Dear Mr. Farrar: I have reviewed the preliminary plat for Countryside Subdivision and have the following comments. The proposed subdivision is within the Rifle Village South Metropolitan District and the District is working to insure adequate water and sewer service to this fast growing area. I believe that the District should provide some form of management certification of how they plan to serve this area, rather than just an engineer's analysis. If you have any questions or need further comments, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, FOR DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION ,*(Al ' v t / J cC5 2'LJ/' John R. Blair District Engineer JRB/zp cc: Denver Office (Tom Bennett) Rifle Village South Metro District District Engineer 125 NORTH 8TH STREET, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 PHONE (303)245-2400 PARAGON ENGINEERING, INC. 2784 Crossroads Blvd., Suite 104 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (303) 243-8966 March 18, 1982 Garfield County Planning Commission 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners: This letter will bring you up to date on the matter of water supply in Rifle Village South Metro District. As of this date: 1. The District is supplying all of Rifle Village South Subdivision. 2. The District has awarded a contract for construction of 7,100 feet of 10" water main to extend service from Village Drive east to a point on Road 332 which is at the west boundary of the Bookcliff development. 3. The District has engaged the service of Mr. Anthony D. Williams, Attorney, one of the leading water lawyers on the Western Slope. Acting on his advice, the District has: - Filed an application for a well permit for 2.0 cfs (900 gpm) on the 2.0 Acre site presently owned by the District. - Submitted a contract to the West Divide Water Conservancy District to purchase augmentation water out of Ruedi Reservoir. - Instructed Mr. Williams to file an augmentation plan for a supply from the proposed well and purchase of depletion water from Ruedi. 4. The District has authorized the Engineer to begin design for the well, pumping station and connecting pipeline. To this end, the District has engaged the services of Willard Owens, Denver Consulting Groundwater Geologists, to assist in analyzing the well productivity and the related pumping tests. Other related segments of the water supply construction program are being actively pursued. Included is the negotations for Right -of -Way to and purchase of a site for a 1.0 million gallon tank to serve the District. A 16" service line from the tank to high value development will provide the required fire flow. Funds required for the construction of all of the above facilities will come from advance tap fees paid by developers and a $500,000 Bond Issue, curreltly being structured on the basis of prior approval by the voters. It is hoped that this letter will serve to allay the concerns of your Commis- sion about the willingness and ability of the Metro District to provide this service • • Garfield County Planning Commission March 18, 1982 Page - 2 in a timely fashion. The District now has the financial capability and the organizational ability to carry out its responsibilities. EFC:emb Very truly yours, PARAGON ENGINEERING, INC. Edward F. Carpen. r, P.E., L.S. March 22, 1982 To Vlon it nay concorns 7y buslIand anc7 Yyself have no obj ctions to the devr,lo-nment of Tin Reynolds and Clifford Sisk cn1T-d Countryside. WE CONCURR WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT . / RICHARD D. LAMM Governor • • OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 March 19, 1982 Mr. Davis S. Farrar Garfield County Planning Dept. 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Farrar: JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer Re: Countryside Subdivision We have received additional information from Edward Carpenter of Paragon Engineering concerning the Rifle Village South Metropolitan Dis- trict. Mr. Carpenter indicates the District has engaged an attorney for the purpose of preparing a plan for augmentation and that the District is negotiating the purchase of water from Reudi Reservoir from the West Di- vide Water Conservancy District. A plan for augmentation would protect the District from having the use of their water supply curtailed in case a call would be placed on the river by a senior water right holder. At this time, we would not expect periods of extended administration on the Colorado River except in a drought. From the information presented, it appears the District is pursuing a legally reliable water supply. Since the applicants are currently preparing a plan for augmentation and we do not know the details of the plan at this time, we do not feel we can add much to our previous review comments. We would ask to review this proposal again once the District has filed an augmentation plan with the Water Court. HDS/KCK:pkr cc: Lee Enewold, Division Engineer Ralph Stallman Land Use Commission Sincerely, Q Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Assistant State Engineer RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR March 3, 1982 110 • v� COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611 Davis Farrar Garfield County Planning Dept. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Farrar: RE: COUNTRYSIDE SUBDIVISION JOHN W. ROLD DIRECTOR We have reviewed the plat and reports for this property near Rifle. Additionally, the site was inspected by personnel from our office on February 25, 1982. In general, the natural drainage in this area is poor and disintegrated and will have to be carefully controlled in order to inhibit rapid erosion of the fine silty alluvium along the steep cliffs several hundred feet north of this property. Fairly severe erosion of this bank can be expected to continue and gullies could eventually undercut the property in 15 or 20 years unless proper drainage control measures are incorporated to slow this erosion. Additionally, these soils could be fairly susceptible to hydrocompaction which could damage improperly designed structures due to differential settlement. Rip -rapping the existing drainage gulley proposed for use must be done carefully and under the supervision of an engineering geologist since improper design and installation may cause piping failure of the fine alluvium around the rip -rap. Drainage facilities installed should be inspected and maintained so that failures do not occur which could aggravate the sensitive erosion problems affecting this development. If the drainage control design and structures are supervised and approved by a qualified engineering geologist, future erosion problems in this subdivision can be minimized. Sincerely, Bruce K. Stover Engineering Geologist It cc: LUC GEOLOGY4. STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE 110 GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: 945-8212 / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 945-2339 / BUILDING: 945-8241 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Department of Development staff August 16, 1983 Recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the change of Condition No. 4 in Resolution No. 82-207. On August 10, 1983 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a request to change a condition of Preliminary Plan approval for the Countryside Subdivision. (See pages .) The condition of approval in question stated: 4. That the Water Court approve the plan for augmentation prior to Final Plat approval and that the Division of Water Resources review and approve the final plan for augmentation prior to Final Plat approval. It was noted in the review that a plan for augmentation had been filed by the Rifle South Metro District and was scheduled for a pre-trial hearing in November. There will probably be protests to the plan, which will extend the process. The Division of Water Resources pointed out that, until the augmentation plan was approved, there was the possibility that the water supply of the entire District could be called out if the more senior rights downstream were to call their rights out in a dry year. Attorney for the Countryside developers stated that the likelihood of that type of call occurring was extremely remote. He stated that, ultimately, the District's augmentation plan would be approved, because the District has the right to condemn water rights. The contention being that the District will ultimately have an approved augmentation plan. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request due to the fact that, until an augmentation plan is approved, there can be no guarantee that a "dependable" water supply is available for this subdivision. 2014 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • GARFIELD COUNTY • DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: 945-8212 / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 945-2339 / BUILDING: 945-8241 MEMORANDUM TO: Garfield County Planning Commission FROM: Development Department Staff DATE: August 4, 1983 SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Countryside Subdivision Countryside Subdivision Preliminary Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on August 16, 1982 by Resolution No. 82-207. (See previous staff comments and Resolution, pages .) Condition No. 4 of the resolution requires the Water Court to approve a plan for augmentation prior to Final Plat approval and that the Division of Water Resources review and approve the final plan for augmentation prior to Final Plat approval. Qp-o`1u1 A plan of augmentation has not been developed for the Rifle Village South Metropolitan District, leaving the developer with an impossible condition of approval. The developers' attorney contends that the augmentation plan is a moot point, since the Metro District has the right to condemn water rights if necessary. The District has agreed to provide water and states that the system has the capacity presently to handle the proposed development's needs. The developers are requesting that Condition No. 4 be eliminated and they be allowed to submit a Final Plat, subject to meeting all other conditions of approval. To change a condition of approval, it was necessary to republish for the Preliminary Plan hearing before the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the request. 2014 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 ANTHONY W. WILLIAMS WARREN L TURNER BERNDT C. HOLMES J. D.SNODGRASS BERNARD A.BUESCHER DONALD E. JORDAN DAVID J. TURNER MARK A. HERMUNDSTAD CLARK S. SPALSBURY, JR JOHN P GORMLEY • • WILLIAMS. '1'U I2NEI2 & I1OLN1 ES. I'.('. ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURTHOUSE PLACE BUILDING - 200 N. 6th STREET MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 338 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81502 TEL. (303) 242-6262 Commissioner Jim Drinkhouse Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 August 29, 1983 SILMON SMITH (1886-1964) CHARLES HOLMES (1897-1967) COUNTY CO; : ERS Re: Rifle Village South Metropolitan District Dear Mr. Drinkhouse: This office has been retained by Rifle Village South Metropolitan District in order to perform certain legal work in connection with water rights owned by the District. As we understand it, some question has arisen as to the validity or reliability of rights which are owned by the District. I enclose herewith a copy of a Detailed Augmentation Plan prepared by Western Engineers, Inc. for the District. The conclusion of this plan is that the District has a reliable source of supply for 228 taps. Western Engineers, Inc. was asked only to determine whether the water supply was adequate for the 228 taps. Examination of the report reveals that the supply is suffi- cient for 228 taps using only .85 acre feet of Ruedi Reservoir releases in the driest of years. Actually, the District has a right of 25 acre feet of Ruedi Reservoir releases by virtue of contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District. Consequently, it would appear that it is the height of conservatism to state that there is adequate water for the 228 taps since more than 24 acre feet remains to be called from Ruedi Reservoir even after the supply has been delivered for 228 taps. This matter is now in the process of working its way through the Courts and we are confident of the outcome �:. SEP 0 71983 • • Commissioner Jim Drinkhouse August 29, 1983 Page Two because we are confident of the work of Western Engineers, Inc. If we can be of any further help in regard to this matter, we would be willing to discuss the situation with anyone. Yours very truly, WILLIAMS, TURNER & HOLMES, P.C. By AWW/skb Enclosure xc: Ms. Aletha J. Abel Mr. Richard T. Paynter, Jr. / LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH KEVIN L.PATRICK JAMES S. LOCHHEAD PETER A. MILWID • 1 LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK 6. LOCHHEAD, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW January 9, 1984 Earl G. Rhodes, Esq. Garfield County Attorney P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1011 GRAND AVENUE P. 0. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS.COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261 Re: City of Rifle Request for Re -Allocation of Oil Shale Trust. Fund Allocation Dear Earl: RECEIVED JAN 101984 GARFIELD COUNTY ATTORNEY Enclosed is the original of a letter from the City of Rifle to the Board of County Commissioners. The letter is in response to the last meeting with the Commissioners in which the Board's position was that the allocated funds would not be released to the City until negotiations had occurred with the District due to the Board's belief that distribution of funds to the City would result in a duplication of water services on the south side of the Colorado River. It has always been the position of the City that no duplica- tion of services would occur because the District's present facilities and legal water supply plan are presently inadequate to service the South Side's planned development. The District has strenuously disagreed with our perception of their ability to serve and this has placed the County in the middle; the County has approved developments which will be served by the District upon assurances by the District that they are ready, willing and able to service demands on the south side. The City has feared that these developments were being approved without adequate service in place. Many developments have been built on the south side which, if the City is correct in its perception of the District's legal water rights, are faced with a potential threat to their health, safety and welfare should the funds not be reallocated and improvements not made to the City's south side facilities. The City believes that an in depth review of the District's capability to serve developments presently built and serviced by the District's system as well as approved and planned, albeit • • LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P. C. Earl G. Rhodes, Esq. January 9, 1984 Page 2 not constructed, development dependent upon District service reveals that the release of the allocated funds will not cause a duplication of services for no legal capability presently exists for the District to serve these areas. After years of urging from both the City and the State Engineer that the District obtain an adequate legal water supply to meet its obligations to provide water, the District filed an Application for Approval of Plan for Augmentation in Case No. 82CW135 in the Water Court, Water Division No. 5. The Application was grossly deficient in many respects and, if approved, would have caused injury to the City's and others vested water rights and decreed conditional water rights; accor- dingly, the City filed a Statement of Opposition to the Application (copies of the Application and Statement of Opposition are attached hereto). The District's Application recites that the plan for augme- nation (which fails to meet the criteria of an application for a plan for augmentation and should more properly have been demoni- nated a change of water right) was to have provided a legal water supply for 228 single family residences. By oral repre- sentations to the Commissioners at the hearings on the City's fund reallocation request and by letter dated August 29, 1983, from the District's legal counsel to the County, the District claimed to have a legal water supply plan in water court to serve the 228 units claimed. At the City's fund reallocation request hearings, the City asserted that the District's plan was so deficient that it could not even properly service units (as represented) presently constructed and tapped into the systems let alone service additional planned developments. The County took the District's representations in good faith reliance. Moreover, contrary to the assertions of one of the developers within the District, the District has no right to condemn water rights, C.R.S., §32-1-1004(4). (1982 Supp.) Subsequently to the proceedings before the Commissioners, representatives of the City met with representatives of the District to review and discussthe District's water rights to determine if settlement grounds existed. The City opened their records to the District in an effort to alleviate differences over the plan for augmenation. Subsequent to our meeting with representatives of the District, the City proposed a seven point plan to settle all differences concerning water and sewer services on the south side of the river. This proposal was summarily rejected without discussion by the District. No counter -proposal whatsoever has • • LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P C. Earl G. Rhodes, Esq. January 9, 1984 Page 3 been offered in response to the City's proposal. Moreover, the District has shown no desire to even discuss the matter with the City on any basis. Trial Data Certificates were due in the District's Water Court Case on November 10, 1983, in advance of the pretrial hearing which was set for November 22, 1983. Based upon the objections of the City, the revised engineering report submitted on August 29, 1983, (a copy of the cover letter enclosing this engineering report is attached) to the Commissioners was again revised and revealed that the District's present plan could serve 16 to 20 units without severe irrigation restrictions, not 228 as claimed by the District. Upon assurances of the District that the plan would either be withdrawn or substantially amended after acquisition of additional water rights, the City agreed to forego further initiated discovery against the District (see copy of correspondence from this office dated November 15, 1983 and reply correspondence from District counsel dated November 21, 1983). The District in November indicated that a draft engineering report had been generated and that a final report would be for- warded to all parties when such was finalized; to date, the City has not received any indication from the District that the final engineering report has been completed and no amendment or re -filing of the plan has been accomplished. The City believes that the District has demonstrated its inability to presently service the area on the south side of the the river; accordingly, the City respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners reconsider the City's fund reallo- cation request in furtherance of the City's desire for the pro- tection of the health, safety and welfare of the presently constructed developments on the south side of the Colorado River which are dependent upon the City for water service. We request that you submit this letter and all enclosures to the Commissioners with your comments. If you feel that a meeting is desirable after discussing this matter with the Commissioners please do not hesitate to call. KLP:psb Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C. • 1 LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P. C. Earl G. Rhodes, Esq. January 9, 1984 Page 4 Encs. cc w/encs: Ted Anderson Thomas Shoup Stephen L. Carter, Esq. Leslie H. Botham, P.E. Honorable George E. Mitchell Rifle City Council Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 vautr' PLR' December 20, 1983 Re: Oil Shale Trust Fund Grant for Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Plant Dear Sirs: As you are aware, Rifle was allocated $2 million for expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). To date, $150,000 has been assigned to the City Hall furnishings and $650,000 to water upgrades north of the Colorado River. There remains $1.4 million allocated to the City of Rifle which is not under contract at this time. We have previously come before you with a request to use these monies for a new sixteen inch water line crossing of the Colorado River and reconstruction of the Beaver Creek Water Treatment Plant. At the time that the request was made, Rifle Village South Metropolitan District (RVSMD) raised objections to our change in use of the funds on grounds that it would create competing service for water supply. The Commissioners indicated that the funds would be frozen until the disputes with RVSMD were resolved. We have met with the water attorney and water engineers from RVSMD several times. The City of Rifle has supplied their engineer with data from our water billings, including the use of an office, and access to water use information. The RVSMD engineer has gone back and re -issued an engineering report based on all water available to the RVSMD and using water consumption data which is accepted by the water courts. This engineering report, prepared for RVSMD by their engineer, Western Engineers, indicated that with severe irrigation (lawn watering) restric- tions, RVSMD has almost enough water to supply the existing 48 taps for domestic use. By no stretch of the imagination does the district have the water to service other developments, provide fire flows, or service the existing commercial areas on the south side of the river. We would like to renew and reiterate our request that $1.2 million be re -allocated for the Beaver Creek plant and the main crossing of the Colorado River. I believe that our reasons for needing these improvements have been amply described in the past. However, I would like to stress that the commercial development south of the river is a direct oil shale impact. The City of Rifle is the only entity in any position to be able to supply water to the area for domestic and commercial use and to provide fire protection. We believe that it is imperative to complete these improvements to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rifle and Garfield County. 337 East Avenue P.O. Box 1908 Phone 625 - 2121 Rifle, Colorado 81650 1 HOME OF "OIL SHALE" U.S.A. g .._ • • Page 2 Garfield County Commissioners OSTF - Wastewater Treatment Plant December 20, 1983 The present eight inch water crossing is old and in very poor condition. This water main is leaded joint cast iron pipe. The joints are leaking badly and the structrual integrity of the pipe is questionable. This main must be replaced as soon as possible to protect the developments south of the river. The Beaver Creek Treatment Plant is a water plant which processes water from Beaver Creek. This plant operates on a gravity system and since the water is very celan, it operates with very little power usage. The refurbishment of the plant also will reconstruct the existing 650,000 gallon water tank. The additional storage will help to provide fire flows to the south side of the river as well as assure an alternative source of water for the City. The City is therefore respectfully requesting the release of $1.2 million for construction of the projects outlined above. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, eory'- E. Mitchell Mayor, City of Rifle 1 Bradford Piihlishing,_S825 W. 8th Avc„ Lake wood,C080219____30312).3_7_¢919Q — j_ DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION ___ 5 COLORADO Case No, 8 2 CW /.33 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF: FILED IN DISTRICT COU T WATER DIVISION 5, COLO DO JUN -{E- ig8Z-- I I ge; 31 MARIE TALAMAS, CLER Rifle Village South Metropolitan Distriiwt Garfield County 1. Name, address, telephone number(s) (residence and business) of applicant(s) Rifle Village South Metropolitan District 0275 County '.Rd, 332 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Telephone: 303/625-2654 2. Name of structures to be augmented: Anderson Well #2 to which 1.0 CFS was adjudicated absolute in W-1310 Water Division #5;,Point of diversion: In the NWI.INW; Section 20, T6S, R93W, 6th P.M. at a point whence the NW corner of said Section 20 bears N 01°30' W 599 feet. 3. Describe water rights to be used for augmentation: Applicant owns 7 shares of Loesch and Crann Ditch Company which in turn owns the Last Chance Ditch and 50.0 CFS adjudicated thereto on May 5, 1888 with an appropriation date of March 23, 1887 in Civil Action no. 89 in the District Court of Garfield County, Colorado. There are 2,817 shares issued by the said company and presently outstanding and therefore each share represents .0177 CFS and 7 shares equals and represents .1239 CFS. The water to be used for augmentation is that water represented by the ownership of the said shares. The Last Chance Ditch diverts directly from the Colorado River on the south bank thereof at a point in Sec. 10, T6S, R92W of the 6th P.M. (Description taken from decree). 1UF - 301 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION R8/81 4. Statement of plan for augmentation, covering all applicable matters under C.R.S. 1973, 37-92-103(9), 302(1) and 305(8): (give full details of plan) The .1239 CFS owned by applicant in the Last Chance Ditch shall be used to augment the supply for an Anderson Well #2 during the irrigatio) season when the priority of Anderson Well #2 would otherwise require it to be shut off. During the irrigation season, when the priority of Anderson Well #2 would require it to be shut down, applicant's .1239 CFS share of the water adjudicated to the Last Chance Ditch shall not be diverted and shall be permitted to remain in the river and by reason of such contribution to the river Anderson Well #2 shall continue to divert at the rate of .1239 CFS. - Historically, applicant's share of the water right in Last Chance Ditch has been applied to the irrigation of alfalfa and pasture. The use of water diverted through Anderson Well #2 is devoted to general muncipal purposes. The applicant's engineer advises that the historical consumptive use of the Last Chance Ditch water right has consumed more water than will he consumed in the municipal system of the applicant and that the rate of return flow through the municipal system to the Colorado River is comparable to the rate of return flow historically enjoyed by the river by reason of irrigation practices. Therefore, the river shall be made whole and no damage shall result to any user and the .1239 CFS shall yield 80,019 gallons per day which is a quantity of water sufficient to serve water taps for 228 residential units within the applicant's geographical boundaries, using 350 gallons per day as the quantity of water estimated to be necessary to serve one tap for one residential unit. Copy of the foregoing mailed to all C e' nsel pf record ----Water ErwineerLand 613(=.: Eng neer- Dateo'8' a=7-- Deputy y Deputy Clerk, Water Div. No. 5 STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF MESA I Lamont L. Kinkade application, and verify its content. By WILL . • ..S , TURN R'/�r��"`�r OL 4 S , , P . C . t� ppSignature of Applicant (u At rneyl Grand c ion, CO 81502 Address of Applicant (or Attorney) Telephone No 303/242-6262 Attorney Registration No 1587 , state under oath that I have read this Applicant Subscribed under oath before me on June 'f, 1982. date My commission expires: dale Address: /ltr7rrl//l DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 5, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 82CW135 STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN FOR AUGMEN- TATION OF: RIFLE VILLAGE SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT in Garfield County. 1. Name of Objector: City of Rifle Mailing Address: c/o Leavenworth, Patrick & Lochhead, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 2. Name of ditch or other structures involved: A. Water rights to be augmented: Anderson Well #2, adju- dicated absolute in Case No. W-1310 (Water Division No. 5). B. Water rights used for augmentation: Seven (7) shares of the Loesch and Crann Ditch Company, which represents a portion of the Last Chance Ditch water right decreed on May 5, 1888 in Civil Action No. 89 in the District Court, Garfield County. 3. Facts why application for approval of plan for augmentation should not be granted or why it should be granted only in part or on certain conditions: A. Objector is the owner of certain vested water rights and decreed conditional water rights in the Colorado River drainage which may be injured by approval of the Application as requested herein. B. The Application, if granted, may result in an enlarge- ment of historic use of the water rights used for augmentation. C. Certain of the Applicant's water rights included in the Application may have been abandoned. Applicant should -1- be put to strict proof regarding historic use of said water rights. D. The Application is vague and incomplete in many respects and fails to evidence a proper plan for augmentation. Therefore, Objector reserves the right to raise additional grounds for objection as further information becomes available to Objector through discovery or otherwise. E. Applicant has failed to provide replacement water for the loss of historic delayed underground return flows to the injury of Objector's water rights. F. Upon information and belief, the augmentation water is inadequate to augment the quantity of municipal deple- tions contemplated by the Applicant. Upon information and belief, the depletions associated with the munici- pal use are greater than those contemplated under the plan for augmentation. G. Objector requests that if any amendment to the Application is deemed necessary by the Water Court or by the Applicant, this Statement of Opposition be con- sidered sufficient for purposes of opposing the amended application without the necessity of filing a further statement of opposition. DATED this '31 day of By 'fid LEAVENWITH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C. , 1982. Attorneys for Objector 1 . Leavo w• th Grand Ave•u P. 0. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Phone (303) 945-2261 Attorney Registration No. 6696 Name and Address of Objector: City of Rifle, Colorado c/o Richard F. Lessner Assistant City Manager Box 1908 Rifle, CO 81650 -2- VERIFICATI O N STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF (,' ckeLS: cicf ) Brent Bean, City Planner, City of Rifle, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says that he has read the foregoing STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION, knows the contents thereof, and that the same are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and. belief. Brent Bean, City Planner City of Rifle Subscribed and sworn to before me this 315' day of , 1982 Witness my hand and official seal. /- I .\, 1J C C^`• commission expires: `g-- L/ (/f PYA. N ary Public Address: /Yo. b2`.w e t 4}-o 3C) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING Cd S!6o.2 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION was placed in the United States Mails at Glenwood Springs, Colorado, first class, postage prepaid, on the 3icf day of �s-f- , 19802 addressed as follows: Anthony W. Williams Williams, Turner & Holmes, P.C. P.O. Box 338 Grand Junction, CO 81502 7 i 2 -3- ANTHONY W. WILLIAMS WARREN L. TURNER BERNDTC.HOLMES J. D.SNODGRASS BERNARD A.BUESCHER DONALD E. JORDAN DAVID J. TURNER MARK A. HERMUNDSTAD CLARK S. SPALSBURY• JR. JOHN P. GORMLEY •. • \VILLIAI\-IS. TVI- N & IIC>LNIES, 1'.( . ATTORNEYS Al LAW COURTHOUSE PLACE BUILDING - 2(20 N. 616 STREET MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 338 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81502 TEL. (333) 242-6262 Commissioner Jim Drinkhouse Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re • Rif,.e, 44,2gaief;;;,--"kr,o'„, August 29, 1983 SILMON SMITH (1886.1964) CHARLES HOLMES (1897-1967) a AUG J 8 3 COUNTY CO;';it; 15 TONERS age, SouthYMetropol it,amiDistricti. �[y •',:Nr .! R: K+ v..1 4.4 ii''4�J f'K•''`l Y T. Dear Mr. Drinkhouse: This office has been retained by Rifle Village South Metropolitan District in order to perform certain legal work in connection with water rights owned by the District. As we understand it, some question has arisen as to the validity or reliability of rights which are owned by the District. I enclose herewith a copy of a Detailed Augmentation Plan prepared by Western Engineers, Inc. for the District. The conclusion of this plan is that the District has a reliable source of supply for 228 taps. Western Engineers, Inc. was asked only to determine whether the water supply was adequate for the 228 taps. Examination of the report reveals that the supply is suffi- cient for 228 taps using only .85 acre feet of Ruedi Reservoir releases in the driest of years. Actually, the District has a right of 25 acre feet of Ruedi Reservoir releases by virtue of contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District. Consequently, it would appear that it is the height of conservatism to state that there is adequate water for the 228 taps since more than 24 acre feet remains to be called from Ruedi Reservoir even after the supply has been delivered for 228 taps. This matter is now in the process of working its way through the Courts and we are confident of the outcome Commissioner Jim Drinkhouse August 29, 1983 Page Two because we are confident of the work of Western Engineers, Inc. If we can be of any further help in regard to this matter, we would be willing to discuss the situation with anyone. Yours very truly, WILLIAMS, TURNER & HOLMES, P.C. By AWW/skb Enclosure xc: Ms. Aletha J. Abel Mr. Richard T. Paynter, Jr. LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH KEVIN L. PATRICK JAMES 5. LOCHHEAD PETER A. MILWID LEAVENWORTII, PATRICK & LOCIIIIEAD, P G ATTOI?NI;YS AT.LAW November 15, 1983 Anthony W. Williams, Esq. Williams, Turner & Holmes, P.C. P.O. Box 338 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Re: 1011 GRAND AVENUE P O. DRAWER 2030 GLENW00D SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261 Rifle Village South Metropolitan District Application for. Approval of Plan for Augmentation Case No. 82CW135, Water Division No. 5 Dear Andy: To confirm our telephone conversations of November 14 and 15, 1983, I have consented to the Quashing the Subpoena Duces Tecums for Deposition of Ed. Currier and Jim Latchaw of Western Engineers and I have agreed to forego deposing Lamont Kinkade due to the ex parte vacating of the pretrial conference which the Court approved for the grounds set forth in your Motion to Vacate. On behalf of the City of Rifle, I have provided our consent to the foregoing due to your expressed intention to either dismiss the pending application for approval of the filed plan for augmentation of the District or your substantial amending of the plan. It is my understanding that Western Engineers have confirmed that the District only has sufficient water rights involved in the pending application to provide a partial year augmentation plan for between 16 and 20 units (plus or minus). Therefore, to obtain a legal water supply plan for the District, additional augmentation water and use restrictions will need to be provided in any plan hereafter (or amended application) filed by the District. You have indicated that once a final report is generated by Western Engineer superseding the August 1983 report, we will be forwarded a copy of such. Since any new plan prepared by the District would replace that which is filed, we both agree that initiation of further discovery at this point would not he pro- ductive. LEAVENWORTH, PATR1C; : & LOCI1 H EA 1). P C. Anthony W. Williams, Esq. November 15, 1983 Page 2 if for any reason you do not agree with my confirmation of our discussions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C. KLP:psb cc: Ted Anderson Thomas Shoup Leslie H. Botham, P.F. Stephen L. Carter, Esq. Kevi L. Patrick ANTHONY W. WILLIAMS WARREN L TURNER BERNDT C HOLMES J D SNODGRASS BERNARD A BUESCHER DONALD E JORDAN DAVID J. TURNER MARK A HERMUNDSTAD CLARK S SPALSBURY, JR. JOHN P GORMLEY • •. 11'ILL1./IMS, '1'Ul:AL;h 11O1,N1ES, 1'.('. ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURTHOUSE PLACE BUILDING - 200 N 6th STREET MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 338 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81502 TEL. (103) 2426262 November 21, 1983 Kevin L. Patrick, Esq. Leavenworth, Patrick & Lockhead P. O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 it i t !L" , Re: Rifle Village South Metropolitan District Dear Kevin: SILMON SMITH (1886-7964( CHARLES HOLMES (1897-1967) I have your letter of November 15, 1983. Your recitations therein correctly confirm our discussions with one possible comment. I had discussed with you the fact that the engineers had indicated to me that the present augmentation water in the pending proceeding would serve only 16 to 20 units. However, I cannot be held to those figures precisely because I never did have a final work product from them in that regard. In any event, hopefully I am going to have a decidedly dif- ferent augmentation plan, and you are correct that you will receive a copy of the report as soon as it is available for distribution. Yours very truly, WILLIAMS, TURNER & HOLMES, P.C. By AWW/pjs N ENGINEERYNG, 2784.Crossroads' Blvd., Suite104 • rand Junction, Colorado 81501,.-1(303] 243-8966 January 14, 1982 Garfield County Planning Commission 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: Rifle Village South Metropolitan District is currently supplying domestic water service to lots in the Rifle Village South Subdivision. There are presently 43 connections served from an interconnected spring and Anderson Well #2 located in NW4 NW -14. Section 20, Township 6 South, Range 93 West. Water from this well is purchased under contract from .S . W . Anderson , who holds a decree for this well. Copy enclosed. Pumping performed when the well was first used indicated a potential supply of about 5 cfs. I am informed that the well can produced 450 gpm (1.0 cfs) upon demand. A 6" diameter pipe distribution system serves the subdivision including the proposed Colorosa and Reynolds Subdivisions(49 & 22 lots respectively). The District currently has a gravel filtration boxj chlorination facility and about 26,000 gallons at storage. The master water supply plan for the District shows the following: 1. Additional well supply a. Anderson Well #1. Decree 1.0 cfs abs, 3.96 cfs cond. Priority August 1960. b. Anderson Well #2, Decree 1.5 cfs abs, 3.46 cfs cond. Priority August 1960. 2. The district under its current regulations can and does require dedication of water rights which attach to the land within the District which seeks development. They can be summarized as follows: a. Last Chance Ditch. Owners of land within the district have the following interest: Minority Stockholders 254 shares 4.485 cfs. Formerly McLearus 370 shares 3.68 cfs. Other interests 420 shares 4.502 cfs. 12.667 cfs. Dedication of these rights would provide adequate early priority right (May 5, 1888) for augementation. b. Clarkson Ditch. Priority 176, April 15, 1944. 12cfs . Property ownership about 65 Acres. c. J.F. Pierce Ditch - no adjudication d. W.A. Skelton Ditch - Priority claimed September 10, 1894 Adjudication pending for 10 cfs. e. Sidehill Ditch, priority 119BB - April 1, 1900 - waste & drainage. 2784 Crossroads Blvd.,' Suite 104 • • Grand -Junction, Colorado 8001:141303) 2434966 •1; Page 2 Garfield County Planning Commission January 13, 1982 3. A water transmission main of 10.0 MGD capacity to serve an ultimate population of 22,000 persons (or the equivilent) from a principal supply source in the N-1- of Section, 20, to a terminal storage near -the airport. 4. Storage reservoirs of appropiate size located generally near the source of supply, near the mid point and at the terminus. Phase I of the Master Plan is now in existance. Phase II is construction of the first increment of the transmission main to Tangenbaugh Blvd. and a 500,000 gallon reservoir near this point Phase III may be construction of a second transmission main, development of additional supply and a second storage tank. Other phases as directed by growth pattern and demand. The district now has the funding capability to proceed with construction and implementation of Phase II. Rifle Village South Metrpolitan District also furnishes sewer service to the District. An 18" interceptor main starts east of Tangenbaugh Blvd. on Airport Road and delivers sewage to the District's treatment works at the western end of the district, south of Interstate 70 and adjacent to the Colorado River. The present treatment works consist of a 123,000 gallon/day aerated lagoon system, to which 151 residential and commercial units (151 EQR) are connected.. Additional taps have been sold bringing the committed capacity of the plant to The 80% limit which requires planning for expansion to begin. This limit was reached on January 8, 1982, and a site application is currently being prepared for construction to proceed in 1982. It is anticipated that the committed taps will not require service until 1983. Tap fees have been paid in advance, and money is in hand to proceed forthwith. At present connected loads, the treatment plant is non -discharging, but operates under a NPDES permit which must be renewed by July, 1986. The district has a certified operator. As you can see, the District is moving vigorously to keep up with demands on its systems, and has the financial ability to do so without need of grants. The Board of Directors are committed to fulfilling this obligation, and will do so. V9ry truly, youps; Edward F. Carporiter P.E. - L.S. 1 P.O. Box 640 GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-0640 MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis Stranger, Director Department of Development FROM: Earl G. Rhodes Garfield County Attorney DATE: January 20, 1984 SUBJECT: Countryside Subdivision Phone 945-9150 On January 16, 1984, I presented to the Board of County Commissioners the attached letter, with attachments, addressed to me by Attorney Lee Leavenworth on behalf of the City of Rifle. This matter deals with Oil Shale Trust Fund monies, but directly bears upon the County's approval of subdivisions in the service area of the Rifle Metro South District, including the Countryside Subdivision. I asked the Board's permission, which was given, for the attorneys and planners to work on this matter and present to the Board a recommendation as to whether the previous approval for the preliminary plat on the Countryside Subdivision should be re—evaluated in light of Attorney Andy Williams' letter of November 21, 1983. It is my present thinking that one of the main reasons the Board conditions on the previous preliminary plat approval representation from Mr. Williams as to the number of units could serve. Therefore, I think we have a situation where the Board may the opportunity to reconsider its decision, based upon information that now been determined to be inaccurate. was that the modified because of the the District have has Please call me about your availability for a meeting. /sl pc: Watt) Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County • MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Department of Development County Attorney's Office County Road and Bridge Department DATE: August 24, 1983 80' —s/29/83 RE: Removal or change of conditions of Preliminary Plan approval for the Countryside Subdivision On Monday, August 29, 1983, the Board of County Commissioners is required to make a decision as to a preliminary plan for the Countryside Subdivision. Two (2) basic things are at issue here: 1) adequate water to be supplied by the Rifle Village South Metro District (hereinafter referred to as "Metro District"), and 2) a modification of road conditions. As to the water, this case presents the basic question for the Board as to whether the Board will exercise its authority to look behind the Government status of a water provider to determine whether, in fact, that proposed water supply is dependable, as required by the Statutes. As to the road, the question is what is an appropriate condition as to what contribution the developer should make for improvement of the subdivision roadways. The Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission, on August 10, 1983, considered the application of Sisk and Reynolds to rescind the condition requiring an approval of the water augmentation plan for the Metro District prior to final plat approval in the Countryside Subdivision. The P & Z voted four (4) to one (1) to recommend denial of the lifting of that condition. The P & Z found that there could be no guarantee that the water supply for the Subdivision was dependable, within the meaning of C.R.S. '73, Section 30-28-123(6)(a), until an augmentation plan had been approved by the Water Court. The P & Z basically found there had been no change in the circumstances of the development since August of last year, when that condition was imposed. The P & Z's position is consistent with the conditions of approval imposed at the time the Sketch Plan was approved on October 26, 1981 and three subsequent discussions of the Preliminary Plan. The P & Z decision is in accordance with their own policy, as well as the relevant Subdivision Regulations and State Law. C.R.S. '73, Section 30-28-133(6)(a) requires that the Board not approve any preliminary plan unless there is competent evidence in the record that definite provision has been made for a water supply that is sufficient, in terms of quantity, dependability and quality, to provide an appropriate supply of water to the proposed subdivision. The Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, at Section 3.05(1), specify the need for a State Engineer's opinion as to the adequacy and dependability of water, and proof of such a supply is required for preliminary plan approval. Section 4.02.06(a). The issue in this matter is the legal dependability of the water to be supplied to the Countryside Subdivision by the Metro District. The State Engineer, in his letters, has given his professional opinion that, for the Metro District's water supply to be legally dependable, an augmentation plan must be approved by the Water Court or the Metro District's wells could be subject to possible curtailment when a valid downstream call is in effect. While the County may disregard the State Engineer's opinion, it does so at its peril, unless there is competent evidence in the record that the State Engineer's opinion is erroneous. In this case, evidence has been presented by the applicant that the Metro District has a physically sufficient supply of water. The August 1983 augmentation plan makes reference to water rights the Metro District has acquired, through its members, in the Last Chance Ditch, as well as its contract for the supply of Ruedi water, to augment its wells. The Metro District's wells are not considered to be legally dependable until sources of augmentation water have, in fact, been approved by the Water Court. It is only when the Metro District's augmentation plan has been approved by the Water Court that the Last Chance Ditch water and the Ruedi contract water could be used legally to augment the Metro District's wells. There is the possibility that the Metro District's proposed augmentation plan may not, in fact, be approved by the Water Court as submitted; there is the further possibility that the Metro District, at some future date, for whatever reason, may withdraw the augmentation plan. If such events were to occur after the approval of a final plat, there is virtually nothing the County could do to rectify the situation. Board of County Commissioners August 24, 1983 MEMORANDUM, Page Two In the case of the Mitchell Creek Subdivision, the obtaining of an adjudicated augmentation plan was not required to resolve the issue of the legal dependability of the water supply for that Subdivision. The issue of a dependable water supply for the West Glenwood Water District, the supplier to Mitchell Creek, depends on the ability of the Metro District to have its water supply needs met by the City of Glenwood Springs. The City's ability to meet that need has not been in question, and it has continued to do so for many years, both with and without a formal contract. A consistent policy in land use planning and subdivision regulation is a policy which follows the requirements set down in the Statutes and Regulations. To approve a subdivision, such as Countryside which presently lacks a legally dependable water supply, simply because another subdivision, in another part of the County, was approved under a totally different set of circumstances in which the ability to legally augment the water supply was not an issue, is inconsistent with good land use planning policy and the requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations and Colorado Law. The law in Colorado does not require any such supposed consistency between individual decisions. Colorado Law does require that all land use decisions be supported by competent evidence, and in accordance with the requirements of State Law and the County Subdivision Regulations, each land use or subdivision application must be decided on its individual merits. It is very clear cut with regard to the request to remove the condition of approval for a 32 foot wide, 2 inch asphalt mat with curb and gutter. Asphaltic or higher types of pavement, with curb and gutter and sidewalks is required for subdivisions with an average lot size of less than 12,000 square feet in Sections 5.02.06 and 5.02.07 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1979, as amended. In further discussions with the County Road Supervisor and a review of the minutes, the Countryside Subdivision developers were given a concession in that they were not required to provide a 60 foot right-of-way, rather a 40 foot right-of-way was approved. The County Road Supervisor still feels that the road improvements should be made as previously approved. To say that this condition will be met by the formation of a special improvement district gives the County no assurance that certain public improvements will be made prior to the conveyance of any lots, as required in all other subdivisions. There is no way for the County to enforce this requirement if the yet to be formed district is not formed. The only assurance the County can have is through a subdivisions improvements agreement that has sufficient collateral in the form of a letter of credit that can be drawn on to make the required improvements if necessary. In summary, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board have consistently required developers to have a legally dependable water source prior to Final Plat by providing the County with an approved augmentation plan as required for Hawkridge, Chipperfield Estates and the Canyon Creek PUD developments. The road improvements were also required of the Coloroso Subdivision which is in the same area as the Countryside development. The Planning Commission has remained consistent in their recommendations for this subdivision and others with similar requirements. RICHARD D LAMM Governor OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. JERIS A DANIELSON State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818i!,-....„,;7 18, Denver, Colorado 80203 - �%N 1 n (303) 866-3581 1 4 19 ',./1. June 10, 1982 Mr. Paul Mannino Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Mannino: Re: Rifle Village South Metro District Coloroso Subdivision Countryside Subdivision We have received additional information concerning the Rifle Village South Metro District. The District owns seven shares of the Loesch and Crann Ditch Company (Last Chance Ditch) and has filed a proposed plan for augmentation in the Water Court. We would have no objection to approval of the above referenced sub- divisions conditioned upon approval of the augmentation plan by the Water Court. Sincerely, Si D. Ha Simpson, P.E. Assistant State Engineer HDS/KCK:mvf cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. RICHARD D. LAMM Governor OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818 Deriver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 May 20, 1982 Mr. Paul Mannino Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer Re: Rifle Village South Metro District Colorado Subdivision Countryside Subdivision Dear Mr. Mannino: Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed information transmitted with a letter from Mark A. Hermundstad dated May 6, 1982 concerning the Rifle Village South Metro District. Of primary interest was information indicating the District has purchased or contracted for various water rights and has conducted some preliminary engineering analysis in preparation for a proposed plan for augmentation. The material presented does not include a detailed engineering analysis of the water rights and the historic consumptive use of those rights. A proposed augmentation plan has apparently not been drafted or filed with the Water Court. This office cannot recommend a conditional approval until the proposed augmentation plan is filed. Please let us know if you have any questions. HDS/KCK:mvf cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. Sincerely, 4/7 al D. Simpson, P.E. Assistant State Engineer r MAY2 81982 0110 RICHARD D. LAMM Governor OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 March 19, 1982 Mr. Davis S. Farrar Garfield County Planning Dept. 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Farrar: JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer Re: Countryside Subdivision We have received additional information from Edward Carpenter of Paragon Engineering concerning the Rifle Village South Metropolitan Dis- trict. Mr. Carpenter indicates the District has engaged an attorney for the purpose of preparing a plan for augmentation and that the District is negotiating the purchase of water from Reudi Reservoir from the West Di- vide Water Conservancy District. A plan for augmentation would protect the District from having the use of their water supply curtailed in case a call would be placed on the river by a senior water right holder. At this time, we would not expect periods of extended administration on the Colorado River except in a drought. From the information presented, it appears the District is pursuing a legally reliable water supply. Since the applicants are currently preparing a plan for augmentation and we do not know the details of the plan at this time, we do not feel we can add much to our previous review comments. We would ask to review this proposal again once the District has filed an augmentation plan with the Water Court. Sincerely, Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Assistant State Engineer HDS/KCK:pkr cc: Lee Enewold, Division Engineer Ralph Stallman Land Use Commission RICHARD D. LAMM Governor 1 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 February 19, 1982 Mr. Davis S. Farrar Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Countryside Subdivision JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer Dear Mr. Farrar: We have received the above referenced subdivision proposal. The pro- posed 22 lots would be located southwest of Rifle across the Colorado River. The Rifle Village South Metropolitan District is named as the source of water. Our files contain no information concerning the District, however, information prepared by Paragon Engineering was included in the transmittal. The District is supplied by junior wells, one of which was adjudicated in Water Court Case No. W-1310 in March 1973. The engineer's report indicates senior water rights in the Last Chance Ditch are held by landowners within the District. Such rights could be used in support of an augmentation plan if dedicated to the District. Unfortunately, there is no indication that the District is acquiring senior rights or that they are actively pursuing a plan for augmentation. Without an augmentation plan, use of the wells would be subject to curtailment when a valid downstream call was in effect. Since no information has been presented to indicate the District has or is actively pursuing a plan for augmentation, we must recommend this proposal be held in abeyance. Sincerely, Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Assistant State Engineer HDS/KCK:mvf cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. Land Use Comm. ANTHONY W. WILLIAMS WARREN L. TURNER BERNDT C. HOLMES J. D. SNODGRASS BERNARD A. BUESCHER DONALD E JORDAN DAVID J. TURNER MARK A. HERMUNDSTAD CLARK S SPALSBURY, JR. JOHN P. GORMLEY • 1LLIAMS, TURNER & I-HOLMES. i ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURTHOUSE PLACE BUILDING - 200 N. 6th STREET MAILING ADDRESS - P O. BOX 330 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81502 TEL. (303) 242-6262 November 21, 1983 Kevin L. Patrick, Esq. Leavenworth, Patrick & Lockhead P. O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 SILMON SMITH (1866-1964) CHARLES HOLMES (1897.1967) Re: Rifle Village South Metropolitan District Dear Kevin: I have your letter of November 15, 1983. Your recitations therein correctly confirm our discussions with one possible comment. I had discussed with you the fact that the engineers had indicated to me that the present augmentation water in the pending proceeding would serve only 16 to 20 units. However, I cannot be held to those figures precisely because I never did have a final work product from them in that regard. In any event, hopefully I am going to have a decidedly dif- ferent augmentation plan, and you are correct that you will receive a copy of the report as soon as it is available for distribution. Yours very truly, WILLIAMS, TURNER & HOLMES, P.C. By AWW/pjs ANTHONY W. WILLIAMS WARREN L. TURNER BERNDT C. HOLMES J. D. SNODGRASS BERNARD A. BUESCHER DONALD E. JORDAN DAVID J. TURNER MARK A. HERMUNDSTAD CLARK 5. SPALSBURY. JR. JOHN P. GORMLEY W 1LLIAMS. TU RNER & HOLMES. t .C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURTHOUSE PLACE BUILDING - 2110 N. 6N STREET MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 338 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81502 TEL. (303) 242-6262 Commissioner Jim Drinkhouse Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 August 29, 1983 SILMON SMITH (1886-1964) CHARLES HOLMES (1897-1%7) -'-. T AUG - ,) id83 COUNTY CGr;i►', hSS;3NERS ReTfazRiflA,leA](.:aI .agdFw%- M.L.molY4 ,4.h1. R Me. tri opo.ii�t'an,,!D',i. stri.M • cvta.. ..'lij •"Tt Dear Mr. Drinkhouse: This office has been retained by Rifle Village South Metropolitan District in order to perform certain legal work in connection with water rights owned by the District. As we understand it, some question has arisen as to the validity or reliability of rights which are owned by the District. I enclose herewith a copy of a Detailed Augmentation Plan prepared by Western Engineers, Inc. for the District. The conclusion of this plan is that the District has a reliable source of supply for 228 taps. Western Engineers, Inc. was asked only to determine whether the water supply was adequate for the 228 taps. Examination of the report reveals that the supply is suffi- cient for 228 taps using only .85 acre feet of Ruedi Reservoir releases in the driest of years. Actually, the District has a right of 25 acre feet of Ruedi Reservoir releases by virtue of contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District. Consequently, it would appear that it is the height of conservatism to state that there is adequate water for the 228 taps since more than 24 acre feet remains to be called from Ruedi Reservoir even after the supply has been delivered for 228 taps. This matter is now in the process of working its way through the Courts and we are confident of the outcome Commissioner Jim Drinkhouse August 29, 1983 Page Two because we are confident of the work of Western Engineers, Inc. If we can be of any further help in regard to this matter, we would be willing to discuss the situation with anyone. Yours very truly, WILLIAMS, TURNER & HOLMES, P.C. By AWW/skb Enclosure xc: Ms. Aletha J. Abel Mr. Richard T. Paynter, Jr. w 1 LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH KEVIN L. PATRICK JAMES S. LOCHHEAD PETER A. MILWID • • LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW January 9, 1984 Earl G. Rhodes, Esq. Garfield County Attorney P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1011 GRAND AVENUE P. O. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261 Re: City of Rifle Request for Re -Allocation of Oil Shale Trust Fund Allocation Dear Earl: RECEI\'ED JAN 101984 GARFIELD COUNTY ATTORNEY Enclosed is the original of a letter from the City of Rifle to the Board of County Commissioners. The letter is in response to the last meeting with the Commissioners in which the Board's position was that the allocated funds would not be released to the City until negotiations had occurred with the District due to the Board's belief that distribution of funds to the City would result in a duplication of water services on the south side of the Colorado River. It has always been the position of the City that no duplica- tion of services would occur because the District's present facilities and legal water supply plan are presently inadequate to service the South Side's planned development. The District has strenuously disagreed with our perception of their ability to serve and this has placed the County in the middle; the County has approved developments which will be served by the District upon assurances by the District that they are ready, willing and able to service demands on the south side. The City has feared that these developments were being approved without adequate service in place. Many developments have been built on the south side which, if the City is correct in its perception of the District's legal water rights, are faced with a potential threat to their health, safety and welfare should the funds not be reallocated and improvements not made to the City's south side facilities. The City believes that an in depth review of the District's capability to serve developments presently built and serviced by the District's system as well as approved and planned, albeit • . LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P. C. Earl G. Rhodes, Esq. January 9, 1984 Page 2 not constructed, development dependent upon District service reveals that the release of the allocated funds will not cause a duplication of services for no legal capability presently exists for the District to serve these areas. After years of urging from both the City and the State Engineer that the District obtain an adequate legal water supply to meet its obligations to provide water, the District filed an Application for Approval of Plan for Augmentation in Case No. 82CW135 in the Water Court, Water Division No. 5. The Application was grossly deficient in many respects and, if approved, would have caused injury to the City's and others vested water rights and decreed conditional water rights; accor- dingly, the City filed a Statement of Opposition to the Application (copies of the Application and Statement of Opposition are attached hereto). The District's Application recites that the plan for augme- nation (which fails to meet the criteria of an application for a plan for augmentation and should more properly have been demoni- nated a change of water right) was to have provided a legal water supply for 228 single family residences. By oral repre- sentations to the Commissioners at the hearings on the City's fund reallocation request and by letter dated August 29, 1983, from the District's legal counsel to the County, the District claimed to have a legal water supply plan in water court to serve the 228 units claimed. At the City's fund reallocation request hearings, the City asserted that the District's plan was so deficient that it could not even properly service units (as represented) presently constructed and tapped into the systems let alone service additional planned developments. The County took the District's representations in good faith reliance. Moreover, contrary to the assertions of one of the developers within the District, the District has no right to condemn water rights, C.R.S., §32-1-1004(4). (1982 Supp.) Subsequently to the proceedings before the Commissioners, representatives of the City met with representatives of the District to review and discussthe District's water rights to determine if settlement grounds existed. The City opened their records to the District in an effort to alleviate differences over the plan for augmenation. Subsequent to our meeting with representatives of the District, the City proposed a seven point plan to settle all differences concerning water and sewer services on the south side of the river. This proposal was summarily rejected without discussion by the District. No counter -proposal whatsoever has • • LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P C. Earl G. Rhodes, Esq. January 9, 1984 Page 3 been offered in response to the City's proposal. Moreover, the District has shown no desire to even discuss the matter with the City on any basis. Trial Data Certificates were due in the District's Water Court Case on November 10, 1983, in advance of the pretrial hearing which was set for November 22, 1983. Based upon the objections of the City, the revised engineering report submitted on August 29, 1983, (a copy of the cover letter enclosing this engineering report is attached) to the Commissioners was again revised and revealed that the District's present plan could serve 16 to 20 units without severe irrigation restrictions, not 228 as claimed by the District. Upon assurances of the District that the plan would either be withdrawn or substantially amended after acquisition of additional water rights, the City agreed to forego further initiated discovery against the District (see copy of correspondence from this office dated November 15, 1983 and reply correspondence from District counsel dated November 21, 1983). The District in November indicated that a draft engineering report had been generated and that a final report would be for- warded to all parties when such was finalized; to date, the City has not received any indication from the District that the final engineering report has been completed and no amendment or re -filing of the plan has been accomplished. The City believes that the District has demonstrated its inability to presently service the area on the south side of the the river; accordingly, the City respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners reconsider the City's fund reallo- cation request in furtherance of the City's desire for the pro- tection of the health, safety and welfare of the presently constructed developments on the south side of the Colorado River which are dependent upon the City for water service. We request that you submit this letter and all enclosures to the Commissioners with your comments. If you feel that a meeting is desirable after discussing this matter with the Commissioners please do not hesitate to call. KLP:psb Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C. LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P. C. Earl G. Rhodes, Esq. January 9, 1984 Page 4 Encs. cc w/encs: Ted Anderson Thomas Shoup Stephen L. Carter, Esq. Leslie H. Botham, P.E. Honorable George E. Mitchell Rifle City Council alp December 20, 1983 Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Oil Shale Trust Fund Grant for Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Plant Dear Sirs: As you are aware, Rifle was allocated $2 million for expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). To date, $150,000 has been assigned to the City Hall furnishings and $650,000 to water upgrades north of the Colorado River. There remains $1.4 million allocated to the City of Rifle which is not under contract at this time. We have previously come before you with a request to use these monies for a new sixteen inch water line crossing of the Colorado River and reconstruction of the Beaver Creek Water Treatment Plant. At the time that the request was made, Rifle Village South Metropolitan District (RVSMD) raised objections to our change in use of the funds on grounds that it would create competing service for water supply. The Commissioners indicated that the funds would be frozen until the disputes with RVSMD were resolved. We have met with the water attorney and water engineers from RVSMD several times. The City of Rifle has supplied their engineer with data from our water billings, including the use of an office, and access to water use information. The RVSMD engineer has gone back and re -issued an engineering report based on all water available to the RVSMD and using water consumption data which is accepted by the water courts. This engineering report, prepared for RVSMD by their engineer, Western Engineers, indicated that with severe irrigation (lawn watering) restric- tions, RVSMD has almost enough water to supply the existing 48 taps for domestic use. By no stretch of the imagination does the district have the water to service other developments, provide fire flows, or service the existing commercial areas on the south side of the river. We would like to renew and reiterate our request that $1.2 million be re -allocated for the Beaver Creek plant and the main crossing of the Colorado River. I believe that our reasons for needing these improvements have been amply described in the past. However, I would like to stress that the commercial development south of the river is a direct oil shale impact. The City of Rifle is the only entity in any position to be able to supply water to the area for domestic and commercial use and to provide fire protection. We believe that it is imperative to complete these improvements to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rifle and Garfield County. 337 East Avenue P.O. Box 1908 Phone 625 - 2121 Rifle, Colorado 81650 E OF "OIL SHALE 17 • Page 2 Garfield County Commissioners OSTF - Wastewater Treatment Plant December 20, 1983 The present eight inch water crossing is old and in very poor condition. This water main is leaded joint cast iron pipe. The joints are leaking badly and the structrual integrity of the pipe is questionable. This main must be replaced as soon as possible to protect the developments south of the river. The Beaver Creek Treatment Plant is a water plant which processes water from Beaver Creek. This plant operates on a gravity system and since the water is very celan, it operates with very little power usage. The refurbishment of the plant also will reconstruct the existing 650,000 gallon water tank. The additional storage will help to provide fire flows to the south side of the river as well as assure an alternative source of water for the City. The City is therefore respectfully requesting the release of $1.2 million for construction of the projects outlined above. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 1 Sincerely, eorr'- E. Mitchell Mayor, City of Rifle P.O. Box 640 411 111 GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-0640 Phone 945-9150 May 9, 1984 John Schenk, Esquire 817 Colorado -Avenue, #201 Glenwood S' %f?` lz ; -CO-- 81601 RE: Countryside Subdivision Dear John: CO y The purpose of this letter is memorialize the action of the Board of County Commissioners on May 7, 1984 as to the above matter. At that time, the Board, by motion, dropped its inquiry as to the adequacy of the water supply and any conditions pertaining thereto in the preliminary plat approval for Countryside Subdivision. Primarily, this was based upon the letter dated April 6, 1984 from the Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources. Therefore, the operative conditions of approval as to the above subdivision are those contained in Resolution No. 83-305. I appreciate the patience which you have shown to me in this matter. Very truly yours, e.y..�� /-/(-/;:'G Earl G. Rhodes Garfield County Attorney EGR/sl pc: Mark Bean, Garfield County Planner Kevin Patrick, Esquire N RICHARD D. LAMM Governor 2376H 1876 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 April 6, 1984 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Countryside Subdivision Dear Mr. Bean: JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer We have received letters from John R. Schenk and Anthony W. Williams, attorneys for the Countryside Subdivision developers and Rifle Village South Metropolitan District. They seek final plat approval and full authority to proceed with this development. We previously recommended approval conditioned upon Water Court approval of the District's augmentation plan 82CW135. The District's augmentation plan was originally filed in June of 1982. More recently, the applicants have obtained 25 acre-feet of storage water through West Divide Water Conservancy District and have completed engineering studies precedent to amendment or completion of the augmentation plan. The District's well is near the Colorado River. Should a call be exer- cised, we would anticipate no problem with allowing continued operation of the well in exchange for releases from upstream storage. At the same time, we would encourage the District to vigorously pursue adjudication of the augmen- tation plan through the Water Court. We have no objection to final plat approval of Countryside subdivision. HDS/KCK:ma cc: Orlyn Bell, Div. Eng. Water District file Sincerely, o Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Assistant State Engineer 1984 (e iat it �i CQ. PLAtiNief GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-0640 MEMORANDUM TO: Garfield County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Earl G. Rhodes, Garfield County Attorney` DATE: March 20, 1984 l� SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Conditions for the Countryside Subdivision Phone 945-9158 kiiNEAR 2 1984 GAiFIELD LO. PLAT 'ER INTRODUCTION At your request, I have evaluated information brought to the County's attention by a letter dated January 9, 1984 from attorney, Lee Leavenworth, on behalf of the City of Rifle. Although the letter is intended to prompt reconsideration by the Board of County Commissioners as to the release of funds for water improvements on the South side of the Colorado River, said information also bears directly on a decision of the Board on August 29, 1983 to delete a condition on the preliminary plat approval for the proposed Countryside Subdivision. In evaluating this matter, I have done the following things: 1. Reviewed correspondence and attachments of a letter dated January 9, 1984; 2. Held a meeting on February 14, 1984, at 1:30 p.m., with the interested parties; 3. Had prepared and reviewed a transcript of the Commissioners' discussion of August 22, 1983 and August 29, 1983; and 4. Reviewed the Planning file as to this matter. The purpose of this memo is to present to the Board the staff recommendation in regards to this matter. OUESTION FOR THE BOARD Should the Board of County Commissioners modify the conditions attached to the preliminary plat approval for the Countryside Subdivision to again reimpose a condition that, to -wit: That the water court approve the plan for augmentation and that the Division of Water Resources review the final plan of augmenetation prior to final plat approval. Garfield County Board of County Commissioners March 20, 1984 MEMORANDUM, Page Two RECOMMENDATION It is my recommendation that the above condition should be attached to the preliminary plat approval for the Countryside Subdivision. There are two (2) reasons for this: 1. It has been brought to the County's attention that the representations made by the applicant in August, 1983, are not now presently correct; and 2. The failure of the County to obtain the approval of the water supply by the State of Colorado, Division of Water Resources, prior to final plat approval, may leave the County open to liability claims from future lot purchasers, if the above condition is not attached, and a dependable water supply is not available. DISCUSSION For your review, please find the attached documents: 1. Letter dated January 9, 1984 with attachments; 2. Letter of August 29, 1983 from attorney, Anthony W. Williams, re: Water Supply for Rifle Village South Metro District; 3. Letter dated November 21, 1983 from attorney, Anthony W. Williams, re: Rifle Village South Metropolitan District; 4. Transcript of Proceedings of August 22, 1983 before the Board of County Commissioners, re: Countryside Subdivision; 5. Decision, re: Countryside Subdivision, August 29, 1983 before the Board of County Commissioners; 6. Memo from staff to the Board of County Commissioners, re: the Countryside Subdivision, dated August 24, 1984; 7. Resolution No. 82-207, preliminary plat approval for Countryside Subdivision; and 8. Resolution No. 83-305, preliminary plat approval for Countryside Subdivision. CONCLUSION This office is available for answering any questions you may have as to the above matter. /sl Enclosures pc: Mark Bean, County Planner (2?riOct-L-E-1“e43 .CFI' /ED JUL 16 1984 G,?RHEJ) ,.COUNTY COMM!SS!5,14iA Et.{4 t� tJ t Sip ;(J e.E LI tit i OA Pif id -Ar . Wof Lito LK 1R.E,JEtz.AL fio�'rL (4v) wuteD 1,•t-Vb st-2 cx A p� P ,e.c; , a ,13 t � 4 E ST/ p LA. T i U.3 J O F M t i,LVEcky p . FIE I/ Z -61-4F 4 P(66, t4, -1- THP S51 O Pt. 6)oK:)S10E4ATI oa.i of oc, ©'3E of �tST(- L Lta Air t.s'-tp`+ Appeco4L 02 I t /Q0'i TFC F_to2 A y t S `fit F -4-7- slok ,y M i t t LL -t , ALAI - 1,0L) uI— u ALtE v --O, '4)156)04 e.,4c E PRopc,4L fL& Az a S.UIQ Do 'sic) ccu.4S d l t& k -rUTT t/y R^ 4'Z� / t 1 C' -o &) 01 'Tt ot) Q t= 1-11-1E z.Lopc. F� F -C3 -b7' T' c 3 O.' l-4 C. ,() Ei ecoc-) 4 `L' T OIEL/ s /0/ 2. ss �0tiw'i y T10 cs 5 ,I S Q i ---A K " POcc_ $07,1 tDr pu les T11 e-caci �C ic�oLD S ria fJ o `f. LcE A ee.F1,3 Ecoc.) C.- S F- L F. --2t 1 --CE S LEFT Me Ae-E1A /\o -, S uSEt) a RST5 FO�- 1 N -tA i3 A (L) S/ of L Fut GAL -Th LA-1--t-c2oLtc;4 ok) 1_05 pole -riot -3 OF N o'l A C► (\sS p LA c -,E.4 -p / -1. E 0,1 1x0 A ti E iP�c { fi CJti t4(t cA t 1 � OCt A -SEE S Ili Ar ipA i p 7-/ k.) t&) Vrtf ) top 2a trv- UJ► S UM2 t may_' o<<L o b 1 A3 C R 60 4 -7 - LAD LLD 0 /3 F o kc.)17 1-4 p i E S `v v T i S F, /. � M p a T r+ t -. e w cr i+ me. -D1 6-7-(e._, CTS p �1 I &. 0 CA iJ /`S- ijr3 'T L t 2 "S M- >> o S 1&-c t LT - 0 s ► ,v v -t-} c c F � �� �� % Fi k-= o Lo`7 -TV V--11 14 EJ -T-1 ►� a-� �J F_ F Gt Ll-- 2 F,6% J-{ i C R E e Dot` ►'� � D A -s RE -s jff.-€.1- ��z � � k F.S T 1 hp, CU s c� 2 A 'Ti b)0 2 i-'2 L 1 a (! 16A foci iii C to a t_0 44_ '4/--41;`)