HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.08.1998A %i *uPAYc
' pre) Miete—
L' s, 2(z/98
y , / 5:0k fit'/C-aS j
�� ! Die). /
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
BOCC 9/8/98
REQUEST: Preliminary Plan for the Lacy Park
subdivision
APPLICANT: Lacy Park LLC
LOCATION: A tract of land located in portions of Sections
13,14 and 24, T6S R94W of the 6th PM;
located approximately southwest side of the
West Rifle I-70 Interchange.
SITE DATA: 21.777 acres
WATER: Shared well
SEWER: ISDS
ACCESS: I-70 Frontage Road
EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING: R/L - gentle slopes and lower valley floor
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The site is located in District C - Rural Areas/Minor Environmental Constraints, as
designated on the 1984 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Management Districts Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The site is located approximately three miles west of Rifle and
south of the West Rifle I-70 Interchange. The property is bounded on the south by
the D&RG railroad and on the north by the I-70 frontage road. There is a small
gulch toward the middle of the property and the proposed Lot 3. The remainder of
the property is relatively flat and has sage and natural grasses, with applicant's
contractors yard on the proposed Lot 2.
B. Project Description: The applicant is proposing split the 21.77 acre parcel into five
(5) parcels ranging in size from 3.315 to 6.260 acres in size. The parcels will share
a well located on Lot 2 and utilize individual sewage disposal systems. Access is
from the I-70 frontage road.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Zoning. All of the parcels are consistent with the required two (2) acres minimum lot
size for the R/L - Gentle slopes and lower valley floor zone district. The existing
Lacy Park construction head quarters were approved as a special use permit. The
application includes building envelopes for the various uses that may occur on the
property. An application was made for a church on one of the lots, but it had to be
returned since, no more than one principal use can be on one lot. Until a subdivision
is approved, only the existing contractors yard can be on the lot. Additionally, the
existing zoning only allows residential and agricultural uses as a use by right. Any
commercial or industrial uses will be subject to special or conditional use permit
approval. This needs to be noted on any plat approved as a part of this subdivision.
There is a question as to whether or not the proposed water supply is consistent with
the proposed uses, given that it is a commercial well.
B. Legal Access. Included in the application are two CDOT highway access permits for
a single tenant office building of 6000 sq. ft. and a church. There are no other access
permits for the other lots. There is no evidence in the application that any of the
other lots have legal access to the I-70 frontage road. Access permits will need to
be acquired for the other lots or an expanded access permit for all of the lots will
need to be obtained prior to any approval of the County for further subdivision. If
the additional access permits cannot be acquired, it will be necessary to develop an
internal road system for the lots without direct access and the need for road designs
as a part of the submittal requirements.
C. Water:. The applicant proposes to serve the parcels with a well permit, augmented
by West Divide Water Conservation District augmentation water. The proposed use
is for commercial purposes on four of the lots, with the fifth lot being for a church.
It is noted on the third sheet of the plan maps, that each lot will have to have a
reverse osmosis treatment system installed at the connection with the water system.
What is not explained is the reason for the RO system being needed. It staff's
understanding that it is necessary to have an RO system to meet the requirements of
UMTRA and deal with the potential for water contaminated by radioactivity in the
groundwater as a result of the Mill Tailings sites up stream of the site. This fact
should be noted on any plat approved for this subdivision and there need to be a
homeowners association developed to deal with the ownership, maintenance and
repair of the water system.
2
Section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations requires "in all instances, evidence that
a water supply , sufficient in terms of quality, quantity and dependability, shall be
available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the proposed subdivision." As
noted previously, the applicant has only provided documentation regarding the
legality of the supply and a pump test of the proposed water source. Technically,
this is a central water supply system, which requires a design of the system and it is
necessary to provide evidence regarding the dependability and potability of the water
supply. There is a rough calculation of the projected water demand for the
subdivision, based on one known and projected uses. In a review of the Sketch Plan
submittal, there is a water quality test that shows the proposed water exceeds a
number of arameters, in addition to the previously noted radioactivity parameters.
(See pgs. I) Since this is a central water supply system, it is necessary for
the applicant to demonstrate how the system will be designed and to have the
engineer design a water treatment design for the subdivision. Based on a note on the
third page of the plan maps, it is proposed to have RO treatment at each building.
This needs to go further by the defming the type of systems that will remove the
contaminants noted in the water quality test and a management system to ensure that
the systems are maintained. As originally submitted, the application did not meet the
requirements of Section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations in terms of the detail
necessary to evaluate the adequacy of the system and the ability to maintain a system.
It appeared that the "contractor" is responsible for the placement of all utilities to the
various lots.
Based on the initial review, Bob Szrot, County Engineer, noted a number of concerns
related to the maintenance and drinking water quality. The applicant's engineer
responded with supplemental information, but the County Engineer had some
suggested changes to address the original concerns. (See memo pgs. /0—/(11 )
D. Sewage Disposal: Sewer is proposed to be provided by ISDS. The applicant's
engineer performed percolation tests on each site and found areas that perc within the
limits allowed by the State ISDS regulations and other areas that do not perc at all.
On one of the plan maps, it is stated that each lot will have an engineered system and
the other puts the responsibility on the individual lot owner. Staff suggests that it is
appropriate to have an engineers design for any lot. It also needs to be noted that an
ISDS can only be used for domestic waste and cannot exceed 2000 gpd design
capacity on any individual lot.
E. State and Local Health Standards. No State or Local health standards are applicable
to the application, with the exception of Colorado Department of Health ISDS
setback standards, which should be verified by an engineer.
3
F. Drainage. It appears that a drainage easements may be necessary on lot 3, to
accommodate the off site and I-70 drainage. It is also noted in the geologic report
that it is necessary to have positive drainage away from any building and that no
ISDS leach field be located near any building to avoid any potential subsidence
possibility.
G. Fire Protection. There is a letter in the application from the Rifle Fire District in the
application stating that a proposed storage pond for fire protection is adequate, even
though it is not the ideal. Prior to fmal plat approval, the Fire District needs to
approve the proposed plans and fmal installation of the pond.
H. Easements. Any required easements (drainage, access, utilities, etc..) will be required
to be shown on the final plat.
I. School Impact Fees The applicant will not be required to pay the $200.00 per lot
impact fee prior to the approval of the final plat, provided none of the lots are to be
used for residential purposes. .
J. Natural Hazards.. The applicant's geotechnical engineer has established parameters
for constructing a buildings on each lot. Staff suggests that it be noted by a plat note
requiring that all buildings submit engineered plans for the footers/basements
consistent with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared
by CTL/Thompson, Inc., dated 4/30/98.
K. Agency Comments: The following comments have been received:
Colorado Geologic Survey: The State geologist generally concurs with the
recommendations of the applicant's engineers. (See letter pgs. /s )
Colorado Division of Water Resources: The State engineers note that the well permit
issued to the applicant can legally supply water to the lots, provided it is
demonstrated that the well is put to beneficial use by June 9, 1999 and the contract
is maintained for the West Divide Water Conservancy district. They did not
comment on the physical capacity to serve the lots. (See letter pg. / f )
Public Health Officer: As a result of verbal conversations with the Planning
Department, Mary Meisner, County Public Health Officer, expressed some concerns
about the potential harm to children in the church, if the water system is not properly
maintained. Additionally, concerns were expressed about the disposal of the filters,
given the potential for them to be classified as hazardous waste.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: As a follow up to the
previous conversation with the County Health Officer, staff contacted the Grand
4
Junction office of the CDPHE. The opinion expressed verbally, was that the R/O
system membranes should not be a considered a hazardous material, since everything
passes through it. The reject water on the other hand, would be considered a
hazardous material and should not be used for any purpose, including fire protection
or truck washing. The water will probably not be safe to discharge, which means
that it would be ill advised to be used for any purpose on the property. The use of
the water for any purposes on the property will end up being contaminated and
subject to cleanup measures that will be much more expensive in the future.
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
A. That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required by
law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners; and
B. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that hearing; and
C. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution; and
D. That all data, surveys, analysis, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State
of Colorado, and Garfield County, have been submitted and, in addition, have been
found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed subdivision subject
to the following conditions of approval:
1. All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be considered conditions of
approval unless otherwise state by the Planning Commission.
2. This subdivision is a residentially zoned subdivision and any commercial/industrial
use will be subject to public hearings and require approval of a special or conditional
use permit. Additionally, not more than one principal use is allowed on any lot.
3. A Final Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the property,
dimension and area of the proposed lot, access to a public right-of-way, and any
proposed easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities, and include
the following plat notes:
5
"Soil conditions on the site require engineered septic systems. As a part of any
building permit application, a site specific individual sewage disposal system design
by a registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado, shall be submitted with
the building permit application."
"All buildings shall submit engineered plans for the footers/basements consistent
with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared by
CTL/Thompson, Inc., dated 4/30/98 and identified as Job No GS -2354."
"The area surrounding the properties in this subdivision is agricultural in nature and
some agricultural practices may not be compatible with rural residential land uses,
but the agricultural use has priority over the residential use."
"Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner."
"All construction shall be consistent with USFS Wildfire Prevention Guidelines."
"No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed; each dwelling unit or building
will be allowed one(1) new wood -burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-407, et.
seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and there will be no restriction on
the number of natural gas burning fireplaces or appliances included in the protective
covenants."
"One dog will be allowed in each residential dwelling unit in the PUD This
requirement will be included in the protective covenants, and will be enforced by the
homeowners association."
"The potable water supply for this subdivision is substandard and requires treatment
by a reverse osmosis process to eliminate potential radioactive and other impurities.
It will be the responsibility of the homeowners association to inspect and maintain
individual systems on an ual basis "
C�re4 cva�r .s r1of'r l/C��SLt 6�raSl
4. it The covenants shall require the annual in pectio of each individual water treatment
system by a licensed water treatment operator ceptable to the County Engineer, at
a cost to the homeowners association. The-Lsrrgineer will certify in wt.' ing that the
systems are functioning as designed and that the water qualityis mee ublic water
supply standards. It should also be Ve noted in the covenants tha the water has
radioactive contamination that requires specific treatment to remove the impurity.
5. That prior to the approval of a final plat, the Rifle Fire District will approve the
design and location of the proposed pond for fire protection water. —
6. The water system shall be designed to centralize all of the reverse osmosis treatment
6
systems around the well head.
7. The applicants shall recalculate the water rights for all lots based on the reject water
being stored in a lined water pond a determination of residential and industrial uses.
And a redesign of the water system by a qualified professional acceptable to the
County Engineer, prior to Board of County Commissioners approval.
Staff would suggest modifyi c dition Nip. to read•
6. The water system shall be designed to centralize all of the reverse osmosis treatment
systems around the well head and develop covenant restrictions consistent with the
recommendations of the Garfield County Engineer in a September 9, 1998 memo.
0
� ��r14 / p /a-- G_,protri
Given the most recent comments from the County Engineer, Health Officer and the CDPHE
regarding the reject water, staff would suggest that further analysis of the reject water would
be appropriate and possibly the redesign of the fire protection measures. This is based on
the assumption that the applicant cannot demonstrate that the fire protection water is safe.
R-rovrd��f
Received fsom:
JOHN C. KEPIIART & CO.
llM1 JNCTIEJW LABORATORE
432 nvttTn AVEttug
Customer Nom, n o n e
• PHONR 242-78 la
ANALYIICAL REPORT
P.f AND JUNCTION, COLORADO 51601
Samuelson Pump Co., Raun Samuelson
Glenwood Springs✓; CO
Date Received 1/13/92
Labo*atory No._ 6613
Date Reported
water
Kemple
2/2/98
Lab number 6613 Limits for Drinking Suggested
Sample ID Johnoon Well by Coln. Dept. Health
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Pa)
Cadmium(Cd)
Chromium(Cr)
Fluoride(F)
Lr=ad (Pb)
Mcrcury(Hg)
Nitrate(N)
Selenium(Se)
Silver(Ag)
Color(Cc/Pt unit)
pH
Conductivity0125 deg. C
sodium(Na)
Calcium(Ca)
Magneeium(Mg)
Potassium(K)
Chloride(C1)
Sul faLi (304)
Phenol. A1I.alinity(CaCO3)
Total Alkalinity(CaCO3)
Bicarbonate(HCO3)
Carbonatd(CO3)
Dissolved Solids
Hardness (CaCO3)
Turbidity(NTU)
Boron (D)
Copper(Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Manganese(Mn)
Molybdenum(Mo)
Ammonia(N)
Phosphate (P)
Zinc (Zn)
Page 1 of 2
0.000
0.07
0.0000
0. 000
0. 13
0. 000
0.00000
0.70
0.000
0.0000
0.5
7.40
4330
714
363
--156
10.6
350
—1920
0
46t_I
557
0
3620
1550
--7.1
0.453
0. 000
0.70
0.074
0.004
0.00
0.01
0.033
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
umhos/cm
mq/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
me /1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mo/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
0.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
4 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.002 mg/I
10.0 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
none
none
none
70 mg/1
none
125 mg/1
none
250 mg/1
750 mg/1
none
none
none
none
500 mo/1
200 mg/1
1
nnnfa
1.0 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
none
none
none
S.0 mg/1
Lab Dir.: 6rian S. Bauer
100 d �Vti0ti�
Received from:
JOHN C KEPHART & CO_
GRAND JUNCTION LARTRftS
GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Samuelson Pump Co., Raun Samuelson
Glenwood Springs, CO
none 6613 water
Customer No Laboratory No Sample
Date Received 1/13/98 pate Reported 2/2/99
Lab number 6613 Limits for Drinking Suggested
Sample ID
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Johnson Well
68.0 pCi/1
(+/-40 pCi/l)
0.0 pCi/1
(+1-30 pCi/l)
Total Coliform Bacteria 0 colonies
/1O0m1
by Colo. Dept. Health
15 pCi /1
200 pCi/1 (50 proposed)
0 colonies
/1OOm1
NOTE: Large margin o4 error on radiological results due to high salts
present in sample.
Page 2 of 2 Lab Dir.: Brian S. Bauer
f 00 'd
Garfield County Engineer
Memorandum
August 12, 1998
To: File
From: Robert B. Szrot - Garfield County Engineer
Re: Letter of Opinion - Lacy Park Subdivision
Lacy Park is a 21.8 acre parcel located on the southwest side of the west Rifle interchange
with I-70. There is currently a commercial structure on the property with the proposed
subdivision to result in generating 4 additional lots (5 total) ranging in size from 3.3 to 6.3
acres.
From review of the blueprints and the subdivision application form I have also interpreted that
lot 1 is anticipated to house a church with a congregation of 100 people, lot 2 will remain
under the original commercial structure, and lots 3-5 will be sold for commercial purposes.
I have the following comments and concerns pertaining to this subdivision:
1) Water -
a) The original well permit was conditionally approved to supply a maximum pumping
rate of 6gpm (not to exceed 1 acre -ft. per year) for the limited commercial use by a
construction shop and office (and irrigation of not more than 250 sq.ft.. of landscaping). This
permit was later amended to allow a maximum pumping rate of 15gpm (not to exceed 5.6
acre -ft. per year). I interpret that the water from this well is still limited to the originally
constrained commercial use as noted above.
b) Potable water quality of the permitted well is woefully lacking. The February 2,
1998 test results from Grand Junction Laboratories show that recommended Colorado Drinking
Water standards are exceeded as follows:
Sodium values exceeded by 3500%
Magnesium by 25 %
Chlorides by 40%
Sulfates by 700%
Dissolved Solids by 700%
Gross Alpha Radiation by 450%
Responsibilities and expectations exist for a developer to provide reasonably potable water to
those people buying property. To place the burden of proper water treatment and the technical
expertise to manage and maintain numerous "home" systems upon each individual purchaser,
runs counter to expected industry standards.
c) Water quantity - The January 15, 1998 Samuelson Pump Co. letter shows the
production of this well at 15gpm. This amount is also the newly permitted allowed pumping
capacity. The February 27th Rifle Fire Protection District letter states that for commercial
development a minimum delivery of 1500gpm would be required with fire hydrants located
within 500 feet of each structure. A subsequent letter of April 21, 1998 refers to an extension
of the City of Rifle water main or a storage pond to be developed to meet this requirement.
Blueprint sheet notes state that each lot owner should have a storage tank, on their premises, of
300 gallons. A collective approach to meeting the fire requirement also falls short - a quick
analysis shows a well pump at 15gpm, lot storage at 300 gal. and 15,000 cu.ft. of storage
pond attached to one hydrant on lot 2 via a 6 inch line - at the most optimistic scenario it
seems that actual "hose time" would only be provided for 10 minutes to protect this entire
commercial area.
2) Geology - I agree with the geology report about suitable soils for building construction. I
also note that there are potential hydrocompressable soils that need attention. Drainage and
foundation work should be reviewed by an engineer.
3) Sewage - It appears that some areas in the subject subdivision are suitable for ISDS's. It is
also noted that some areas in the property have failed percolation tests. A concern is raised
about the suitability an ISDS providing treatment for commercial sewage. These issues would
need to be addressed on a per -site basis dependent on what might be built and areas selected as
potential ISDS sites.
SUMMARY:
I have looked at this property under several scenarios. If this were a residential subdivision,
typical expectations would exist for good potable water, centralized sewage, proper fire
protection, properly sized roadways and access points, and drainage and landscaping - all
supplied by the developer. Raw land for sale would carry with it the risks of finding a water
source, developing sewage treatment, engineering proper drainage for a building site, and
meeting necessary local restrictions. An industrial park would provide potable water, proper
fire protection flows for industry, and proper roadways and access points to accommodate
commercial traffic. What is proposed in this subdivision application is none of the above and
would fall far short of meeting any type of development conception.
The concept of locating a church (including the general public's expectation for safe drinking
water) on this property and then requiring that church to fully and consistently treat their own
drinking water seems unrealistic. Additionally, I have concerns about the precedent that would
be set if the county allows developers to pipe any substandard water to each homeowner and
let each property treat their own water. Would this also apply to developments of 100 lots?
RECOMMENDATION:
I would recommend that this subdivision application be denied until such a time that the
primary use for this area is determined and the expectations for that use are provided. If the
property is sold as raw land, little would be expected. If property is sold as commercial, then
minimum development standards would be expected. If residencial construction is anticipated,
proper infrastructure and potable water would be a minimum expectation of buyers.
Garfield County Engineer
Memorandum
August 12, 1998 — 5:30pm
To: File
From: Robert B. Szrot - Garfield County Engineer
Re: Letter of Opinion - Lacy Park Subdivision
At 5:OOpm today, I contact Mr. Joe Hope (per his request at 3:30pm) of High Country
Engineering to discuss my previous memorandum I generated earlier today. This memo is
generated to summarize this conversation.
We had discussed the fire flow capacity available on the property - provided by a pond with
dimensions of approximately 30ft. width x 100ft. length x 5ft. usable depth above piping. I
derived a capacity of 15,000 cubic ft.. I erroneously transcribed this figure to be 15,000 gallons.
We also discussed at length my concerns about providing potable water to future lot purchasers.
My main concern has been for a developer to fulfill expectation that services provided (i.e. water,
roadways, drainage, and in some cases sewer) would protect the public health and well being —
not only today, but in many years to come. This concern becomes especially critical when
challenging parameters exist on a site — such as non -potable water being provided by a common
well. One solution to address specialized concerns is to have a centralized treatment facility
(monitored and maintained by one entity) — rather then to rely on "scattering" the treatment
responsibilities to multiple entities or homeowners.
What evolved in our conversation was the option of placing multiple single entity treatment
systems at one centralized site adjacent to the one supply well. These multiple systems would be
monitored and maintained by one singular entity. This singular entity would be responsible and
liable to provide potable water to all lots served by this single supply well.
This solution would be acceptable to my viewpoint as it provides a centralized treatment of the
well water providing a potable supply to each of the lots served. The methodology of treatment
option - one large unit or several smaller units would lie with the developer.
Office of the County Engineer
Letter of Review:
September 9, 1998
For: Lacy Park Subdivision
The Lacy Park Subdivision consists of approximately 21 acres and is located on
the south side of the west Rifle interchange with Interstate 70. Two previous
letters of review/memorandum were generated to file on August 12th, 1998.
Material presented for this review:
- 4 -page blueprint set, dated 8/28/98
- water usage calculation sheet, dated 8/28/98
After examination of the presented material, I have the following comments:
Blueprint Sheet 2 of 4, Preliminary Plat, Notes 8, 14, & 20, and
Blueprint Sheet 3 of 4, Master Utility Plan, Notes 8, 10, & 11,
Potable Water Supply — My August 12th memos and documented phone
conversation with Mr. Joe Hope reflect my concerns about providing potable
water to future lot purchasers. My main concern has consistently been for a
developer to fulfill expectation that services provided (i.e. water, roadways,
drainage, and in some cases sewer) would protect the public health and well
being — not only today, but in many years to come.
What evolved in our conversation was the option of placing multiple single entity
treatment systems at one centralized site adjacent to the one supply well. These
multiple systems would be monitored and maintained by one singular entity (this
could be the developer or someone hired by the homeowners). This singular
entity would be responsible and liable to provide potable water to all lots served
by this single supply well. This solution would be acceptable to my viewpoint as it
provides a centralized treatment of the well water providing a potable supply to
each of the lots served. The methodology of treatment option - one large unit or
several smaller units would lie with the developer and the involved economics.
What is noted in the above listed blueprint sheets still requires each individual lot -
owner to install and maintain each of their respective individual potable water
systems. This totally defeats the concept of having one centralized entity being
responsible for providing potable water to lot -owners, maintaining the system to
EPA standards, and providing required documentation of such.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the following occur —
a) Amend note 14, blueprint page 2 of 4, to read:
"So long as the water supply is provided by groundwater, each owner shall
be required, upon the improvement of his lot, to provide the centralized
water treatment entity with an individual reverse osmosis water
treatment/filtration system component capable of providing potable water,
per EPA Standards, to said lot owner. This reverse osmosis system
component will be installed, monitored, and maintained by the centralized
water treatment entity who will be responsible to maintain said unit in good
condition and repair at all times..."
b) Amend note 20, blueprint page 2 of 4, sentence 2, to read:
"It will be the responsibility of the homeowners association to provide
documented inspection and maintenance of the centralized potable water
system as recommended by the system manufacturer and in consistency
with industry standards."
c) Amend note 8, blueprint page 3 of 4, sentence 2, to read:
"It will be the responsibility of the homeowners association to provide
documented inspection and maintenance of the centralized potable water
system as recommended by the system manufacturer and in consistency
with industry standards."
d) Amend note 10, blueprint page 3 of 4, to read:
"So long as the water supply is provided by groundwater, each owner shall
be required, upon the improvement of his lot, to provide the centralized
water treatment entity with an individual reverse osmosis water
treatment/filtration system component capable of providing potable water,
per EPA Standards, to said lot owner. This reverse osmosis system
component will be installed, monitored, and maintained by the centralized
water treatment entity who will be responsible to maintain said unit in good
condition and repair at all times..."
Once the above noted amendments are made, I would then (and only then)
recommend approval of this subdivision.
Garfield County Engineer
JUN -22-98 04:41 AM COLO_GEO_SURV.
3038942174 P.01
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Miru rale •incl Geology
Department of Natural Rc•;onrces
1911 .Shrnni„ .5lrecl, Room 71
Denver, Colur.uh, 00203
Phone (303) 866 2611
FAX (.303) 66(,-_24(, 1
June 22, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Department Building arta 1'tanning
109 8111 Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Post -it Fax Note
7671
Data gf2.z pft,g,► /
To , leg, -1/4 , 4-
s.+-1-,
Froj-
Co./Dept.
Co. n.:,,,....
1
Phune #
PI10r1C #
?4,,,...-5. 2,9y-- 2J
FAx ,70 1,(5-
7 75 5
Fax#
RF: Lucy Park Subdivision Geologic Hazard Review
Dear Mr, Bean,
DF:PARIMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Lt Lon(:
I)rv.inn rlirmty
Vu Li (.'q\tpr1
and Direcinr
At your request and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972) this office has reviewed the materials
submitted for this proposed subdivision. '1'hc application form included a Geologic hazard and Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation, and a Drainage Report. A site inspection was conducted on June 19, 1998. The
site lies on a strip of land between the railroad ROW and the West Rifle Intersection of Interstate 70, Proposed
are Live commercial lots. 1.ot 2 in currently occupied with a conlnlercial, metal -sided, garage structure Un it.
A significant drainage passes through the proposed development along the boundary of Tots 3 and 4. Overlot
grading has already occurred in lots 4 and 5 at the tittle of our inspection.
This office has reviewed the Geotechnical Report by CTL Thompson, Inc. dated April 30, 1998 and
we concur with its content. Moderate collapsing soils occur at this site, as shown in the soil testing results. We
reiterate CTLTT'honlpson's report that positive drainage away from the foundation is absolutely necessary. We
recommend that no irrigation of flower beds or grass be allowed immediately adjacent to footing walls. Soil
moisture increases below slabs may result in minor settlements and cracking,. The site soils can also be highly
erodible. Care is needed in preventing concentrated run-off from gullying or creating piping voids near the
natural drainage between lot 3 and 4. Since the Drainage Study has stated that the existing drainage geometry
will contain Ilse flow from the concrete box culvert below Interstate 70, the developer should not alter it without
a channel geometry deSign Vr Vp1111V11 front the consultant.
As we understand, ISDS are proposed for this development. ISDS infiltration lines should be placed
tar enough from the structure so that moisture induced ground settlements will not affect foundation support..
Also the lot owners must comply with regulations mandating tSDS field distance minimums from the open
drainage channel between lots 3 and 4.
Provided the developer and lot owners address the concerns and all of the recommendations of the
consultants and this office, we have no other concerns with the intended development of this property. If you
have any questions please contact this office at (303) 894-2167.
Sincerely,
i - Cas=k'
onathan L. hite
Engineering Geologist
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
June 12, 1998
Mr. Eric McCafferty
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Lacy Park Subdivision
Secs. 13, 14 & 24, T6S, R94W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 45
UUTY
Roy Romer
Governor
James S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
Dear Mr. McCafferty:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 21.777 acres into five
commercial Tots with 110,000 square feet of floor space. Water is to be provided through the well with permit no.
50032-F. Annual water diversion was estimated as 1.6 acre-feet for lot 1, and 1 acre-foot each for lots 2 through
5, for a total of 5.6 acre-feet. Water is to be provided through a well via a central system. Sewage is to be
through individual disposal systems. A copy of an application for the well was included in the submittal.
Permit No. 50032-F was issued on June 9, 1998 for the proposed uses pursuant to a Water Allotment
Contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District (the District). However, we have not received a
Statement of Beneficial Use for this well. If this document is not received prior to June 9, 1999, the well permit will
expire and be of no effect. Also, the well may be operated only so long as a valid contract with the District is in
effect or the well is included in a court approved plan for augmentation.
A well test completed by the Samuelson Pump Co., Inc., indicates that the well produced 15 gallons per
minute over a four hour period on January 13, 1997. With adequate storage capacity this well should provide
an adequate supply for the proposed use.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water
supply is physically adequate and will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant
maintains a valid well permit. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPUCMULacy Park.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Larry Gepfert, Water Commissioner, District 45
Rifle Institutional Controls
Subject: Rifle Institutional Controls
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:42:31 -0700
From: WENDY NAUGLE<wknaugle@smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us>
To: Donald.Metzler@DOEGJPO.COM
CC: garcopin@rof.net, jahams@smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us, jhdeckle@smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us
Well, the good news is that even though we don't officially have the IC in
place in Rifle, it might be working anyway.
I just received a phone call from Joe Hope with High Country Engineering.
Apparently Johnson Construction is in the preliminary plat stage of
subdividing their property southwest of the New Rifle mill site. The
county is requiring them to provide RO units for each of the 5 lots in the
subdivision (the gross alpha was 68 pCi/l in the well). The question of
the hour is what to do with the backwash from the RO units. I think that
at Ideal Cement it goes into the septic system. Since these will be small
units (drinking water only) my instinct is to suggest that they discharge to
the septic systems as well. Apparently there is some resistence to this
idea and Joe would like me to write him a letter stating my
recommendation. I did not feel comfortable writing such a letter without
discussing it with you first. I don't want to set an unwise precedent if
there's a better option. (Joe's alternative was to discharge to their lined
fire protection pond. I think that this would just lead to
evapoconcentration of uranium in the pond). He wanted the letter for his
meeting on Monday, but I was able to defer it until you return. Please call
me to discuss this issue as soon as you get back.
Thanks,
WN
Post -it® Fax Note 7671
Date / pafs
77
/
To / /� �n2<��
��//
From
Co./Dept.
Co.
Phone #
Phone #
? t- 0 2
/ C/
/ Z..
Fax # 7A-8 ` ..7(qfit
Fax #
1 of 1
9/10/98 4:57 P^