HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 11.13.2000• •
BOCC 11/13/00
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for a
three (3) lot subdivision on fifty-one (51) acres.
APPLICANT: Gaye Leo
ENGINEER: Colorado River Engineering, Western Water
Consulting, Inc.
LOCATION: Parcel lies on Taughenbaugh Mesa, southwest of
Rifle. Section 20, Township 6 South, Range 93
West
WATER: One shared existing well
SEWER: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS)
ACCESS: CR 320 (parcels 2 & 3) and CR 321 (parcel 1)
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD, with O/S to the southwest
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
According to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1984, this site lies in "District
C — Rural Areas / Minor Environmental Constraints". District C is described as having a
moderate ability to absorb growth. This district includes all lands which are not
serviceable from an existing municipality or subdivision with water or sewer services.
Since this site is located within one (1) mile of District A it is considered to be a
transitional area between rural and urban densities. The suggested density is no more
than one (1) dwelling unit per two (2) acres, subject to the mitigation of environmental
constraints.
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Site Description: Taughenbaugh Mesa overlooks the Colorado River to the North and is
bordered on the west and east by Beaver Creek and Helmer Gulch. BLM land exists to
the south of the property. The site slopes about 6% from the highpoint at the southwest
Page 1 of 12
• •
down to the northeast. The site is gently rolling pastureland historically irrigated for hay
crops. The dominant vegetation is grass and sagebrush. Lot 1 is currrently occupied by
a single family home, which received a certificate of occupancy on 6/1/00. It is accessed
via a gravel driveway to CR 321.
B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to divide a fifty-one (51) acre parcel
into three (3) single family lots: parcels 1, 2, & 3. The location and size (but not the total
# of lots) of the proposed lots has changed from the sketch plan proposal. The sketch
plan proposed one 5 acre lot at the far northwestern corner of the property, to be accessed
via County Road 321, and one 10 acre parcel along County Road 320. The remainder
parcel was about 36 acres in size. The preliminary plan now proposes two 5 acre lots
along CR 320, and a remainder parcel of 41 acres to be accessed via CR 321.
C. Adjacent Land Uses: Agricultural and residential land uses surround the site.
III. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS:
Referrals of the site plan were sent to the following:
A. City of Rifle: On 9/25/00 Pat Hopkins, Rifle Planning Director, said in a telephone
conversation with Garfield County Planning Staff that the Leo preliminary plan had been
discussed by City Council and they have no concerns or comments.
B. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No reply received.
C. RE -2 School District: Stated on 8/28/00 "no concerns".
D. Colorado Geological Survey: See letter dated 9/29/00, page 15 . Provided site specific
investigations and foundation designs are conducted, this office has no concerns with this
development as planned.
E. Garfield County Road & Bridge: Jake Mall called on 8/29/00 to say that the plan appears
"fine". An access permit has been issued for one driveway (to serve lots 2 & 3) on CR
320. It will be built with a 10' collar and to standard driveway specifications.
F. Rifle Fire Protection District: See letter dated 9/26/00, page j4". Makes some specific
recommendations concerning removal of vegetation, road construction, and posting of
addresses. Also notes that the water supply in the area has limited fire flow capabilities.
Although the proposal meets the District's minimum requirement of having an approved
water source within 2 miles, fire flow capabilities would likely not be available to
extinguish a fully involved structure fire.
G. Garfield County Public Health Nurse: See referral sheet, dated 8/8/00, pagel5' - , hnd
letter dated 10/23/00, page )--'' Does not state any opposition to approval of the
plan.
H. Garfield County Engineer: See referral sheet, dated 9/5/00, page / c and Western
Water Consulting letter, page 13The County Engineer noted that Chris Manera's
professional engineer's license had become inactive and needed to get it re -installed.
She recommended denial due to limited water supplies for fire protection. (Staff
comment: Chris Manera addressed the licensing issue by a peer review. Western Water
Consulting, Inc. (license #24034) has reviewed, approved, and stamped all necessary
Page 2 of 12
. •
documents. Since the Rifle Fire Protection District has stated that the application meets
minimum requirements, the County Engineer stated in a telephone conversation on
9/27/00 that she is no longer opposed to approval of the application.)
I. Colorado Div. of Water Resources: See letter dated 9/12/00, page (S . The State
Engineer notes that, "With adequate storage capacity this well should provide an
adequate supply for the proposed use". It is the opinion of the State Engineer's Office
that, "... the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights,
and is physically adequate, so long as the use of the Taughenbaugh Ditch water rights is
not expanded".
J. Colorado Div. of Wildlife: v .SP. _ J2 CA / / "c e
K. Garfield County Sheriff: Returned the application without any comment.
L. Garfield County Vegetation Management: No reply was received.
M. Garfield County Housing Authority: See referral sheet, dated 8/25/00, page, -)14
Encourages the developer to keep sale prices affordable and remind her of the need for
affordable rentals.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed density is one (1) dwelling unit per seventeen (17)
acres, which is much less dense than the Comp Plan's suggested density of one (1)
dwelling unit per two (2) acres. The proposal appears to generally conform to the Comp
Plan.
B. Zoning: A single family dwelling is a use by right in the A/R/RD zone district. Accessory
uses are allowed if they are agriculturally related uses.
C. Subdivision: The lot design appears to generally meet the standards set forth in the
Subdivision Regulations.
D. Soils/Topography: Colorado River Engineering, Inc. (CRE), and Western Water
Consulting, Inc. (WWC), have both concluded that no hazards or soil constraints exist
that would impair the development of the property. However, the possible existence of
localized areas of clay -loam lenses with shrink/swell properties warrants future
considerations. They recommend that site specific soil samples be collected for each
building footprint prior to building permit issuance for parcels 2 & 3. A geotechnical
engineer should examine the soils and prepare an engineered foundation. Radiation is
not known to be associated with the sedimentary type bedrock formation which underlies
the property.
The U.S. Geological Survey has stated that if site specific investigations and foundation
designs are conducted, they have no concerns with the development.
As long as the need for engineered foundations is included as a condition of approval, in
Page 3 of 12
• •
the subdivision covenants, and as a plat note, staff does not have any geology related
concerns.
E. Road/Access: Lot 1 (the 41 acre parcel) will be accessed via an existing access easement
to CR 321. The two newly created lots (2 & 3) will share a 30' wide, 70' long point of
access to CR 320. Plat notes #8 and #12 discuss the "primitive residential" standard and
the maintenance responsibilities of the road.
According to the subdivision regulations, the road servicing Parcels 2 & 3 must meet the
"primitive residential" standard in Section 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations. This
standard calls for a minimum thirty (30') foot wide access with a single lane at least
twelve (12') feet in width with a native surface, and a hammerhead turnaround, amongst
other things. Plat note #12 must be amended to replace "property owners'
responsibility" with "Homeowner Association's responsibility".
The application states that road access costs will be assumed by the lot owner. The
applicant should understand all improvements required by the Subdivision Regulations
are her cost responsibility and shall be installed according to the Subdivision
Improvements Agreement (SIA) and secured by cash or a letter of credit, as is customary
and required by the Subdivision Regulations (see section 5:31).
Jake Mall, of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department, called on 8/29/00 to say
that the plan appears "fine" . An access permit was issued for one driveway (to serve lots
2 & 3) on CR 320.
F. Fire Protection: The application states: "Rifle Fire Protection guidelines are to be
reviewed and compliance with suggested fire safety provisions are the individual lot
owner's responsibility. This proposal meets all minimum requirements of the Rifle Fire
Protection District". Plat note # 9 lists some fire protection comments.
The site is located in the Rifle Fire Protection District (RFPD). The RFPD noted some
specific recommendations concerning removal of vegetation, road construction, and
posting of addresses. The water supply in the area has limited fire flow capabilities.
Although the proposal meets the District's minimum requirement of having an approved
water source within 2 miles, fire flow ca abilities would likely not be available to
extinguish a fully involved structure fire " vt k
-I) to . ice ' nk_4"" k /)-
No water storage has been proposed for fire fighting purposes. For this reason, the
County Engineer originally recommended denial of the application. However, since the
Rifle Fire Protection District has stated that the application meets minimum
requirements, the County Engineer stated in a telephone conversation on 9/27/00 that she
is no longer opposed to approval of the application.
Page 4 of 12
• •
None of the recommendations made by the fire district have been included in the
covenants. It will be very difficult for each individual lot owner comply with suggested
safety provisions if they do not know what they are. While plat note #9 attempts to
address fire issues, it needs to closely reflect the Rifle Fire District's language in their
letter dated 9/26/00.
G. Domestic Water System / Irrigation: The household and domestic animal water supply
for the three lots is to be provided by a shared well. The well is an existing structure
serving the existing residence on the 41 acre parcel. Well permit #221943 was issued as
the only well on a 51 acre tract of land and is limited to a pumping rate of 15 gpm. The
use of the well water is limited to ordinary household purposes inside 3 single family
dwellings, the irrigation of not more than 1 acre of home gardens and lawns, and the
watering of domestic animals.
The well was pump tested on April 25th, 2000, following the winter period and prior to
irrigation water being diverted on to the mesa (typically when water levels are lowest).
The initial water level was measured at a depth of 89 feet and provides approx. 41 feet of
drawdown capability (130' total depth, 89' static level). The water level dropped about 2
feet within the 1 1/2 hours and stabilized at 2 '/4 feet of drawdown after 21 hours. The
pump test was terminated after 24 hours and recovery data was collected for an
additional 24 hour period. The well recovered to the initial static level. It is Colorado
River Engineering's (CRE's) and Western Water Consulting's (WWC's) opinion that the
well yield (in excess of 7 gpm) is capable of meeting the peak average monthly demand
of 1.7 gpm for the subdivision.
,t,A
The water quality was tested for bacteria and nitrate/nitrite and found to be within the
legablimits. However, it was not tested for dissolved solids. The water must be tested
fordissolved solids prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. If
treatment is necessary, the proposed method of treatment shall be submitted to County
Staff and the Board in sufficient time for review prior to approval of the preliminary
plan. (Update: This information has been submitted. The dissolved solids measured 560
mg/l, which is in keeping with the amount found in other municipal sources in the area.)
CRE and WWC state in the application, "The water system will be comprised of the
shared well delivering water to individual water storage tanks at each lot. The existing
pump has the power to deliver water to all the lots. Each supply line to the lots should
have a minimum diameter of 1 -inch to minimize friction losses. The construction of the
delivery lines, tank, and tank level controls will be the responsibility of each lot owner".
However, this is not consistent with the Subdivsion requirements. It is the applicant's
responsibility to install the required water system improvements. In addition, Section
9:53 requires the following:
Page 5 of 12
on
��
A
Central water systems shall be designed by an engineer qualified to design water systems
and be a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. Central
water and treatment and storage facilities shall be approved by the Colorado
Department of Health. All lines in a central water system should be looped, with no
dead ends included in the system. Where dead ends are proposed for cul-de-sacs, there
will either be a fire hydrant or blow -off valve at the end of the line.
The application contains a "Declaration of covenants, well sharing, and irrigation water
use agreement". applicant does not intend to form an Homeowner's Association
(HOA) but rather inten to make each lot owner share responsibility for installation and 1_o
._._--.41-,14--L
maintenance of the improvements_ However, this is contrary to the Subdivsion '4e,"
regulations. Section 4:91 (B) (1) requires tha c ' - m-4- U L AA -c 1�A
�� ,Q
If a central supply and distribution system is to be rovided, a general description of tife A41 14 -
system, as designed by a Colorado registered engineer. In addition:
1. Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the water system; and d.x',�Yrt
2. Proposed method of financing the water system. U�`� I_DlaA :)
An incorporated HOA has the ability to levy fees, own improvements, and has a separate or'
st
enforcement capability. Individual lot owners are not "a legal entity" and are much less W2:0,
likely and able to follow through with these responsibilities than an HOA.U►Y'uZ
Irrigation water is to be supplied through the use of 0.52 cfs of the Taughenbaugh ditch,
which has been decreed in District Court for Water Division 5. Lots 2 & 3 are to be
limited to 3,000 square feet of lawn and garden irrigation with 0.026 cfs for each lot.
The owner of Lot 1 shall retain ownership of the remaining 0.468 cfs and may irrigate as
much of this lot as is practicable.
CRE and WWC state that the well will provide a reliable source of water supply based on
the estimated demand level and available physical supply of groundwater. Since the
instantaneous peak demands from the parcels could exceed 15 gpm, they recommend that
each lot provide a small storage tank (250 to 500 gallons) and booster pump to meet peak
demands. They further note that the irrigation water right is "junior in priority" and is
typically administratively curtailed in most years following the peak runoff months of
Beaver Creek, and a plat note should disclose this information (said note has been
included on the plat).
The State Engineer notes that, "With adequate storage capacity this well should provide
an adequate supply for the proposed use". He also notes that the use of the 0.52 cfs of
the Taughenbaugh Ditch must be limited to the historic amount. If any increase occurs, a
change of water rights application must be filed with, and approved by, the water court.
He further notes a typograhical error (0.26 cfs verses 0.026 cfs), and a needed change to
the covenants: the "stockwatering use" must be changed to the "watering of domestic
Page 6 of 12
• •
animals". It is the opinion of the State Engineer's Office that, "...the proposed water
supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, and is physically adequate,
so long as the use of the Taughenbaugh Ditch water rights is not expanded".
Wastewater: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) are proposed for each new lot.
The existing home (on Lot 1) has wastewater treated by a septic tank and adsorption
field. This system was permitted by the Garfield County Sanitation Department based on
percolation tests that averaged 7 minutes per inch. It is CRE's and WWC's opinion that
septic and adsorption fields can also be utilized on the two new lots. The bedrock and
water table are at depths of 80+ feet and will not affect the operation of ISDS. They
further emphasize that proper care and maintenance and monitoring by the HOA is
essential to assure proper operation.
Section 4:92 E (of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations) requires that a proposed
management plan for the operation and maintenance of on-site systems be provided.
While the application contains CRE's attachment Pipeline (Fall 1999, Vol. 6, No. 4,
prepared by the National Small Flows Clearinghouse) concerning ISDS maintenance, the
applicant failed to address this issue in the covenants and/or include Pipeline as an
attachment to the covenants. The covenants need to be amended accordingly.
Drainage: CRE and WWC state that the property is not in any floodplains or subject to
localized flooding. A comparison of the existing conditions versus the developed
conditions indicates there will not be any increase in historic runoff flow to downstream
property owners. An 18" diameter culvert is recommended at the access entrance to CR
320.
The Garfield County Subdivsion Regulations require the following (section 9:44):
All culverts shall be designed such that the exposed ends are protected by encasement in
concrete or extended a minimum of three feet (3) beyond the driving surface on each
side. Culverts, drainage pipes and bridges shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with AASHO recommendations for an H-20 live load.
The applicant should understand that installation of the necessary drainage features is her
cost responsibility.
J. Wildlife: The application states that the DOW has been consulted regarding migration
patterns. It states, "The existing migration patterns and habitat will remain undisturbed"
but the "existing migration patterns" are not identified anywhere within the application.
No evidence of such consultation has been included, nor are any migration corridors
identified. It states that fencing has been designed to be "elk friendly" and that a wide
sage brush ribbon on Lot 1 serves as home to local deer and elk. However, the covenants
do not specify any fencing requirements or need to preserve wildlife habitat. The
wow Page 7 of 12
TtiL-
0021t)0 AL+, 60A-4 -:),1-d
kGo}1 k. 664 < < -t ` ttc) (L
L, ,cc1Z2. (.vrc .�
• •
application does not contain a wildlife checklist (available from the County's GIS
system, or from the DOW) or any formal analysis of possible wildlife impacts.
Rob Hykys has provided the DOW WRIS Data checklist at staff s request. It indicates
the following wildlife habitat lies entirely within the subject area: Black Bear Overall
Range, Elk Winter Range, Elk Overall Range, Mule Deer Winter Range, Mule Deer
Severe Winter Range, and Mule Deer Overall Range. The following wildlife habitat lies
partially within the subject area: Bald Eagle Active Nest Site. To date, the DOW has
failed to make any comment on the application. Staff has historically had a very difficult
time getting responses during the hunting season. Staff suggests that the applicant amend
the covenants to require vyildlife-friendly fencing specifications.
(9/0g...te JZZtee4
Assessment / Fees: As determined by Section 9:80 of the Subdivision Regulations, the
applicant will be required to dedicate a portion of the gross land area for open space,
parks, or schools, or pay fees in lieu thereof ($200 per each newly created parcel). The
property owner should be aware that the current agricultural valuation status of the
property will change following subdivision. This area appears to lie in traffic study area
1 of the capital improvements plan. The applicant can expect to pay about $2,800 per
single family dwelling, minus the appropriate discounts. In the event any fees increase
before the time of final plat, the increased fees shall be paid.
L. Utilities: The application states that Holy Cross has erected an additional power pole at
2102 CR 321 to serve the two new residences. The lot on CR320 has power located
directly across the road. Public Service will provide natural gas and has extended service
from CR321 to the parcel. U. S. West will provide telephone service. No cable t.v. is
available. All utilities shall be buried.
The application also states that access to all utilities will be the cost responsibility of
individual lot owners to tie into existing utility outlets. This is not acceptable and shall
be the developer's responsibility, as is customary, to extend the utilities to the lot lines of
the newly created lots (in cases where the utilities are not located along CR320).
M. Covenants, Plat Notes, and other issues: ,,11 L�,'vl (M �R ''`�
The "Declaration of Covenants, well sharing, irrigati water use aee��' must S
g .-
become covenants administered by an incorporated HOA, as required by the Subdivision .0 O c
Regulations and discussed 'reviously in this
,report.
�� `, r, �� ko l
l 1
rl LL4,v� 1 h"j�-' 1"1^ 1 6 _Q).e_ ri zSdL 10 `� usL 1
The plat shoul amende�ollows: Remove the fence lines shown; Provide legal
descriptions for each of the newly created lots.
2) Plat note #14 needs to be completed to read: "All exterior lighting will be the
minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward, towards
41`'.;� the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety
tILP
6S�" Page 8 of 12
Iv�
• .
lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries."
3) The need for engineered foundations must be added to the covenants and the plat (as
a plat note).
4) The covenants (paragraph 15, page 6) need to be amended to reflect the following
specific language: replace "shared by a joint driveway access" with "served by a
single point of access meeting the primitive residential standards called for in Section
9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations".
5) The covenants (paragraph 16, page 6) need to be amended to reflect the following
specific language: "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog
shall be required to be confined within the owners property boundaries."
6) The covenants shall be amended to include the following restriction: "No open
hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision. One (1)
new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All
dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves
and appliances."
7) The covenants shall be amended to include the following: A specific ISDS operation
and maintenance plan.
8) The covenants shall be amended to include and require the specific comments made
by the Rifle Fire Protection District in their letter dated 9/26/00.
9) The covenants shall be amended to include wildlife friendly fencing specifications.
10) The covenants shall be amended to include appropriate disclosure to all potential lot
owners that T.E. McClintock reserves the right to enter upon lots to prospect for, mine,
and remove minerals.
11) The covenants shall be amended so that "stockwatering use" is changed to "watering of
domestic animals", as noted by the State Engineer.
V RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners;
2. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
Page 9 of 12
• •
interested parties were heard at that hearing;
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of
the citizens of Garfield County;
4. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning
Resolution, as amended;
5. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations of 1984.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
On October 11, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended APPROV of e - o Subdivision
Preliminary Plan to the Board of County Commissioners, with the 'frith:PM:4- conditions: LL,o.. d`r-• toed—
(0 , (I (9 .S-� � 4 * L t /�..e 6ew,, ,, eQ a ,41161. '+ ik (� CvLt c�
1. That all representatio ade by the applicant in the application, and at t pub icy
hearing before the Planning Commission , shall be conditions of approval, unless 4
specifically altered by the Planning Commission.
2. The recommendations of Colorado River Engineering / Western Water Consulting shall
be followed. These recommendations include, but are not limited to:
a) Site specific soil samples shall be collected for each building footprint prior to
building permit issuance for Lots 2 & 3. Foundations on said lots shall be engineered
by a Professional Registered Engineer within the State of Colorado.
b) Each lot shall provide a storage tank of 250 to 500 gallons and a booster pump to
meet peak demands.
c) An 18" diameter culvert will be installed at the newly created point of access on
County Road 320.
d) Any soils disturbed during construction shall be revegetated as soon as possible to
minimize erosion.
3. Pursuant to section 9:18 of the 1984 Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, no further
divisions of land within the Subdivision will be allowed.
The point of access along County Road 320 shall be constructed to the "primitive
residential" standard.
5. The use of the Taughenbaugh ditch water rights shall not be expanded without adequate
legal rights to do so.
The water shall be tested for dissolved solids prior to approval by the Board of County
Page 10 of 12
• •
Commissioners. If treatment is necessary, the proposed method of treatment shall be
submitted to County Staff and the Board in sufficient time for review prior to approval of
the preliminary plan. (Please note that this information has been received and is, in staff's
opinion, acceptable. See "IV. G: Domestic Water System" for further discussion.
Treatment does not appear to be necessary.)
7. The improvements required by the Subdivision Regulations shall be the cost responsibility
of the subdivider.
8. All lines in the central water system shall be looped, with no dead ends included in the
system. Where dead ends are proposed for cul-de-sacs, there will either be a fire hydrant
or blow -off valve at the end of the line.
The "Declaration of Covenants, well sharing, and irrigation water use agreement" shall be
converted into covenants administered by an - •� - ! ' • • •
10. The plat shall be amended as follows: lZ S — - I D (� I �1G%US i
a) Remove the fence lines shown.
b) Provide legal descriptions for each of the newly created lots.
c) Plat note #14 needs to be completed to read: "All exterior lighting will be the minimum
amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of
the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes
beyond the property boundaries."
d) The need for engineered foundations must be added as a plat note.
11. The covenants shall be amended to reflect the following specific language:
a) The need for engineered foundations shall be added to the covenants.
b) paragraph 15, page 6: replace "shared by a joint driveway access" with "served
by a single point of access meeting the primitive residential standards called for in
Section 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations".
c) paragraph 16, page 6: "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and
the dog shall be required to be confined within the owners property boundaries."
d) Include "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the
subdivision. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et.
sew., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit.
All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning
stoves and appliances."
e) Include a specific ISDS operation and maintenance plan.
f) Include and require the specific comments made by the Rifle Fire Protection
istrict in their review letter dated 9/26/00.
g)l 1 13/c0O
Include wildlife friendly fencing specifications. 2 D
Include appropriate disclosure to all potential lot owners that T.E. McClintock
Page 11 of 12
• •
reserves the right to enter upon lots to prospect for, mine, and remove minerals.
i) "Stockwatering use" shall become "watering of domestic animals".
Page 12 of 12
frSep -29-00 03:53P Colo Survey
RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2000
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURvEY
Division of Minerals and Geology —
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (30a) 866.2611
FAX: (303) 866-2461
September 29, 2000
3036461
P - 01
STATE OF COLORADO
Post -Ir Fax Note 7671
To tat 64.
coJD pi. 1
Prone u
Fa*,S'S a 500 v
Ms. Kit Lyon
Garfield County Department Building and Planning
109 8t Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs. CO 81601
RE: Leo Subdivision Geologic Hazard Review
Dear Ms. Lyon,
Dere ?Aye., lvsg°va►
From CO L: ie
Co.�� DEPARTMENT OF
�nona -o� gam-_ 7ssi' NATURAL
RESOURCES
Fax
Bill C7,wn.
Governor
Greg t. walcncr
Execcuinn, I)ircctor
Michael B. Loots
Division Director
Yuki Cowart
Stave Geologist
and ().(CO(
Thank you for the land use application referral. At your request and in accordance to Senate
13iI1 35 (1972) this office has reviewed the materials submitted and conducted a site inspection on
September 20, 2000. The materials submitted included a Soils do Geology/Hazards Evaluation, Water
Supply, and Wastewater Treatment reports by Colorado River Engineering, Inc. Please consider our
observations and recommendations in your review of this land use application.
The site is on the easternmost edge of Ta.ughenbaugh Mesa. The mesa was formed by ancient
coalesced debris (lows that have created the fan or apron appearance towards the north. A mantle of
windblown loess of variable thickness also covers the mesa. The subdivision lies on a relatively flat
surface that has a gentle slope (5% grade) to the northeast.
Two Iarge 5 -acre lots arc proposed with the remaining land included in the parcel that
contains the existing home. During our site inspection we found no geologic hazards that would
significantly impact.any resid itial construction cm these lots. No preliminary geotechnical
investigation that includes test borings was submitted. The loess sods, if thick, may have the ability
to compact when wctted. We recommend that site specific foundation irivt' tigatiuns required that
includes test borings and soil testing. 1 helot suers arc ample to support ISDS for the two parcels. it
was noted that the percolation rates were relatively rapid. Additional percolation tests will be
required once septic field locations are determined to insure that the site specific percolation rates do
not exceed the minimum for "non-enginocied" systems
Provided site specific investigations and foundation designs are conducted, this office has no
concerns with the development as planned. If you have any questions please contact this office at
(303) 866-3551.
Sincerely,
/ 41d_
Jonathan L. White
Engineering Geologist
A
• • •
-- RIFLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
September 26, 2000
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
109.86'- Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Attention: -Teff-Lourien
Reference: Leo Subdivision, prelinuna y_plan
Mt. ourien,
The Rifle Fire Protection District has reviewed the proposed Leo Subdivision on County
Road 320 near Rifle. It is the District's„understanding=that;the proposal is to take one 51 -
acre parcel and subdivide it into three parcels for construction of one single family
dwelling per parcel. The areas within the boundaries of the Rifle Fire Protection District
and fire andemergency dicar services will be beprOdecrhi order to assist the District in
its ability to provide services:we would snake the following recommendations:
1. Vegetations should m
be reoved .from near any structures in order to provide a safe
zone in the event of.a wild land fire
2. Road construction When constructing access roadways into the parcels,
considerations` sliould-be iiven to the weights of fire.pparatus :and accessibility
during adverse weather conditions'. 4 ,;.
3. Posting.of the addr:_ess_Th .addresses of the _properties are tor be posted..where the
driveway intersects the,County_ Road and on the residence itself if shared
driveways are used Letters are' be.a minirun of flinches in height, 1/2 in h m
width and contrast with background colors. ,
4. It should be noted that the water supply in ,tbearea is limited and fire _flow
capabilities would likely not be avaiiableto extinguish a fully involved structure
fire_ The --proposal does however meet-theDistrict_s minimum requirements of
having an approved water source within two miles.
As the time draws closer to_ construction of structures on the_. parcels.theDistrict would be
happy to set down with the owner/developer to address these items in greater detail.
Thank you and_ feel freed() contact moif you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Mike Morgan__..
District Chief
Cc:. Gaye Leo
Telephone (970) 625-1243 • Fax (970) 625-2963
1850 Railroad Avenue • P.O. Box 1133 • Rifle, Colorado 81650
Name of application:
Sent to:
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & PlanningDepartment
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: 08/23/00
Comments Due: September 27, 2000
Leo Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Garfield County request our comment in review oft 's project. Please notify the staff
contact in the event you are unable to respond by the date listed above. This form may be
used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary.
Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building & Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-5004
Phone: 970-945-8212
E-mail: "garcopin@rof.net"
General comments:��E3ai4,_) ,..Z,";/222,014 1'1 /ii�r,
-eJ ��I& 7€'/J '
ce,-G�� _../215_47/0:1,9) GVeLe,p
la.i/11- i�rn.) a,/ / �� 7 (6Ti.,�?Gy�I'J�
This review agency recommends (circle one): Approval / Denial
The following are suggested conditions of approval, or are the reasons for denial:
Name review agency:
By:
Rovicari 1/1nrnn
Name of application:
Sent to:
e• M
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: 08/23/00
Comments Due: September 27, 2000
Leo Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Garfield County request our comment in review of this project. ' e notify the staff
contact in the event you are unable to respond by the date listed above. This form may be
used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary.
Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building & Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-5004
Phone: 970-945-8212
E-mail: "garcopin@rof.net"
General comm • ts:
ce..se
t S. k L.c.vt c r
f .es s r clti �t.P c
etAn Giet et. CA
v0 /
✓1S/4r
�v
a c-fi wt
GA/a-A c-` 7Zt1 ave
7
/°4'
ptip . or 54 y Ana-€ .
K;
Ccs/ -r-7a
This review agency recommends (circle one): Approval / Denial
The following are suggested conditions of approval, or are the reons for denial:
FK Ma-/ / r 7C • `r(te �1 t(LP - 1
w ( - i J pra--&'
Name of review agency: las` 101ec{ r
By: t catL � ' S '112)
Reviger' i/1(1/(1(1
410 ECEIVED SEP 0 7 2000
-'� WESTERN WATER CONSULTING, INC.
WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING
September 7, 2000
Ms. Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: LEO SUBDIVISION PEER REVIEW
Dear Ms. Lyon:
On September 5, 2000 a peer review was made of the engineering reports by
Colorado River Engineering, Inc. concerning the Leo Subdivision. Specifically, the
following engineering reports were reviewed:
• Leo Subdivision — Water Supply, June 28, 2000
• Leo Subdivision — Drainage Review, June 28, 2000
• Leo Subdivision — Soils and Geology/Hazards Evaluation, June 29, 2000
• Leo Subdivision — Wastewater Treatment, June 30, 2000
The engineering conclusions and recommendations provided in the engineering reports
were found to be acceptable. Attached for your files are copies of the above reports that
have been stamped with my engineering seal.
Very truly yours,
WES fl RN WATER CONSULTING, INC.
q,„„, i1 �lyK
James H. Hyre, P. E.
Cc: Mr. Christopher Manera, Colorado River Engineering, Inc.
Ms. Gaye Leo
5938 WEST IDA DRIVE • LITTLETON, COLORADO • 80123
PHONE: 303-794-9337 • FAX: 303-797-0916
EMAIL: hyre@westernwaterconsulting.com
WEIVED SEP 1 8 2000
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
http://water.state.co.usidefault.htm
September 12, 2000
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Leo Subdivision, Preliminary Plan
W 1/2, SW 1/4, Sec. 20, T 6 S, R 93 W, 6"' P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 45
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Dear Ms. Lyon:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide approximately 51 acres
into three residential Tots of 5, 5, and 41 acres. Each lot is proposed to have one single-family
dwelling. The household and domestic animal water supply for the three lots is to be provided by
a shared well. Irrigation water is to be supplied through the use of 0.52 cubic feet per second (cfs)
of the Taugenbaugh Ditch (decreed in Civil Action Nos. 89, 934 and. 955, Garfield County District
Court, and in Case No. W-2180, District Court for Water Division 5). Each of the five acre lots are
to be limited to 3,000 square feet of lawn and garden irrigation with a five percent interest of the
0.52 cfs, or 0.026 cfs for each lot. The owner of the 41 -acre parcel will retain ownership of the
remaining ninety percent, or 0.468 cfs, and may irrigate as much of this lot as is practicable.
Well permit no. 221943 was issued on January 12, 2000, pursuant to CRS 37-92-
602(3)(b)(II)(A) which provides a rebuttable presumption that there will not be material injury to
the vested water rights of others or to any other existing wells. Permit no. 221943 was issued
as the only well on a tract of land of approximately 51 acres and limits the pumping rate of the
well to 15 gallons per minute. The use of water from the well is limited to ordinary household
purposes inside three single-family dwellings, the irrigation of not more than one acre of home
gardens and lawns, and the watering of domestic animals. The permit also requires the return
flow from the use of the well must be through individual waste water disposal systems of the
non -evaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream system in which the well
is located. The well construction report for this well was submitted on March 13, 2000, and
indicates the well was constructed to a depth of 130 feet on February 4, 2000. In a two hour
pump test, the well is reported to have produced 8 gallons per minute. The drawdown and
recovery of the well during the pump test was not reported. With adequate storage capacity
this well should provide an adequate supply for the proposed use.
The use of the 0.52 cfs of the Taugenbaugh Ditch must be limited to the historic amount of
acreage irrigated on the lands historically irrigated. If any increase in the acreage or change in
lands irrigated is to occur, a change of water rights application must be filed with, and approved
by, the water court prior to implementation of such change(s).
Note that the Declaration of Covenants, Well Sharing and Irrigation Water Use Agreement
(the Agreement) currently indicates that the shared well may be used for "stockwater use" and
tgi
Kit Lyon
Leo Subdivision
September 12, 2000
"stockwatering use". However, the well permit is limited to the "watering of domestic animals".
The Agreement should be modified to be consistent with the well permit. Also, a typographical
error in the Agreement characterizes five percent of 0.52 cfs as 0.26 cfs, rather than the correct
amount of 0.026 cfs.
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), C.R.S., it is our opinion that the proposed water
supply will not cause injury to decreed water rights, and is physically adequate, so long as the
use of the Taugenbaugh Ditch water rights is not expanded. If you or the applicant has any
questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance
Sincerely,
7/_(„w -L. .
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWK/CMULeo ii.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Bob Klenda, Water Commissioner, District 45
• i ••
Garfield County Planning Department GIS Resources:
Colorado Division of Wildlife WRIS Data Checklist for:
LEL) S.LO DI J cs 1 R93
3
Rob Flykys, GIS Analyst, garcopin@rof.net 970-945-8212, FAX: 970-945-7785 01/03!0010:35 AM
/140- 5-4p5-oo
Note: For interpretation of this data, contact Pam Schnun; Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Division of
Wildlife, Grand Junction, at 970-297-1192.
Wildlife habitat lies: Entirely Partly Within Out
in Area in Area 1 Mile of Area
Bald Eagle Active Nest Site
Bald Eagle Winter Range
Black Bear Overall Range
Black Bear -Human Conflict
Black Bear Fall Concentration Area
Black Bear Summer Concentration Area
Bighom Migration Patterns
Bighom Overall Range
Bighorn Winter Range
Bighorn Winter Concentration Area
Bighom Summer Range
Bighom Production Area
Boreal Toad
Canada Goose Brood Concentration Area
Canada Goose Feeding Area
Canada Goose Production Area
Canada Goose Wintering Area
Canada Goose Winter Concentration Area
Chukar
Colo River Cuthroat Trout
EIk Migration Corridors
EIk VVinter Range
EIk Winter Concentration Area
EIk Severe Winter Range
Elk Overall Range
Elk Summer Range
Elk Summer Concentration Area
Elk Production Area
Golden Eagle Nest Site
Golden Eagle Nest Unknown Status
Great Blue Heron Nesting Area
Kitfox Potential Habitat
Kitfox Field Sightings
Lynx
Mule Deer Migration Pattems
Mule Deer Winter Range
Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area
Mule Deer Severe Winter Range
Mule Deer Overall Range
Mule Deer Summer Range
Mule Deer Resident Population Area
Mule Deer Highway Crossing
Native Fish WA4t5VD,'RTCt rti- 3uS
Osprey Active Nest Site
1�
• •
Wildlife habitat lies: Entirely Partly Within 1 Out
in Area in Area Mile of Area
Peregrine Falcon Active Nest
Peregrine Falcon Nesting Area
Peregrine Falcon Migratory Hunting Habitat
Pronghom Antelope Overall Range
Pronghorn Antelope Winter Range
Pronghom Antelope Winter Concentration Area
Ptarmigan Potential Habitat
Raptors
Razorback Sucker
River Otter Overall Range
Sage Grouse Brood Area
Sage Grouse Overall Range
Sage Grouse Production Area
Sage Grouse Winter Area
Wild Turkey Overall Range
Wild Turkey Production Area
Wild Turkey Winter Range
Wild Turkey Winter Concentration Area
V1(jjd Turkey Roosting Sites
Wolverine Possible Sighting
•
1 CIARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Name of applicatip: Leo Subdivision Pretimin>P1an
Sent to: ,
��. CIL
Gafheld County reque your comment in review of s 's project. P1- the staU
contact in the event -14u are 'unable to respond by the date listed above. Thit form may*
used for your respOnee, °clip may attach your own adcfnkmal sheets as necessary.
Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
REcEivE4 AUG 2 4
Date Sent 08/23100
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building & Plannibg
109 Sth Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs. CO 81601
Fax: 970-384+5004
Phone: 97040-8212
Email: "gareopin@rof.net"
a `a\ o F--► l ,
This review agency rmends (circle one): Approval / Denial
The following are suggested conditions of approval, or are the reasons for denial;
Name of
By:
;z,
A.
GARFIEL D COUNTY 140USINUALGIsoctrry
markimLROAD /WINE
RIFLE, CO918
(970) 945-0779 OR (990) -35e9
Date:
o c1
•
Hu-Zii-LUUu HUN UO;e4 rrl lr U JV[1UUL v1Jl Kte rtiA NU. i(UOMCJ r. U1
GARFIELD COUNTY AUG 2 8 2000
Building & Planning Department
RECEIVED
Review Agency Form RE C E1VED
Date Sent: 08/23/00
Comments Due: September 27, 2000
Name of application: Leo Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Sent to: -12e- Z a3kS ' t �:�-'
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the staff
contact in the event you are unable to respond by the date listed above. This form may be
used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary.
Written comments may be mailed, c -mailed, or faxed to:
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building & Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-5004
Phone: 970-945-8212
E-mail: "garcopin@rofnet"
General comments:
nlp Cav�C,Pn �.0
This review agency recommends (circle one). Approval / Denial
The following are suggested conditions of approval, or are the reasons for denial:
Nameco eview age I cyi,
RP.vitPri inntnn
Monday, October 30, 2000 2:45 PM
10/30/2000 14:45
Western Water Consulting 303-797-0916
9706254564 MANERA
COLORADO
RIVER
ENGINEERING, INC.
Ms. Kit Lyon, Senior Planner
Garfield County l3uilding & Planning Dept.
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
Dear Kit:
October 30, 2000
p.02
•CEIVED OCT(3, 1 20Q0
PAGE 01; 0
P.O. Box 130f
Rifle, CO 81850
Tel 97o-625.4933
Fax 970-625-4564
RE: Leo Subdivision— Water Quality Tests
As requested, enclosed is the water quality test result for Total Dissolved Solids for a water
sample collected from the LEO Well. The dissolved solids measured 560 milligrams per titer
(mom)• This well is serving an existing home and is proposed to supply two additional residences.
A water system serving three homes docs not classify as an "community water system", as defined
by the Colorado Dent of Public Health & Environment, and is not subject to state regulations
or review for the wager system design or water quality parameters. Additionally, the state does not
have any regulatory treatment requirements for Total Dissolved Solids for cora.naunity water
systems.
Total dissolved solids is viewed as a secondary standard with limits established for esthetics
based on characteristics that effect the desirability of the drinking water supply. This test will serve
as an informative tool for the potential lot purchasers with respect to water quality data but will not
effect the water system design or treatment requirements. To this end, we have requested that the
testing laboratory complete further tests to define the components of the solids(i.e. hardness,
lts,
sulfates, etc--). We will forward the test results, as they become available. As ageneraindicatora
of water quality along the Grand Valley we have researched Total Dissolved Solids records for
community water systems. The health department reported the following available records:
Water System Date Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
Town of Silt 7/89 540
11/90 873
7/91 539
City of Rifle 6/90 260
7/90 530
Battlement Mesa 4/90 740
Elk Creek Subdiv. 1989 1070
The total dissolved solids in the Leo Well is similar in water quality to other water suppliers
in this part of the county. Please call if you have aay questions. Glen ger of the Health
1
Monday, October 30, 2000 2:45 PM Western Water Consulting 303-797-0916
10/30/2000 14:45 9706254564 MANEFA
•
p.03
PAGE 02/03
Department can be contacted at x_;03-692-3548 if you have any questions concerning water
treatment regulations.
CM:cam
CC: Gaye Leo
James IT Hyre
arl
Lyon!-doc
Siuccrely,
Christo, ' Manem
'•I%3o/op �•
*4°;•:°••••c,;
yScboos
if un�n
Peer Review
2
Monday, October 30, 2000 2:45 PM
10/30/2000
14:45
Western Water Consulting 303-797-0916
970626`4564
JOHN C. KEPHART & CO.
•
p.04
MANERA PAGE 83/03
G1�ND JUNCJI�N 1 PI4a �0RAi7 1fjJ 1f
4:75 NoarN AV45uuc • 4 •
ANALY r CAL WORT
GfUNe JUNCTION. CCbLXIMADo 61517
Rodowdfrom C42r)r•adu Fiver Erick i.rloar ir>p
Gt r1 rs Minora
PO Fox i301
Ri+16), CO 81650
970) 625-49:33, FAX 6: r.i-45G4
Commix rvo. — wry Na
5145
w ] tor
D,t•w�.i.tid
1O/20/U6
Sample
Total Disisal ved Solid
110 d
Dos Reported 11:1 / 24./O0
5145
WATEP SAMPLE. v LED
560 mg/1
Director; $. P+auor
NDbd
•
re:County RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2001)
Pubic Health Service .�
Gfenwood Springs Office
T..:..""'"'""f098thiStrItoom 202
Glenwood Springs, Coforado 81601
(970) 945-6614
Rife Officefi;x
902 ?uug�ten6aug1 Sutte 1i
R,iffe, Colorado 81650:,
(970) 625-5200
10-23-00
Garfield County Board
Of County Commissioners
109 8th Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
81601-3363
Dear John Martin, Chairman
The Garfield County Public Health Nursing Director is aware of the position of the two five acre lots
in the Leo Development proposal. It is my understanding that each of the two five acre lots will each
have its own ISDS. The ISDS systems are to be pumped out every three years to be in compliance
with the propose land owners association rules.
In addition all three homes will be served by one water well. The water well has been tested and found
to be more than adequate to meet the needs of all three households. The waters is potable and has been
thoroughly tested and is currently of no concern.
In networking with Mark Bean I also understand the proposed Leo development request is in
Compliance with the county master plan
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary Misner
Public Health Nursing Director
cc Gay Leo, Mark Bean
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Russell George, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
Garfield County Planning
109 8th st.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Kit Lyon -Planner
RE: Gaye Leo Subdivsion Taughenbach Mesa
Dear Kit:
LCC€TCF NOV P
For WiIdlife-
For People
November 3, 2000
I have discussed and consulted with Gaye Leo concerning fencing on her property. It is her concern
as well as the Division of Wildlife for fencing on the property to be wildlife friendly. I provided our
Habitat Partnership Programs fencing handbook to Ms. Leo and discussed fence heights and wire spacing
specifications at an on site visit I made to Leo's property. She stressed at that time the concern for
wildlife movement and not wanting to create any barriers. We also discussed the type of wire to be used
because of potential for wire cuts on her horses. Smooth wire was her choice for both domestic animals
as well as wildlife. If fences are constructed to the specifications provided)deer and elk should not have
problems negotiating their way across this property.
If you have questions feel free to contact me at (970)876-2120.
Sinc
erry Will
District Wildlife Mgr.
Rifle South District
,)b
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. VValcher, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Bemard L. Black, Jr., Chairman • Rick Enstrom, Vice -Chairman • Phip James, Secretary