HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Staff Report BOCC 06.10.911
PROJECT INFORMATION
REOUEST:
OTTNERS:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
BOCC
ATID STAFF COMIIENTS
6/ LO/9L
Goose Creek Subdivision
Preliminary PIan
Kent Jones, Priscilla Prohl'
Vince Gulino
A oarcel of land situated in
;"i=-3-ina 4, section 35 and
i"t-e, sectioti r+, T7s, R88Tf, of
tt " 5th P.li' ; Iocated
lii."":::t 1T ll*"'li i" * ti":
County Road 100.
The site consists of a 5]-'29
acre parcel.
Individual tfelIs
r.s.D.S.
Private access easement off
c.R. 1-00.
A/R/RD
A/R/RD
I.
The site is located in the carbondale urban Area of Influence
and District F, ni""ilii"oapr.in severe Environmental
constraints as identified on the-conprehensive PIan Management
Districts' MaP.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A.SiteDescriptior-r:Thesitehas-gentleslopesandconsisrs primariTy "i"1or-1yi"t rila south of , and
adjacent to, tn" n6.ring Fork i.irre=. Several irrigation
ditches and stre*" "ro6s the site. Improvements on the
site--con"i"tofasinglefamilyresidence.
Adjacent land uses include single- fanily residences and
ranching. Appro*inatEiy itoo feet n6rtheast of the
proposed suUaiirision "r-J **icipal wells, a portion of
the Town "i-Ci=fondale's municipal water system'
B. Proiect DescripEion: The-applicant proposes to subdivide
rhe site into five tfi'-fot-s-rlngi;q itt size from 7'67
acres to 13.02 acres iri "ir". Th6 oierall density would
be one residence Per 10'25 acres'
Itod.if ications Since . Sketcb Pten: The sketch plan
contemplated current 5 lots' The
applicants arJo reqoestea appio'al for I guest house and
an employ"" or,it-in=eictr pri'miry single. family residence.
References to these ."""""o{ unitl have been omitted
f rom the curr""I-ipprication -( see minutes fT?In November
8; iggg, Planning commission lrleeting Page t1 ) '
c.
-l'
D.
F.
G.
H.
\III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS:
A. I,ltount Sopris Soil Conservation District: Expressed
"""."r"" ?egaraing high water table, soils limitations,
toiiaiiie .ria liriestolck proteclion and ground water
Protection (see exhibit Page lX )'
B.ColoradoDePartmentofHealth:Expresse.d.concernaboutI.S.D.S. contamination of the cirbondale wells and
reconmenaea connEciittg with Carbondale water and sewer'
c. Division of Wildlife: Expressed . concern about
on"ifi"as/riparian protection .** qotential i:npacts on
wildlife (see exhibits on page duq'al)'
colorado Geological survey: stated that there are no
geology-refated problems G"" exhibit on page-ful1 '
E. RE-l Schoo} District: Requested impact fee and will not
orovide bus service on pri-vate roads ( see exhibit on page
b3 r.
Division of Water Resources: Can not reconmend apprroval
with submittal to date ( see exhibit on Page A1/, | : ) '
Sof-"q"nt iniormitiot hal been submitted, but no written
resporise has been received to date '
Dan Kerst Letter: Cover }etter addressing -appToval of
Basalt Water Co.""rr.ncy District contract for 1.3 acre
f;;a-[""" exhibits on Piges A/" ' l'
Torfrn of carbondale: Letter expressing concern-"P9ot
I.S.D.s."o'.t.*i''ationofwell-field.Secondletteraddresses rown -pecific request regarding I'S:D'S'
ippi"t"r and comm6nts from Town's consulting engineer
1!-"E-"*r,ibits ;;;;;"; ^.7-35 )' -rhird retter is from
Town, s "orr"orllig
- enffie-er dxplain water quality
concerns. Fourih l6tter explains Town's extra-
territorial aulnority in enactin! watershed protection'
I. Resource Engineering: Explains relationship of non-
discharging i.S.D.S. systemi and Basalt Water Conservancy
Contract.
J. Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District: Stating th3t
they--can providl- adequate fire Protection for the
subdivision.
K. county Attorney: Recommendation that a court rule on the
extent and naCure of the access road'
L. planning commission: Draft minutes of May 8, 1991
meeting.
IV. ADJACENT LAND OWNER COMMENTS
A. Assorted Letters: Expressed concerns about access
roadwayrgroundwatercontamina-tionandwetlandsprotection (see exhibit on page 3? 1 '
V. STAFF COMMENTS
A.InternalRoads/Access:Accesstotheproposedsubdivision is via one-third mile long private easement
which extends from c.R. 100 to the Roaring Fork River'
The roadway is an unimproved dirt/native material surface
approximat-ety 8, to i0' in width. The roadway fal1s
short of anv current roadway design -standard. An
irritation ditch and windbreak parallel the road for much
of 1-h" Iength. The applicJnt has pfoPosed that a
maintenance agreement be 6itaUfished by all parties using
the roadway. No agreement has been adopted to date.
')'
?
Practically, the roadway width and surfacing may renderit inadequate for the potentiar 35 to 40 addilionlr tripsper day generated by the subdivision proposar. concernshave been raised over the legar stitui of the accesseasement. Particularry of concern is the issue ofwhether the appricant has the authority to increase theusage of the easement. Language in the easement documentis vague in its intent. aaoi[ionar questions have beenraised- regarding the existence of dedicated right-of-wayfrom the applicant's parcer to c.R. 100. rn the pastr Errrexemption has been granted relying on this easement foraccess.
rn order to determine the adequacy of access to theproposed subdivision, it wi}l be necessary to determinethe status of the road. Knowredge of this status isnecessary in order to determine the nature and extent ofrgadway improvements. The county Attorney has opinedthat this determination can onry be made by a Lourtorder, not in a decision by the nranning comfrission orcounty commissioners. Therefore, Mr. DeEord recommendedthat the Pranning commission incrude a condition ofapproval_requiring a court order decraring the extent andnature of the roadway prior to Finar prat approvar. ThePranning commission fert this requirement -fraced undueburden on the deveroper and did not incrudd it in theirconditions of approval.
once at the subdivision boundary, access to 4 of the 5rots wirr be via a 2000' rong cul-de-sac. The proposedroadway meets milimum county standards with the e-xceptionof the actual cur-de-sac design and the rength exce6dingthe 500' arrowable limit. waivers of cur-de-sac rengthmay be grated with the consent of the carbondare 5ndRural Eire District. Access to Lot 1 wirr be via theprivate access easement which extends north of thesubdivision.
c.
B.I'loodplains /WetIands :The property j-s traversed byregulated floodprains and has regurated wetrands. ThaRoaring Fork crosses the northern portion and hasdesignated floodfringes/froodway. The cLntrar portion of
tlg .pr"pgr-ty is traversed by water courses/irrigationditches which are arso designated froodfringe. A i to zacre pond is located on Lot 4. Arr rots appear to haveq} acceptabre buirding site outside the reguratedfloodplain.
Federarry regurated wetrands pararrer the watercourses onthe property. The Army corpi has been on site and haverevi-ewed the proposal. No 404 permit wilr be requiredfor the access road as proposed. since wetrands exist oneach rot, any impact on wetrands on individuar rots wirrrequire approval of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Fire Protection: The proposed deveropment is rocatedwithin the service boundaries of the carLondare and RurarFire District. The District has indicated that they canprovide fire protection. Their consent to the cur-d6-sacdesign is required.
No fire protection improvements have been proposed withinthe subdivision. section 9273 requirej adlequate fireprotection water storage approved uy trre Eire District.
utilitiess Thg appricants are proposing to provideerectric and telephone service td ealctr rot. uiistingrines traverse each of the 5 rots. No naturar gasservice to the lots is contemplated.
l{ate-r: - The lpplicants are proposing to provide water to4 of the 5 lots via a contrict wittr tie Basart water
D.
E.
- QrJ
conse-rvancy District. The existing residence (proposedLot #1)- is served by an existing permitted werr. Anapproved contract has been submitLei.
rn its original response, the DwR did not recommendapproval of the subdivision. Their concern was based onthe absence of a contract at the initial time of review.subsequeltry, inverbar comments to staff, DwR engineershave indicated that the contract for L.3 a. f . is adeqaiehave indicaEed that the conii";r i;;i.l-".r. isfor 4 residences. Lingering concerns remain about theadministration of the Contract to insure its long-termvalidity.
Because of the potential requirementswastewater systems, a modification tomay be required to provide sufficientpercent consumptive use.
F' Wastewater: The proposed subdivision is located in anarea of seasonarly high groundwater. Because of theproximity of groundwatel, Conventional septic tank/Ieachfierd systems are inadequate. epicarlyr'above gradientarternate systems .designeg lv l- profeisional Engineeisuch as a wisconsin Molnd hive bLen required in thisarea. The wastewater disposal situati-on if furthercompricated^ _by- the subdivilions rocation up-gradient(1600 to 2500 feet) from the Town of daibondarewellfield. rn order tir protect their we1lfie1d, the T;r^rnTrus.tees h?r-g requested that the county prace a prat noteon the subdivision which wourd r"qiii" any r.s.D.s.built within the subdivision be subjelted to ipproval bythe Town's staff . At this time, tlie Town is requestingthat an r.s.D.s. be a non-discharging iv"t"* such as anE.T. bed_using hlparon riners in- riLu-of poryethyreneliners. _H-owev€Er-if superior technotogy Lii""" then theTown ,,"yld- require its use for r.s.o.-s. systems withinthe subdivision.
While Ih" County is the agency r:esponsible for issuingr.s..D:s. permits, the Town of daruoriaare appears to havestatutory authority to protect thei*Lirtiera fromcontamination. The review and veto authorily requestedappears compatibLe with this statutory autnoiity.'
G. soirs: Due to soirs rimitatiolg, namely proxirnity togroundwater and saturation, staff '=".or*"hd'" that soilsreports, wastewater systems and foundations shal1 beprepared and designed for each 10t by " registeredprofessional engineer.
VI. SUGGESTED FTNDTNGS
for non-dischargingthe water contractwater for the L00
posting
before
B.
A. That the proper publication, public notice andwere provided as required by l.w for the hearingthe County Commissioners; aira
That the hearing before the Board of county commJ_ssionerswas extensive and comprete, that arl pe-rtinent facts,matters and issues were submitted and tnit arr interestedparties were heard at that hearing; ""aThat- the proposed subdivision of land is in generalcompriance with the reconmendations set forth in thecomprehensive pran for the unincorpoiaiea area of theCounty; and
Ih"I. t-n: _proposed subdivision of rand conforms to theGarfield County Zoning Resolutiorr; -.-rra
That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans anddesigns as .r." requir:ed by th; state ;i cororado, andGarfield county, h.ve been- submitted and, in addition,
c.
D.
E.
D {-
have been found to meet all requirements of the GarfieldCounty Subdivision Regulations.
VTT. RECOMMENDATION
At their: Il[ay 8, 199L meeting, the pranning commissionrecommended AP-PRovAr by a vots of G - L, suSject to thefollowing conditions:
Alt_representations of the appricant, either within theapprication or stated at the pubric hearings before thePranning commission sharr be considered cAnditions ofapproval unress otherwise state by the pranning
Commission.
All proposed utilities sharr be rocated underground. Alrnecessary appurtenances for individual service connection
"I"11 be provi$ed by the deveroper. utirity faciritiesshall be incruded in the subdivision rmprovementsAgreement.
The appricant shall establish a Homeowner,s Association.The Homeowner's Association sharr be incorporated inaccordance with the cororado Revised statutes. Theprotective covenants, articres of incorporation and otherHomeowner's Association documents incruding by-laws willbe submitted for review by the county etto-rn6y prior tothe approval of the Final plat
The water arrocation contract sharr be transferred fromthe deveroper to the Homeowner,s Association. TheHomeowner's Association sharr enforce individuarcompliance through covenants.
Art cut sropes created during construction sharr berevegetated with-native grasses and shrubs with adequateweed control. Arr seed sharr be certified weed-fre-e.
Ih" applicant s-harr pay $200 per rot in schoor rmpactFees prior to the approval of the Final plat
The restrictive covenants shalr provide that there wirlbe no resubdivision of the lots.
Prior to the submittar of the Final prat, the applicantsharr provide adeguate written verification f-r:om theDivision of water Resources documenting approvar of thedomestic water supply.
The applicant shalI provide documentationCarbondale and Rural Fire protection Districtthe interior road design and fire protectionto the submittal of a Final plat.
from the
approvingplan prior
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
t-0.
l_1.
L2.
Arr roads including the proposed cur-de-sac shalr bedesigned and constlucted- in accordance with minimumCounty standards.
The - applicants sharr submit improvement prans for arlroads, bri-dges, utirities and diainage stfuctures priorto approval of a Fina1 plat.
The -Jpplicant sharr demonstrate that procedures areestabrished for the maintenance of arr briages, roadwaysetc., incruding snow removar, through the H6meowner',sAssociation.
13. The applicants sharr provide a modified water arrocationcontract from the Basalt water conservancy District toprovide adequate water to accommodate the rack ofrecharge for rron-discharging wastewater systems prior toreview by the Bocc if nohoaitication to the coniract is
! l.U
requiredr. then !h" appricant shalr provide supportingdocumentation prior to the preliminarlipran revi# by th6Board of County Commissioners.
14. Arr requirements of the Army corps of Engineers sharr beconsidered conditions of approvat. A covenant sharr beincruded to require that piior to construction withinidentified _we_t_rands, approvar from the Army corps ofEngineers sharr be provided. wetrands, as id-entified onthe Prerimin-ary- plan and reviewed uy ttre Army corps ofEngineers, shall be delineated on the Finar prlat with anappropriate plat note.
15.The appricants sharr provide a 10, wide access easementconnecting arl rots to the north edge of the property
_(ie. Roaring Fork River) for the ben-efits of owneis oflots within the subdividion.
Prior to issuance of a Buirding permit the owner ofeach rot sharr prepare and submit a site specificsoils_report and foundation design preparLd andcertified by a professional enfineer - and altimprovements shalr be constructed in accordancewith such measures which sharr be a condition ofthe Building permi.t.
The recommendations of the cororado state Foresterand u.s.F.s. wildrife prevention guiderines shalrbe forrowed in the conslruction of-arr structures.
The subdivision may be subject to prescriptiveeasements for irrigation ditches - and Lheirmaintenance.
lrior to any deveropment within an identifiedfederally regulated wetrand, the lot owner sharlconfer with !h" Army Corps of Engineers.Documentation of their review shalr be proiided toCounty staff.
All f.S.D.S. systems shall be designed and theirinstarration certified by a register6a professionar
16. The folrowing prat notes shalr be incruded on the Eina1PIat:
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
engineer.Prior to construction, review andcomment by the Town of Carbondale shal1 beobtained. A non-discharging E.T. system withhlpalon riner or the best-deironstrated- avairabletechnology at the time of construction sharr berequired for the I.S.D.S.
'b'
J:'ffiEI.IMIIUAffiY\ DBAFT,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
May 8, 1991
I{EI{BERS PRESENT
Stephanie Beerman
Pat Fitzgerald
Peter Nichols
Harold Shaeffer
Dick StephensonPhilip Vaughan
Gregg Velasguez
The meeting was called to order. Roll
members present. The minutes of April 10,a unanimous vote.
COIJNTY STAFF PRESENT
Don DeFord, CountY
Attorney
Mark Bean, Director
Regulatory Offices &
Personnel
Andrew llcGregor,
Planner
CaII was taken with all
1991, were approved with
Continued Public Hearing for Goose Creek Subdivision Preliminary
PIan - Kent Jones, Priscilla Prohl and Vince Gulino.
Don DeFord determined proper noticing.
Andrew McGregor summarized the discussions between staff, Mr.
Hartert and Mr. Kerst regarding the access issue since the last
meeting. AIso discussed was the memo from Don DeFord.
Gerry Hartert, representative for the applicants, asked that the
Planning Commission approve the application subject to the
conditions of approval set forth in the staff report including
those having to do with the road access.
Stephanie Beerman guestioned that there was no problem with any of
the conditions. Mr. Hartert answered that they would deal with
them, because they would have to deal with them anyway.
Dan Kerst, representative of the neighbors, asked if the only
change since the last meeting was the one additional condition of
approval. Mr. McGregor answered yes.
Mr. Kerst feels that the Planning Commission should deny the
request based on the lack of showing of access. He believes thata court resolution is probably the only way to come to a final
answer on the access issue.
CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
Harold Shaeffer feels that thecondition #15.
Mr. DeFord suggested languagesubdivision".
word internal should be included in
" for the benef it of o\,rners in the
Mr. Shaeffer questioned if the underground utilities were a problemwith the high water tab1e. One of the neighbors replied that itdid not bother her utilities.
Peter Nichols what the current use of the land is. I,Ir. McGregor
responded with one single family residence. Mr. Nichols asked howclose is the residence to the nearest publically operated sewagetreatment system. Andrew answered that it is 3/4 of a mile away.
I,Ir. Hartert said that the standards for an exemption fromsubdivision included a requirement that there be adequate access topublic roads. On several occasions this issue has come before thePlanning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners and in
each case that road was found to be adeguate access. l,Ir. Hartertasked, for the benefit of the doubt, that the road be found as
- ll-adequate access again.
\DRATT,
Mr'. Nichols asked if the subdivision is within the Carbondale Urban+=ga-"f-rnfruence. Mr. McGregor responded "yes". ur. Nichors
,asked if Carbondale took any other polition or just the concernabout the sevrage disposar system ind their welrr f ierd. ur.McGregor answered that the sewage disposal system and their weIIfield are their exclusive areas of concern. I,Ir. Nichols asked howclose the subdivision is to the Carbondale Town Limits. Mr. Jonesanswered that it is about Yr mire avray from the town limits.
MOTTON
?igt- Stephenson moved to recommend Approval of the Goose CreekSubdivision Preliminary PIan including-aII of the Staff Commentsand Suggested Findings and include in #15 the addition for theowners in the subdivision. Mr. Stephenson feels that #LZ should bestruck entirely. Harord shaeffer seconded the motion.
!'Ir. Nichols feels that it is unfair to shift the burden onto thesurrounding property ordners, it should be the applicantsresponsibility because he is proposing to make the charije. Mr.Velasquez asked who should bear ttre burden. rrlr. DeFord Lnsweredthat_ the applicant bears the burden of meeting the subdivisionregulatj-ons. The regulations say that the applic-ant has to produceevidence.
Stephanie BeermanPat FitzgeraldPeter Nichols
Harold ShaefferDick StephensonPhilip Vaughan
Gregg Velasquez
Motion carries.
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ehristeleit subdivision preliminary plan peter and LindaChristeleit.
which was to subdivide anof the parcels will be 10being 39 acres in size.
lldrew McGregor summarized the project,89 acre parcel into six parcelJ. fiveacres in size with the sixth parcelAverage lot size is 15 acres.
Pat Fitzgerard, Gregg velasquez, Dick stephenson, Harord shaefferand Andrew McGregor went on a site visit |rior to the hearing, onWednesday, May 8, 1991.
Don DeEord determined proper noticing.
Peter Christeleit talked to the Fire Chief and he said that it wasuP to the Sheriff to decide whether to caII the Carbondale FireDistrict or the Glenwood Springs Fire District. Linda Christeleittalked with Jack at the Glenwo-od Fire Department and he said that
lI_ tlr"y installed a sprinkler system in -a house it would be lesslikely that it wilt burn down. Mrs. Christeleit passed around amap_concerned with the watel depths and availability on surroundingwells. The surrounding weII aepttrs range from 15 f-eet to 420 feet.Mr. Christeleit asked if they can phale the utilities in as theIots are sold.- M1. McGregor inswered that it can be arranged witha bond, but a.bond may onry be used for the whore project iot justa portion of the project.
Mr. Stephenson asked Mr. DeFord what the County,s liabitity is on
!|e ned- canyon Road, is it a safety probrem. Mr. DeFord re-spondedthat there rearry isn,t any riiuirity when dearing wit-h thesubdivision process.
l,Ir. shaeffer asked how mugh acreage is presently being farmed.Mrs. christereit r-esponded that 4g acres are presentiy beingfarmed. Mr- Shaeffer said that farming will becbme harder oncethey start serring the rots, and asked what they intended to dowith the weed control and maintenance of the propeity until someonebuys the land and takes over. Mr. ChristeleLt iaid-that they wiIIcontinue to take care of the rand and prant some type of a gris" ora-dry land combination. Mr. Shaeffer-asked if coridition #i0 meantthat all- roadways will have to be built before .rry tot" are sold.
{r. McGregor answered that it wiII be part of -tne SubdivisionImprovements Agreement if it is not comptLtea.'la'
t lttrr-tttttlrntt I' DRAFT r
I,Ir,. Velasguez asked lt{r. DeFord if Resolution 81-175 have to be
pescinaed -by the Board of County Commissioners before the approval
.bf fin.l plit. Mr. Depord said it is a statement of policy.
lts. Beerman asked if they plan to strongly suggest to t-he
homeowners that they put a sprinkler system in their homes' Mr'
Christeleit said ttralt ttrey haven't made any definite plans for that
yet. Carbond.ale hopes to include Spring VaIIey in about 1 - 2
years in the fire district.
Sandra Anderson, resident on C.R. 1.L9, asked if the Coultlr will
maintain the road up to the CMC road. Mr. Stephensqn said that it
is County policy to plow to year round residents, if the_y are on- a
County n-oa-a. dne of the puLlic asked who is responsible for the
opgra-ding of C.R. 119. ltr. Oeford said that he doesn't think there
i3-any s-et method by which the Commissioners determine when to
upgrade roads.
Ca1vin Cox is concerned that if a road is maintained it will be
easier to approve a subdivision.
CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Nichols noted that Resolution 8L-L75 clearly states that County
policy says not to approve subdivisions in Spring VaIIey.
MOTION
!4r. Velasquez moved for Approval of the Christeleit Subdivisionpreliminar!, etan and incluae #ffe Buyer must join tle fire district
when availlble. Add #13 The Commissioners sha1l address the issue
of Red Canyon Road and either rescind the resolution or reiterate
the resoluLion. Mr. Shaeffer would like to add to the motion #14
That aII cultivated land shall be placed in Permanent cover or
continue in cultivation. Ms. Beerman suggested to strike #L2- Ur.
Nichols seconded the motion.
Motion carried with a unanimous vote.
Other Business
The Joint Planning Commission Meetings' Summary Notes were
distributed and thLre was a brief discussion on the passed
meetings.
There was a brief discussion about the future Comprehensive PIan
Meetings. The Planning Commission decided to meet Tuesday, May 14,
l-991, lt the Glenwood International Airport at 5:00 a.m. to view
the iounty from above. They also planned a Yflork Session onYLay 22,
1991, from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 P.m.
Mark Bean discussed briefly with the Planning Commission about
obsolete subdivisions and PUD's.
Respectfully submitted,
Harold B. Shaeffer
Secretary
HBS/rlb
- 13,
g'
!iy
PLANNTNG COMMISSION I.IEETING
MINUTES
November 8, 1989
(i,,
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT
Mark Bean, Dlrector
Btdg. san & PIan.
Don DeFord, County
Attorney
MEMBERS PRESENT
Laverne Starbuck
Bob Myers
Ellee Llnk
cregg Velaequez
Stephanle Beerman
Dlck Stepheneon
Laverne Starbuck called the meeting to order. RolI caII uraa taken wlth
Peter Nlchols abeent.
The minutee of September 13th were recommended for approval by Bob llyere,
seconded by Gregg Velaaquez with unanlmous approval. The october llth
minutes were recommended for approval by Bob Myers, seconded by Gregg
Velaequez wLth unanlmoua approval.
GOOSE UM CREEK SUBDIVTSION SKETCH PLAN
Mark Bean sald the sketch PIan procese is baelcally a conceptual revlew
and there wIlI be no approval or denlal of the proJect at thls meetlng.
The developer la glven the opportunlty to hear comrnents about the project
and ldentlfy leeues that need to be looked at more cloeely before the
Prellmlnary PIan. l{r. Bean brlefly descrLbed the proJect ae follows: It
iE proposed to dLvlde a 51.29 acre parcel l-nto approxJ.mately 12 lote
ranglng Ln elze from 3.1 acree to 7.2 acres. ft le proposed to allow for
a guest house and a domestlc employee unlt ln each alngle family
resLdence, maxLmum denalty, lncludlng gueet houeee and excludlng accessory
employee units, l-s 1 unlt per 2.1 acres. Mr. Bean then eumrnarlzed the
Staff Comments.
t{r. Bean aeked Mr. Jones lf he had any commente and Mr. Jonee saLd he dld
not that he Juet came to llgten and develop the commente he heard and try
and develop them into a rlght program.
Gregg Velaequez queetloned Mr. Jonee regardlng any coet reeearch that had
been done to tle lnto the Carbondale SanitatLon Distrl-ct. Mr. Jones eaid
there hae been no real regearch at thle tLme.
Laverne Starbuck comrnented that access on the road will need to be
expanded and that lt, le noted that widening wIII be llmlted due to the
dltch on one elde and vegetatlon on the other. Mr. Jones eald there Ie
the neceBsary easement on the road at this tlme but that he lntends to go
out and measure the road wlth an englneer to eee what le there. Mr. Joneegald that It ie 50'.
Dlck Stephenson noted that decreaelng the denelty would leeeen the
Impacta.
Bob Myere remarked that the acceea eaeemente ehould be slmllar standardg
ae the lnternal roade.
Stephanle Beerman aeked how many wells were planned. Mr. Jones shid there
waa an exlatlng weII and the SEate hae told hlm that lt could be ueed for
three. reeldences. The Town of Carbondale's Planning Commleston sald that
It would be poeel-ble to use Carbondale water. He wtll need to go to the
Town CouncLl ae a etep further.
- l{'
irl. i:
dregg Velaaquez queetloned why
lota? l{r. Jones felt that one
lg entltled ln the County and
DaIe Eubank, llvee eaet of the property,
problema as well as the flood problems.
affect on the rural aepect of'the area.
,1\ '
t! ''a'
guest houeeg,/employee houalng on theee
could apply for all the rlghte to whLch one
also there Le a market for the avallablllty.
Bob Myera sald there ls need to conslder Echool dletrlct ablltty to get
echool buses to the area.
Gary Carmlchael, adJolnlng property ovrner, wanted to brlng up the leeue of
the hlgh water table ae noted ln the letters which ig not evldent at thle
tlme because of lrrlgatLon water belng ehut off. - There le a confllct trlth
the Town of Carbondale, one hand decldlng to eell water tape and on the
other hand concerned about thelr weII belng contamlnated.
Len Truesdale, adjoining property o$rner on the rlver elde, eaid he ie
concerned about the Department of lflldltfe requesting a publlc acceao and
exposlng hle property and nelghbore to treepasslng. AIeo a concern about
the floodplaln data - owners can no longer control the flow of the rlver.
Hle home and hl-e nelghbora are no$, expoaed to a "dtfferent rlver" than aII
the data deals wlth. (Reference belng made to the Gerbaz proPerty) Mr.
Truesdale algo commented that he bell-eveg the denelty appears to be
Inapproprlate for an agrlcultural area.
Llea Carmlchael noted that the school chlldren Ln her area are drlven to
school glnce lt ls a dlgtance to the echool bug.
ie concerned wlth water and gewer
36 unlts wlll have a dramatlc
Mark Chaln, Carbondale's Town Planner, questloned the guesthouees. Mark
Bean replled that they were aubJect to Special Uee permlt. Mr. Chaln eald
that the Planning and Zonlng Commlselon in Carbondale felt that the plan
wae in conformance wlth the Carbondale Magter Plan for that area and wl-th
County zonlng. They aleo wanted the applicant to addrege the concerne of
the State Department of Health. When the town was flret approached wlth
the poeelblllty of provldlng water, thl-s wae only for a couple of lote.
The Carbondale Board of Trustees are the only ones that can authorLze the
town to provide water to thls slte. Mark Chaln then read a letter from
the Carbondale Town Admlnletrator dated l]-/8/89 Into the record regardlng
water and eanltatlon ln that area.
Perry Robblns 0189 C.R. 100, noted that there are three wells that
Clty of Carbondale hae on her property and the water ende up down ln
area of the welle. Potentlal Increaee ln denalty wlll create potentlal
addltlonal pollutlon around the wellheade from polluted groundwater.
the
the
of
Kent Jones added that ln hle conversation with the Town of Carbondale
waE at the tlme he was applytng for exemptlon not reallzing he wae
requlred to go for full subdlvlelon.
Dave Murray, 855 Highway 82, eald that Kent Jones would do a good Job wlth
the eubdlvlelon because Kent wag golng to llve there.
LaVerne Starbuck said there were gtlll guite a few thlngs that needed to
be addregeed at PreIImlnary PIan. lllth that, the Plannlng Commlsglon
contlnued to the next l-tem on the agenda:
RED HILL P.U.D ZONE TEXT AUENDMENT
Mark Bean explalned the appllcation and etated the prlmary purpoae of the
requeet ts to accomrnodate a use that wae not deflned ae belng allowed Ln
the prevloue P.U.D. text, speclflcally, fabrlcatlon and manufacturlng as a
type of use.
Mr. Bean eald there $rere two recommendations to be made. One wlII be
related to the P.U.D. Zon€ Dletrlct Text Amendment, the other Ie to add
the language "fabrlcatlon and manufacturlng" to the ugee allowed ln the
uEeg of the P.U.D. The Town of Carbondale reeponded favorably to the text
amendment and dld requeet that a number of ueee be deleted from P.U.D.
zone dletrict ae lt le preeently wrltten.
'15-
',. l?i
.\
RED MOUNTAIN P.U.D.- Appllcante:Ray Fender, Kent Pflelder
Mark Bean explalned the appllcatlon as a parcel of land located ln Lots Z,8, 9 and 2L of Sectlon 28rT7S, R88W located at the nort,hwegt corner of the
Lntersectl-on of state Hlghways 133 and 82 at Carbondale. The lowerportlon of the slte was prevlouely graded to create a development area.
The remalnlng portlon of the slte ie very eteep terrain wlth pinon and
Junlper vegetatlon. There le a emall bench on the upper portion of theproperty. The propoeed faclrlty on thle site wourd emproy 5 peopre wlth
an antlclpated 5 to 10 customere a month. The propoeed gtructure would bea 75' x 16o' ehop/fabrLcatlon area and a 50 x 3s foot offtce/draprayarea. There le aleo a proposed 50 x 1OO foot expansLon area to beconstructed at an lndeflnlte future date. Mr. Bean sald that any approvalglven at thls meetlng would lnclude the expanelon area aleo. He eald thatpreaentlyrLn Resolution No. 85-137, tt etates that ,'No addltlonalexcavation of the hllletde wlII be allowed". The followlng language
ehould be added "unless approved during the development plan revlew".Aleo, the Hlghway Department Is not as concerned wlth the propoaed accesa.
Mr. Bean eald what
recommend approval of
the condltlone noted
1.
2.
That a letter
buildlng permlt
Department has
requlrement of
appllcatlon,
revlewed the
the Department
he is recommendlng Is that the plannlng Commlselon
propoeed P.U.D. Zone Dl-strict Text Amendment with
to the text:
be eubml-tted to the Plannlng Department, wlth the
etatlng that the State Hlghway
propoeed development plan and any
have been, or wiII be, met.
The bulldrng permlt apprlcatton lnclude a solle study performed
by a quallf1ed engl-neerlng geologist that addresses eoLls
compactlon, dralnage, elope etabtltty and any recommendedetruct,ural requlremente for the buildtng and/or eite.
Laverne Starbuck aeked Ron Liston about a culvert to handle the run-off lnthe Sprlng.
Mr. Llston reaponded that tt will be culverted underneath to handle the 2to 5 year etorm. Anythlng over would be overfrowed onto aaphatt.
LaVerne Starbuck asked lf there were any new dlscueslon wlLh the Hlghway
Department.
Ron LLston eatd he trled to talk wlth Chuck Dunn but with hle prevlousexperlence of talklng wl-th some of the englneera, the real igeue ls thetrafflc. and wlth the ll-mlted amount of trafflc going in and out of thatglte there 1g no antlclpatLon of requlremente from the Htghway Department.If they do, the crlterla set wlII be met.
Dlck Stepheneon agked what kind of building.
would be primarily eteel fabrication.
Ron Lleton repll-ed that lt
Gregg Velaeguez asked what the water requirements would be.explalned that It would be a weII and there Ie very
requlrementa.
Laverne starbuck lnqulred about etorage of marbre outslde.gald everythlng le done lnelde, even pollehlng the marble
booths.
Mr. Lieton
Ilml-ted water
Ron LIgton
In controlled
Laverne had concerns about the cut above the property, could anythlng bedone? Mr. Lleton replled that there wiII mlnlmal change, perhaps some
eeedlng.
DIck Stephengon eald he sras concerned about the rockg roIIIng down offthat rough elope lnto the bullding. Mr. Lleton sald that wae part of thereaBon for the need of the Eolle englneerlng anaryele, not only for therock, but for the bael-c atablllty of the slope and that wlII be dealt wlthon the back side of the bulrdlng re concrete and eetbacks.
Eliee
and
area,
golng
Llnk had a queetlon about the expanslon area ae to what it $ras forwhat effect there would be on wastewater productlon. The expanslonMr. Lreton reprled, wourd relate to the emproyee eLtuatlon. At mogt' to 1o employees so lt wirl not create an enormous expanelon to the
whole operatlon.-ltr'
t.j
\'. ;,\
Ted Good, owner of adJolnlng property, had concerns
property and whether It was ealeable. Mr. Bean
talk with Mr. Llston after the meetlng.
about damage to hlg
euggeated that Mr. Good
Mark Chaln, Planner wlth the Town of Carbondale, sald the Town hopes that
thls propogal can gtrLke a reasonable solutlon to what has been a property
controveray over the laet ten years or so. Mr. Chaln asked the Plannlng
Commiselon to congLder deletlng.some of the more harmful and hlgh lmpact
uaea on that gLte, from the highway cornmerclal text, euch as faet food
restaurante, vehlcular equlpment rental and eepeclally anythlng that would
have a hlgh trafflc volume.
Stephanle Beerman aeked If anything waa propoeed for the remalnlng twenty
acreE. The reply was that the property was open Space.
Bob Hyere made a motLon that the Plannlng Commiselon recommend approval as
proposed ln Sectlon V of the staff Comments. Mark Bean added that prlor
to certlflcate of occupancy, landecaplng aB propoeed shall be completed or
a bond ln an amount acceptable to the County Commieelonere ehall be placed
wlth the County to guarantee completLon tn the next year. cregg Velasquez
seconded the motton. AII ayea.
The meettng graB adjourned.
Reapectfully eubmltted,
SB/emh
- ll-
Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Planning Department
1O9 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, C0 8t6OI
Dear Andrew:
At the regular meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District, the Boardreviewed the Goose creek suMivision pieriminary plan.
since this is a revision of a plan they have previousry reviewedr some of theiroriginal concerns stilr exist. rhey nlte thal trrere ii a high water Eable in thearea and would recorrnend that the foundations be carefully eigineered and basementsalso be designed with the water tabre in mind if they.r.'to 6e usea.
Any cuts for roads or utilities shourd_be revegetated and monitoredr not onlyfor growt'h buE, for noxious weeds. weed free sied and mulch shourd be used.
The Board always is concerned about animar control in a rural arear where thepotential for dogs to chase wirdrife or livestock is high.
Water guality is of prime interest, to the soil district, and they recorrnend closemoniEoring of the- mound system for waste disposar as well as the potential forflooding that might exist on porLions of this property.
rt is noted that the Redrob Loam is poorly suited for homesites as is fluvaquents.
The Board appreciates-the opportunity to conunent and stresses that their interest,is preserving the quality of-natural resources in dn €rr€Err with proper conservationrrieEirorls.
Sincerelv,er&;
Dee Bluer President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
Mou n
P.O. BOX I3O2 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLOBADO 81601
December 13, 1990
-18
Conservation District
j,5
'li
,:. :
,;,i
;'i.)
Dtc 18 1990
GARFIELD CUTJNTY
COTORADO DEPARTMTNT OF HEATTH
222 So.6th St, Room 232
Grand f unction, Colorado 81501
November 19, 1990
STATEOFCOLOTUDO
Telelax:
(103) 322-9076 (Main Building/Denverl
(3031 320-1529 (Pta,miSan Placc/DenverI
(30J) 248-7198 (Grand lunction Regional Olliccl
Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street
Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Goose Creek Subdivision Preliminary PIan - Garfield County
Dear Andrew:_
I have reviewed the informetion on Goose Creek Subdivision Preliminary PIan
and offer the following comments:
l. The proposed development is upstream of the Town of Carbondale water
well. There is a potential problem with ISDS contamineting the Townts
well.
2, With high ground water, individual wells and septic systems are not a
good solution to water and wastewater services. I recommend this
development contract with the Town of Carbondale for water and
wastewater services.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (303) 248-7150.
Sincerely,
R"A*0 Ww'**-
Richard H. Bowman, P.E.
I{est Slope Unit Leader
Water Quality Control Division
RHB/csk
cc: Town of Carbondale
Planning and Standards, Denver
Fi le
.i:
,']
Roy Romer
Covernor
fhomas M. Vernon, M.l)
Ixccutive Director
. ,': ,l:, ,
'' ,l"r '
' l:,.'
:q,
. ,'t
' , l\
' .,j..
'. ',r1.,
.l.''''. r':-i 'i ;
, :i,.' ', ,:'i. '.: '' ;:
, . ri..
' tr
: ;:i, ],:
prvtsroN oF wILDLIFE
STATE OF COLOBADO
Roy Bomer, Governor
DEPAMTft,IENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYEN
Perry D. Olron, Dlreciol
6O6O Broadway
Oenver, Color.do 8O216
Telephono: (3ogl 297.1 192
October L9, 1990
Garfield Co. planning Dept.109 8th St., Suite gOS
Glenwood Spgs., CO 81601
Dear Mark Bean:
On L0/3/90 I met with Mr. Kentdivision proposal just east ofsince I commented l-O/Lg/Bg todensity wiII benefit wildlife
'' [' '
i
(rfifil'tL-"-,'-;"JI{TY
Jones to review the Goose Creek Sub-Carbondale. The proposal has been changedthe Planning Department. The reducedin the area.
zones.
these areas where
areas
or less or 48"3-rail or less fence.
native vegetation.
REFEF IOr
,6Ad
tuqPt
ig)i;'1.
., ' r;;jiri
Illl ucT zi; ,1ss lij .t*'.i:' jii I;
(.i,t f ii:ii-;.i , , .,, tjf,l.i.ii ---
The proposed Goose creek subdivision contains valuable wetlands andriparian areas as evidenced by the vegetation types and abundance of
I?.::r5::1-:"llg-.1:, p::p"::y. other uira speciis incruains sreat
l:^d::I{:1l-r'l}"' T""g: and rLcei,r.='"o*" *iiil;1-;;.;-i;";-d;;;"",r=".rts greatest value is the wetlands and associated slrrub clumps, alders,cottonwoods, and willows. wetlands are considered cri-ticaI Labitatas the majority of all wildlife species utilize wetlands and riparianzones.
The following wilr help minimize impacts to wildlife.
Preservation of all riparian and wetlanda. I00r buffer zone be established alongthere is no construction
1.
2.
3.
4.
b. No grazing within theseA11 fencing be 42,. , -strandA11 dogs kenneled or chained.Re-vegetate disturbed areas with
Placement of homesites could impact wildlifeshould be reviewed once they are proposed.lo/LB/89 letter regarding this srLai.rision.
use and building envelopesI also refer you to my
rf you have any questions, prease feel free to contact me.
'{pp^1x
District til{tatire lrlanager
Carbondale
KW/Impxc: Kent Jones, pO Box L3Z, Carbondale, CO 91G23
wLDLFE"o,,,,.15f |'I][fl '"T,:l],::tiffi::'j85i;X".Tli,'"ti#;if,"#'.?ff :";
Felix Ghavez, Member e Rebecca L. FranK Member r Gene B. peterson, Member o George VanDenBerg, Member
Thank you.
Cooper, Secretary
r LarU M. Wrlght, Member
l.::ili
. :.
.'i
I .irr :
!,j'')
ii
.:, :.
'rl
rfOr.,
j,,,r.
,t, ,(,1
STATE OFCOLORADO I
Rov Romer, Governor i - -ilE'p;\iriii EHi o? NATUBAL R Ew'zU RC ES
.
^R!,Y"I,SIP,,IT*9.F
W I LD LI F E
Porry D. OlEon, Olrector
8060 Broadway
Danver. Colorado 8O216
ietePtr6ne: (3o3) 297'1 192
REFER TO:
ffi
'1 li1',' '
1."
l,i, ll{ttr
i .r....
( il'.ir, , "
r, i' 1j'r ,.,!ti'::'1
,l,l(r[) .,ii,','. ,
.,.,,,-l,.r,JiY
November 29, 1990
Garfield CountY Planning
109 8th St. Suil-e 303
Glenwood SpEs. r Co 81601
Dear Aridrew:
on ,]o/3/go I met with }tr. Jones for a lt|ildlife Revietr of his proposed
Goose cree* subdivision. r refer you Lo tny r0/rg/89 and )-t)/Ltt/9o I'etters
to your office regarrling tlris srrtrdivis|on. As indicat'ed by Lhe u's' Army
corps of llrrgineers arrd my letters, tlte properLy cortt'ai'ns valuable
wet,Iancls. r worrl.cl Iitre u.r-.n,trr6,r=i.ru LtrL i rnporLance of tltt:se nnd Lheir
valrre to r.rilrlLif e irrcl.uding many nongame species as r^reI I tls trtrLerfowl arrd
big gane. '[5e integriby ,ri these rvel-lands &s r'relI' as Lhe r'Iparian areas
al.ong the Roar'.ing Fortt River antl s[r'eants shoultl be mainhuined by a 100
f t. no-de,.:,[opnelrb buf f e r: z()rle trl.r.lrtg l;ltese f eatures .
If you have any qllestiorrs, please feel free t'o conl-act mtl' '['ltank yotr l'or
the opl)or Irrn i t Y t.o eontmen i' '
e I'tanaf,er-Carbonda I e
l(W/ lmp
DEPARTMENToFNATUFALRESoURCES,HamletJ.Barry,ExecutiveDlrector
wILDLiFE COMMtssloN, willlam H. Hegberg, chalrman . Dennls Luttrell' Vice chalrman r Eldon w' cooper' Secretarv
Fellx chavez, Member r Rebecca L. FranK Member o Gene B. peterson, Member o George VanDenBerg, Member o Laru M' wrlght' Member
ly,
tldtif:
1.
,,,
,, i.i.
,K;
D isl
- 0t -
t.
s@99 ffil
ROY R. BOMER
ooveRxoR
COLORADO GEOLOGTCAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILOING _ 13T3 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (3O3) 866-26r 1
GARFIiLU CuUt,Jt i,
December 17,1990 GA-91-0007
Mr. Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Planner
109 8rh St., # 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. McGregor:
RE: Goose Creek Subdivision
We have reviewed the materials submitted on this proposal and the general ancl engineering
geology of the site.
We concur with the finding that there are no geology-related problems which would
adversely affect this subdivision.
As always, we recommend that radon abatement be incorporated into all occupied dwellings
regardless of the absence of evidence of radioactive mateiials at the particulai site. elluvi-al
gravels are demonstrated sources of raclon gas.
Given this one cautionary note, we have no objection to the approval of this application.
Yours truly,
Senior Engineering Geologist hw
GEOLOGY
Itqil,_*-u
btfrey L. I{ynes
Telephone (303) 945-6558
',rl:iiririri;:;ir:ilr.rlr,,'r,.r',...,.r,.,,. ,::' .... :r::i
,,,,,i,,, November L9 , 1990 : 'r':ii'
Mark Bean, Planner
Garfleld County
109 8th Street
Glenwood Spr1ngs, CO 81601
Dear Mark:
l{e have revlewed the followlng project belng consldered:
coose Creek Subdlvlslon
In the event bus servlce would be requested ln the future,
appllcants need to be aware of the followlng condltlons:
As a general rule, school buses wlII only travel
federil, State, and county malntalned roadg.
There needs to be an adequate and weII
malntalned turnaround.
tle would respectfully request any Impact Fees that are
avallable.
Respectfu1IY,
\\*/-' --.-. -))\-)-11
James L. 'Bader
Superlntendent
JLB/7ct.
-a3
Superintendent
ROY ROMEB
.'Governor
JERIS A. OANIELSON
State Engineer
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street-Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
December 27, 1990
Mr. Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, C0 81501
Re: Goose Creek Subdivision Preliminary Plan
SWI/4 NWI/4, Section 35, T7S, R88W
Dear Mr. McGregor:
t.le have reviewed the above referenced proposal to divide 5l acres into
five parcels. There is an existing house and well on the proposed Lot I
(Permit No. 158846). This well is permitted as the only well on the 5l acres
for ordinary household purposes inside 3 single-family dwellings, the
irrigation of not more than one acre of home lawn and garden, and the watering
of domestic animals. The applicant proposes to cancel this permit to obtain
three household-use-only permits for three of the lots and obtain Water
Allotment Contracts from the Basalt Water Conservancy District to replace
out-of-priority depletions from the remain'ing two wells.
l.le cannot recommend approval of this proposal until Tl,lO separate Water
Allotment Contracts have been obtained and submitted to this office for
review. l,le would like separate contracts for each of the lots which will
require a well permit under the Basalt Water Conservancy District's substitute
water supply plan. The District's augmentation plan is still pending in Water
Court.
l.lell permits are issued by this office for the construction of new wells
as alternate points of diversion for water rights owned by the District
subject to a valid and continuing contract between the user of the well and
the District. All use of the well will be curtailed unless the Water
Allotment Contract or a plan for augmentatjon is in effect.
PIat notes or covenants should be required to inform the two potential
lot purchasers of these ob'ligations. }{e need to know which two lots are to be
issued well permits under the Basalt Water Allotment Contracts. Once we have
reviewed the information requested concerning these two proposed Iots, we will
. '.1:j.r '....;,,
, !,;
.r .;.,:i';
'rl ,i,
, .,. ,. ],':
. t, ,,1, ,
a" .;i .:,
. I.
,{,
,'
'l
fitf;;t,,r l.ir-
GNIII IELD COUN I Y
-a{
t..
.l i'.
r,,
. .:,.
, .! I
;t :.1,,
,. ,t
,:, ',,'.j
. i .',',.'.
....,.,i
.:,
Ur. nna..w McGregor
'December 27, 1990
be able to describe the
val id wel I permi ts. l,le
abeyance until we have
additional comments.
which the other three Iots may obtain
county hold this preliminary plan in
information requested and have formulated
Page 2
procedure by
ask that the
received the
S i ncerel y,
Z*, 1+(o*k
/James C.' McDanold, P.E.' Senior Water Resources Engineer
JCM/cl f:4837 I
cc: 0rlyn BeII, Division Engineer
Bruce DeBrine
rj.''''
SCHENK' KERST & deWINTER
ATTOR.NEYS AT LAlt'
EENTRAL BANK BUILDINO
SUITE 3IO, 3O2 ETGHTH STREET
GLENW@D SPRINGS, COI.()RADO tl60l
TELEPHoNE: Om) 945-2447
TELECoPIER : (}vt, 945'2917
November 15, 1990
,OHN R. SCHENK
DAN KERST
WILLIAM l. dcWINTER, trl
Mr. Kent Jones
PO Box 132
Carbondale, CO 81623
DIUkla
Enclosures -one to be returned
Dear Mr. Jones:
At its meeting on November 12, 1990, the Board of Directors of the Basalt Water
conservancy District approved your application ior a water Allotment contract for 1.3 acre feet
per year. I enclose *i* .opils of itre Water Allotment Contract to which are attached the
District,s order g*ting you application. Please note the conditions set forth on the order'
You wilt be considered the contracting party and will be responsible for performance of the
Contract until a Homepwner's Associition is established and the Contract is assigned !9 th9
Association. you should notify *. upon iormation of the Homeowner's Association so'that I
can provide you the necessary assignment form which must be completed and returned to me'
togeiher with the assignment fee of $50.00.
If at any time you desire to sell one of the subdivided lots without forming a
Homeowner,s Association, you must then apply for a separate contract for the individual lot at
which time you will be r"q,iit a to pay tt e oistrict's contract application fee at it then exists'
lf the enclosed contract is acceptable you, please sign all of the_enclosed copies on page
5, have you signature notarized and return on" fuity signed copy to me for ttre District's records'
Re:Basalt water conservancy District Allotment contract
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter'
"*"/"
"!'.:.., :, ': ,1' !,. i"
,.lil: 'ir'
; l, i:iJ
."',i:ir:.'
. , "li',., ,'. li:.. ., ,i.li!-
' .. .i i.'ti ::l..ii
-l
,',',11., : ,
Town of Carbondale
76 South 2nd St. Carbondale, Colorado 81623 GO3) 963-2733
]tqffiffiFru
Lrnt(r i LLii UtrrJitlTY
I'1 r'. Andre'rv I,lc(irr.,rgcr.
Ciar:f i e Id Corrtrt.l.- Pl.annir-rg I)e1:2p166r,1.I09 8th Street, Sui Le li0.l
Glerrr;ood Sprl ngsi, (:O 81601
TR,\NSIIITTED VIA FACSIl"l1l,I LEl'Ttll? TO 9.15-2379
Re: (loosre []rr:el< Iiubclivj siorr pre.l-i,mintrry p_l.an
l.)ear Anrlre'w:
-f ltave re'u-iewed Lhe inforrnation on t.he: Goose Creeli Strbcli,vision
PIe.l imi nar";* P-l an. As ],ou 'l{no\,r, tlre Goose creeli Subclivision isjr.rst. ttpsL,re.am of'the'I'<-,rvn of'Carbondale Itoaring Fork WeII Field.'l'he 'ror"n presi.rr t. 15' has t..\n'o we I I s i.n tirat .l ocat ion r.rhiclr car)pl'ovi,cler 1,lte'l'otvIt rqi-th ttp to on() nri,l-Li.on gzrl-l-o1s of'r"'ater a rJa;'.Thjs stt 1,rpIr.. is crrtc:ia.l- for thr.'l'r)ri'n irr thab it a-Ilows lls to meetotllr tvat.el' neerls rl trri-ng tlir: peali sLtmll()r mont,hs . In addition, thiswr,rt.er l:iorrrc€' is rlotrb[1- impor'{'.ar.rt in Llrab the rveff field couldpol.e:ttt irr1ll' t--rr.: e';panrl e:d to 1;err wel1s arrcl lreLlr Lrs meet ollr f uttrregl'orrt,h rreerls . '1.'lre rowrr of t.lnrbonclal,e preserr t,ry providesr
muni,c ipal r,;at-,er: to apploli i rnr-rlely 4 , 00t)0 petrple .
'Ilre Cr.rl ol';rclcr I)e1rsrl,tnr:nt of HeaIt.lr hils irrdicate<l to yoLl t hat. there
nrirJ* tre a pol-.r:rrl.,'i a.l problem rvitlr t.s.D.s. contaminating the T'own,srve.[.] f ie Ids. I l, is t,h,.' 'l'or,'rr's strorrg posi.tion not to recommend
appr-ov ing Lhr: tr)r'ojocb rrnl-,i1 tl'rr-:r.e is a guar:rrnLee that ll11
I,)ossibi I iti' o I cont;lm j naLic.,n exists. ]'he 'rortn has a.1 r-eadyencolll)Lerecl sim j l,ar- prrrhJ erns rvit-h this wel I f ieIcl. As a result,t,lre St,a. l-e De1,3r't.men1.. of lleafth t-eqlljrr:cl the Torvn to purchase aneaselllel)1. from Pcrlt;,' I?ob[rins, rvhich resulted in ]ivestocl< beilg
t'elno'u'er-l ft:ont a cet't,ai-rr ar-ea arrrl t,hat ar.'ea br.:ing ferrced to pr:event
a,r)y f'ur1,her
Prel inrinarf irrr
possil.lilil,1'crf
r)oss;J b.i l it.5' of
oJ' mol'.or oi. l s,
<:otrl,am i rra t.e's rr'i
compliance cc.,st
or poss j.ble conl.am inr.r.t j on.
esLi gati.ons havr: i rrdica'l,ed that there is ilttil,r'al.e polltrt-ion from t-he I.S.D.S. Ers weII as thesoore cherni c:aI contaminat.ion f ronr irnproper disl>osalga,sol-iuel et13. lrlvic-lr.nce of ar)]'of th.--se
II jtrcrease t,lre nrc,tril.oring cost.s as rveII ass f r>r [-,1re 'f orqn.
1i.
,]:
;;'. "
J.,!
ril
:':i:
,.I
i'ii
rii,
.ii,
l:l
,1,1,
"i,
.i'
.J
a tlr
'/hJ cC
I'la.r'l; Chai n
'f orvn P.l antre r
I'l(l/s(l
l woulrl Iike to thanl< yoLt for giving the ,Ior,,nresponcl to t.lris cleve.lopment pr:oposal . please2733 if').-ou lrar,<: any clllestions.
SincereJy,
The Tc,wn i.s retaining allaspects of l_hj s proposaJ,.
t,hi s pr.oject either priorlleari.ng. pr.esent_ly, i t, isrnuuici;ra1 uL.i1it. j es outs j rJeGoose Creeli ar.ea is rrot, in
engilreer to look at t,he technicalThe l'orvn rvi_l I give further conrment onto or at the Januarl, 9th publicagainst 'Iolvn pol icy to extenclLlre Town's corporate boundaries. Thearry of ol.rr service plans at this time.
tlre opport-unity tocontarct me at 963-
l'+ i
, t-;l
.ii*
.,i;ri
r't l,
:1,t,:.".i
, ,1:;iili
,:i't
;r?i
'i'ii'.
r il,ri
.)l:;
. i.:ii
,il
"
i,;;
.+:l-a(-
*#6 t
Town of Carbondale
l- 76 south 2nd st. carbondale, coltrrado g1625 Go3l 96l-2713
February 6, lggl
Mr. Andrew McGresor GARFIELD COUNTYGarfield County planning Depar.tment1Og 8th Street, Suite BOBGlenwood Springs, CO B160l
TRANSMITTBD BY FACSIMILE TETTER ON 2/6/91
RE: Goose Creek Subdivision preliminary plan
Dear Andrew!
The Carbondale Board of Trrtstees reviewed the above referencedProiect at its January 22, 19911 rneeting and its possible impaetott the Town's _Roaring Fork WeIIf ieId. appf icants present v.,ereKent Jones and priscilra prohr. As you t""r, ih* to*r, and theState Department of HeaIth have concerns that the existing fownwellfield wiII be lmpacted by the proposed development, The Townhas three existing shal1ow, higtr "*p*iity ruunicipil wel-Is whlchhawe a caps'eity of soo to gso E.p.r, This r"*r, Irr.= also beentargeted for nine additional wells to supplement our weter eupplyas the Town grows. These werrs have conditionar decrees.
AfLer a lonpl discussion, the Board of Trustees unanimously passeda motion which asks Garfield County to place a plat restrictionon ttre subdivislon whtch wourd require any r.s.D.s. buirt withinthe Goose Creelr Subdivision to be csnstructed subject to Townapproval' At this point in timel the Town woul-d request that anyr.s.D.s. be a non-discharging system such as an E.T. system ustnihypalon liners in Iieu of polyethylene liners
The Town wouLd arso rike to have a working relationship withGarfield County in this general area in t[e future so ltrat ourwerls can contirrue to be protected. rn the best of worrdsr theTown would know precisely how far of an area away fronr the Towtr'swellfield needs to be protected, It wilI be difficult to obtainthis information since such a stucly would be expensive end theresults would be highly interpretive. The Town ie currentlyinvestigating wit,h the State Department of Health the possi6ifitvof ttre Town becoming a pilot project for the state's werlheadProtection Program. We rgiII keep you informed about this matter.
I '(tt'il''"
l',1|
.. illl.r
.' ;l;:, . .' .ii,i;,
'tt''i. : i!I ,;i:
, lt,
,, .i;i
I;-,
. rl. r'r'
,'1,.
,, ',,i
;
'' ii'i '
:.,. l,i:.. i "ir,'
ri ,,] ,:,,: Jr.i
-p.
FEB 6 1991
/Pt\l c(--
The Town Board has instructed me to invegtigate with the Countythe possibirity of rown review and approvar of ant i,s.D.s. beingconstructed in this general area.. I-;; including a letter fromLouis l"Iever which provides documentation that g5% of groundwatercontanination caseB resuLt frorr contarnination within two nil"es ofthe (round water source. we hope ttrat-a working rerationshipwith the countv wirr- resur-t in a satisfactory sorution toproLectlrtg our domestlc water supply from pollution.
The Town woufd rike to thank Garfield county for the opportunityto review thls and other projects which nay impact the Town ofcarbondare. you can contact me at g63-zz3i if-vou t*.ru anyquestions about the Townts cornmeht$ on the ooose c"..r.Preriminary pran. r rook forward to discussing with yorr in thenear future the issue of protecting our ground water suppry,
Sincerely I
'i,il
.i,j
' li'
. ii:
rl),
' Il:lr.
|, Il:t.
,i.r,' il;,
) 1..; ii:
,,,,:.,ir..l,l
,,1
i
,r'l , ,
:l.r'
Mark Chain
Town Planner
MClsd
EncI.
' i',,
-36-
:
..d # #l"
S0llf,ir-rEfi GOnOOil [rEYEtr
January 7. 1991
Mr. Mark Chain, Town Planner
Town of Carbondale
76 Soutlt Second Street
Carbondale, CO 81623
rrv I l-/rrrlr,l, r,L.lr r,-,t \/,irv ! L
Glenwood 6prings, Colorado 816O1
(303) 94S1004 (303) 9256727
s456S46
Ytatt
COi'8UI,7"Y6 E^'6'NEEES I SUEYEYOHS
RECEIVED JAN0e lsel
RE:Goose Creak Subdivision Prelimindry Plan
Dear Mark;
As requested, I have reviewed the Goose Creek Subdivision Preliminary Plan. The purpose
of this letter is to comment of the relationship between the Goose Creek Subdivision and the
Town's well field.
Ths relationships betwoen municipal well fields arrd point sources of poltution are extremely
cornplex and highly interpretive. To definitively determine the relationship would require in-
depth groundwater modeling and actual in-place monitoring so that groundwat€r movarnent
and pollutant transport can be defined
$hort of doing this in-depth analysis, certain facts can be raised at this time on the
relationship between the Goose Creek Subdivision and the Town of Carbondale's wolls.
Those facts are as follows:
The proposed five lots for Goose Creek Subdivision are located between 1600
and 2500 foat away from the Town of Carbondale well field.
Generally, the groundwater gradient, or direction of flow, in the Boaring Fork
alluvial is towards the river and downstream. Therefore, upon information and
belief, the Town of Carbondale's well fisld is down gradient from the proposed
Goose Creek Subdivision.
Currently, the Town's well field is used as a peaking source of water to handle
irrigation season water demands.
This well field has been identified as the future source of Town of Carbondale
watEr. As the Town grows, more wells can be drilled in the Roaring Fork
alluvial. These wells willgenerally parallelthe Roaring Fork River and be spaced
350 feet apart. Enclosed as Figuro 1 is a map propared for Carbondale by WME
which shows the area identified as the future well field corridor. Also,
according to WME, the cone of depression for these wells is * 500 feet. The
WME suggests a total of nine wells will be required to meet future demands.
The.Town's three existing wells are shallow, high-capacity municipal wells.
The wells are drilled to approximately 36 feet ln dapth and havo a screened
interval of t 22 to 35 feet, and have a capacity of + 300 to 35O gpm.
1.
2.
Eu.
4.
5.
'31 -
s f#r-
,'January 7, 1991
Mr. Mark Chain
Page two
.(,
.tr\ "il' .,,,"
\ n\
u"
, t-'! A-
\\I ,,d
r)'
ln a letterto Garfield County from Richard H. Bowman, dated November 1g,
1990, Mr.Bowman stated there was I potential problem with lSDS,s
contaminating tha Town's wells. Case historles back up Mr. Bowman's claim.
Casa histories in pollutant transport theory indicate that viruses and organics
can migrate long distances in shallow groundwater with cours6 alluvialaquifers.
Distances cited in case histories suggest these pollutants can travel distances
longer than that encountered in this situation (! can supply these case histories,
if necessary).
The preliminary plan report indicates that engineered ISDS's will be designed
for each lot. Tharefore, it can be argued that the ISDS's will be built to Garfield
County and Colorado Department of Haalth standards and meet all setback
requiraments. However, individual sewage disposal regulations, both on a
county and state levsl, do not take lnto conslderation proximity to higtr-capacity
murticipal wells.
The State Health Department has adopted the Basic Stendards For
Groundwafer. Table l, attached, lists the standards for discharge to domestic
use classified groundwater. Table 1 limits the discharge of total coliforms to
one organism per 100 mils. Thase limitations are to be met at th6 point ot
compliance. The point of cornpliance for the Town of Carbondale's well field
has not been established. However, the data uead to compile the basic
standards indicate that point of compliance should be within a two-mile radius
of the'Town's wells. Below are references from that Basrc Standards for
Groundwater:
'A conservative aria of two laterat mitas around the activity in guestions wilt
presumptively be used as tha initial specified area, The Commission finds this
area to be rcasonaltia for the following redsons:
tt',' Geraghty and Miller, lnc. performed a national survey, for IISEPA
\rHeadguarters, of 68 groundwater contamination sffes. The study
',,t'' revealed that 95% of the plumes of contamination were limited to: withirt two miles of the source. Geragthy and Mlller, lnc. performed an
in-hausa sutvay of 73 more such itam (a total of l4l sitesl which also
revealed that giort of these plumes of contaminatiort were limited to
two miles from the source;
The ICF Corporation pterformed a national survey, for USEPA
Headquarters, of l59O RCRA sr'tes. ln this study, ICF fourtd that 95%
of tha distances from the source to groundwater discharge boundaries
wara within two miles;
'I
, ;[ i''.,t:t'
:. i,,;i i .
:r,i ;
, . ,ii,,
'i' ,,1'l
1ir.
'lti'
;
tt.:,'
'1:,,
'l l"
Y, ;i,,ll,,ii.i
,, I:i
'.r i
''i';r 'i '
.l: ii
i:;l iti r.',) ,' '' ri !., .iii
..., ; ".
,.;,1j
.:,1.
:.';1. .:]t'
' :.i:
,i:,
r:.1.r-1.
.rir
GORDON MEYER,lNC.
7.
8.
9.
I
'January 7, 1991
Mr. Mark Chain
Page three
10.
ii,ilil
. :'i,l', !,
,, ,1!]
'(t
l'
, .(!
r;t1'j,1.''[r
d.'.
.;1r.; t. j'. ti t.i :, '
..)l
' . !r,,
, l;,
1.
,
3.
Geraghty and Miller, lnc, pertormed a national suryoy, for USEpAHeadquarterc, of lalge groundwater pumping sysfems (municipat watersupply wellsl- This survey reveeled tnat appi*imate,ly gE% of thesewells had a captura zona li.e., zone of influenceJ *itni, a two-mileradius. '
According to Courrty staff, there are aplroximately fifty residents in this generatarea- Most of these are farther away from the town'i wells but, nonet[6tess,can contribute to aquifer oontamination.
Given the above-mentiorred facts, I concur with Mr. Bowman,s concern over the potentialforpollution of the Town of Carbondale'g water supply- Continued proliferation of ISDS,s in thisarea will severely curtail the Town's ability to expand the welt fiald in the future. Csrtainsteps can be taken to mitigate or lessen the risks associated with the development such as:
Construction of non-discharging ISDS's, such as ET (evapotranspiration) bedsusing hypalon linors in lieu of polyethylerte liners.
Corrstruction of on'site rnonitoring well drilled down gradient of the ISDS.
Extension of Town wastewater facilities
I hope this information has been of use to you.
attend any public meetings as necessary.
I would be happy to follow up this memo or
Sincerely,
SCHMUESEH GORDON MEYER, INC.
Louis Meyer,
LM:lc/9218-17
Enclosurescc: Mr. Petar Ware
Mr. Davis Farrar
SCHMUESEH GORDON MEYEB, INC.
-33-
c.
fu*_
{
=t \
Town of Carbondale
76 Soutlr 2nd St.Carb<rndale, Colorad o g1623
March 18,
,r'Ti,, ii
l: i,l I
Gor 963-2733
1991
Don DeFordGarfield CountySuite 300
Gl.enwood Springs, Co. g1601
Dear Don;
r understand that ygu had reouesfod o^r!,n,,i-c-r .'1 " ' , , ,., t,, ,
ti,i;P:::
SCIIIINK' KBRST & deWINTER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CENTRAL BANK BUILDTNO
sutTE 310, 3(n EICIITII STREET
GLENWoOD SPRINGS, COU)RADO tl6ol
TELEPIIoNE: €m) 945-24{7
TELECoPIER: (303) 94r-2977
Mr. Kent Jones
PO Box 132
Carbondale, CO 81623
Re: Basalt Water Const:rvancy District Allotrnent Contract
Dear Mr. Jones:
At its meeting on Novembet 12, 1990, the Board of Directors of the Basalt water
conr.rfi'n;;;#il;?p;;""*t ;;,iirppril.tion for a watey Allotment contract for 1.3 acre feet
^ -.,r-:^1. ^-a allaalrarl llrp;;;;;" i;";'"* ,ril;Ai.; "iil" **:'tt9T'I c^"::1?:::::i,;:',-l'::l1:":1.1):
ilrlrLf,:; o'J;;;;r;i;; y", application. please note the conditions set forth on tlte ortler'
-f---*^aaa ^f tl.ayou will be considered the contracting party and will be responsible for perfirrmance of the
Contract until a Homeowner's Associition is estabtished and the Contract is assigned 19 th:
Association. you should notily me upon formation of the llomeowner's Association so'that I
can llrovide you ttre necessary assignment form which must be completed and returnetl to me'
togeiher with the assignment fee of $50.00'
If at any time you rlesire to sell one of the subdivided lots without forming a
Honreowner,s Asro"i^tio'n, you rnust then apply for a separate contract for the individual lot at
*t i.,t time you will be r.q,;ir"d to pay ttre^piitrict's contract application fee at it tlren exists'
If the enctosed contract is acceptable you, please sign all of the-enclosed copies on page
5, have you signature notarized and return onl frity signed iopy to me for the District's records'
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
,OHN N, SCTTENK
DAN KBAST
WILIJAM l. dcWINTER' III November 15, 1990
DK/kla
Enclosures -one to be returned
/r/try'"
,/4AtZ -l$>