The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 Staff Report BOCC 07.10.89PROJECT INFORMATION Bocc 7 /70/89 AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST:Pi nyon Preliminary Car bonda le Co rporat i on A tract Peaks Plan Land Subdivision De ve lopmen tOWNER: LOCAT]ON: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXIST]NG ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The siLe is located in Districts D Severe pnvironmental Constraints,Plant Management Oistricts Map. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL of land situated in Sections 11 & 14, T7S, R88W; approximately 5 miles northeast of Carbondale, off County Rd. 712. The site consists of 197 acres. Two individual wel]s and onecentral well f or 17 l-ots. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems nxisting and proposed private access easements off County Rd.ltz. A/R/RD A/R/RD and F, Rural- Areas wiEh Moderate to as designated in the Comprehensive A Site Description: The site is located in a rural portion of the @sesinthevicinitybeingmain1ysing1efami1yresidential, ranching and open space. Steeper slopes are formedalong the northern portion of the development and along CountyRd. ll2. Vegetation consists mainly of sagebrush, pinyon,juniper and meadow grasses. No improvements are identified onthe site with the exception of access roads. Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 197 @e family residential l-ots, ranging from 4.2acres to 16.6 acres in size with a gross density of approximately10.4 acres. The Sketch Plan proposed 1B l-ots, but after furtherreview, the applicant is requesting approval of 19 1ots. Twolots (#1 and #17) will have individual wells and driveways comingdirectly off of County Road I72. The remaining 17 lots will beserved by a central water distribution system with a 30 r000ga11on water storage tank and 10,000 ga11on cistern. The 10r000 ga11on cistern is intended to provide water for fire protectionpurposes. Access to all of these l-ots will be from thesubdivision's internal road systemindividual sewage disposal systems. A11 lots will have History: In 7979, the site was proposeo for subdivision intoepproxlmately 39 lots as 'The Compound' subdivision. Thisproposal was disapproved by the Board of County Commissioners at Sketch Plan. B. C. - 3- rir.ua;on rssuEs AND coNCERNs Agency Comments 1. Roaring Forkthe proposed dwelling inpage /0 ) School District RE-l has no concerns regardingsubdivision. They have requested $ZOO perlieu of any land dedication. (See encfosed A. Colorado Depawater system construction cause stainiletter, page rtment of Health has noted that the centralwill be subject to design approval prior toand that the high iron concentration couldng of plumbing fixtures and laundry. ( Seeil) B. 3. Colorado Geological Survey has stated that the subdivisionis entirely feasible, provided certain precautions are takento avoid sLeep slopes; have individual soils and foundationstudies done for each 1ot; proper drainage; and forewarn l_otpurchasers that engineered septic systems may be necessary. ( See paqes t ?, /J ) 4. Col-orado Division of Water Resources had expressed concernsabout Lhe fact that their comments from the Sketch plan hadnot been addressed. Specifically, they were concerned thatthe Park Ditch water may not be available for augmentationand that the location of the main well- is not within 2OO ft.of the proposed location in the augmentation plan which willrequire a change in the augmentation p1an. There is no welllocation within 200 ft. of Lot I , which will have anindividual well on it al-so. That the water augmentationplan should be turned over to the Homeownerrs Associationfor management of, and ownership of, the water rights. A11of these comments resulted in a response to . the Divisionfrom the applicant's attorney. (See pages /f )These letters resulted in a recommendation-oE approval fromthe Division, provided the conditions noted in Mr.Leavenworthrs May 10, 1989 letter. (See pages/Jf-2L ) 5. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District noted that theirconcerns regarding the water system and waste disposal hadbeen adequately met. The urged that the developer fo11owall of the Snglneering guidelines identified in the study.(See page 8,3 ) Staff Comments The applicantrs engineer has noted that the iron content ofthe water is higher than the recommended Level of 0.3 mgrzl.Both the applicant's engineer and the state HealthDepartment engineer note that the high iron content willstain plumbing fixtures. The state Health Department notesthat high iron content may stain laundry too. The iron mayal-so present a slight detectable taste to persons notaccustomed to higher than normal iron content in the water.while this does not present a health threat to anyonedrinking or using the water, it is something potenLialpurchasers should be made aware of at the time of purchase.A plat note should be placed on the Final plat noting that'without individual treatment. in-house, the higher thanrecommended Level of iron in the water may cause staining ofplumbing fixture and laundry, as well as having detectabletaste. n -4- 2. 1. Other Sketch Planfollowing manner: comments have been addressed in the posting vras provided the Board of County a.r,egality of access from the adjoining property has been researched to show that the Carbondale Land DevelopmentCorporation has maintained title to a 60 ft. wide easement used by adjoining property owners. A proposedgrant of easement to adjoining property owners isincluded, which excludes Carbondale Land Developmentfrom any obligations for maintenance, snow removal andother issue. If this easement is in effect r dny lot inthe Pinyon Peaks Subdivision using this easement foraccess should bear their proportionate responsibilityfor maintenance, snow removal and other obligations.It has been verbally represented that an agreement has been reached to improve the road with each lot payingtheir proportionate share. It is proposed to have all roads built to a 26 ft. widedriving surface that includes two 11 ft. driving laneswith two (2) ft. shoulders. The right-of-way will be 60 ft. wide. The Subdivision Regulations require a 28ft. wide driving surface which is to include at leasttwo (2) ft. shoulders. The driving surface can beexpanded by increasing the driving lanes or theshoulder by one (1) ft. on each side. topographic information was submitted that met thePreliminary Plan requirements. Soils/Geology studies were submitted that met therequest of the Sketch Plan comments. e.There is no proposed phasing of the project IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS That proper publication, public notice andas required by law for the hearing before Commissioners. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive andcomplete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues weresubmitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hear ing . That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for theunincorporated area of the County. That the proposed subdivision county zoning Resolution. , studies, plans and designs as Colorado and Garfield County havefound to meet all sound planning lhe Garfield County Subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield That for the above-stated and othe r reasons, the proposedsubdivislon is in the best interest of the health, safety,morals, convenience, order , pE osperity, and welfare of thecitizens of Garfield County. RECOMMENDATI Ot'l On June l4 , 1989, the Planning Commission recommended approval,subject to the following conditions being met: That all data, surveys, analysesare required by the State of been submitted, reviewed, and and engineering requirements of Regulations. That all representationsapplication or stated at County Commissioners sha11 unless stated otherwise by of the applicant, either within thethe public hearing before the Board of be considered conditions of approval,the Board of County Commissioners. V. -f" ? b. 1. 2. ') 4. 5. 6. 2. ? That the approved water augmentation plan be turned over to the homeowner's association at such time that 10 lots are owned byparties other than the applicant. The Final Plat should include a plat note that states: a. fn-house treatment of water is recommended due to higherthan recommended level-s of iron, which may resuLt in an unusual taste and staining of plumbing fixtures if notproperly treated. b. engineered foundations and individual- sewage disposal , systems may -be reguired f or resident ial conDtruc,tion., / I Il,lftRctmyoqdcl l4a7 dil rstdcnlto/ Onndfrtlctttt bz batWtn Final Plat road profiles shall include a 28 ft. wide driving surface that meets County Road standards as approved by the Road and Bridge Department. t ^ -/ 4. *f#rfu {u*u Pt1/il /ult/t^u -L - ,riii;,1,. Telephone (303) 945-6558 ."*'.,r,.,,...,...,r,.-.",r,.;;it,i';i:.s rti::rir+'- j 1-:i .j:,ri. . ..ai::j::.::I::{. " _i:.' Apr1l 25, 1989 Mr. Mark BeanGarfleld County Dept. of Bulldlng sanltatlon and Plannlng 109 8th Street Glenwood Sprlngs, Co 81501 RE: P.U.D. Dear Mark: The Roarlng Fork School Dlstrlct Re-1 has no concerns regardlng the above-referenced subdivlslon and would ask for a donatlon of $2OO per dwell1ng ln lleu of the land dedlcatlon. Thls ts |n llne wlth our recent request of other P.U.D.s. We should arrange to dlscuss updatlng our present have any ldeas or concerns, wlII contact you ln the near SlncereIy, DLH/ )ct ::::::.. .r.!! get together some time soon to land dedlcatlon PoIlcY. If YouI would llke to hear them. I future Helm -/0' GARFIELIJ COUNTY ltrtendent STATEC'COLOIUDO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OT HEATT}I 222 So.6th St, Room 232 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Aprl1 25,1989 \Ti;" ; :,: "'.'r; ii- :r r :;G\ l^'"- -'--:,i;i I]. or* 2b tsEs l! G'u.i :ri; i"iuittTt/ Roy Romer Covernor Thomar M. Vernon, M.I Executive Director Mark Bean Garfteld County L09 Bth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Sprlngs C0 81601 RE: PJ.nyon Peaks Subdivlslon, Garfield County Dear Mark: I have revLewed the prelinJ.nary plan for Plnyon Peaks Subdlvislon and have the followLng comments: 1. The weLl system that w111 serve more the 15 lots w111 be consldered a Public Water System by the Colorado Prlmary Drlnklng WaEer RigulatlonP i therefore, the deslgn for coflectLon and treatment of the water musE be subnltted for revLew prlor to constructlon. 2. The Lron concentratlon from the above well was above the 0.3 mg/l secondary standard. Secondary standards are non-enforceable, but each potentlal hone buyer should be warned that iron leve1s above 0.3 mg/l can cause stalning of plunblng flxtures and laundry. 3. Indivldual sewage dlsposal systems must be handled at the County level unless they reach a deslgn flow of 21000 gpd or greater. If you have any questions, please call me at 248-7L50. ilncerel-y, John R. Blair, P.E DlstrLeE Englneer llater Quallty Control Divlslon JRB/mb cc3 Carboodale Land Development Conpany Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. Fiel-d Support, Denver File 2929W /t- *g19ffi COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL HESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING _ 13I3 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 8O20s PHONE (303) 866-261 1 GA-89-0003 BOY R. FOMEB OOVERNOR JOHN W. ROLD OIFECTOR I' , Ai,t t,' igeg i:i l/ Li,..r.l., c-i-, __j,Viy "Apri'l .l3, .l989 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Department of Building, Sanitation and Pl anni ng 109 8th-Street, Suite 30J Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8.l60.| RE: PiNYON PEAKS SUBDIVISION Dear I'lr. Bean: At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35 we have revierved the materials for the proposed residential subdivision referenced above. From a geotechnical standpoint the subdivision is entirely feasjb'le i.f certain p..iiriioni retateh to slope stabi'lity, drainage, and sewage disposal ale follorved. These are addressed in the accompanying Ljncoln DeVore report and tfre ietter of March-lB, .l969, to Scott hlritbr trom t'ticholas Lampiris, Consulting Geologist. I ) Steeper parts of the project area are pote-ntia'l1y unstable and shoufa Ub avoided as buiiOtng sites. Sufficient setbacks should be made foi utiilty tines ant where possib'le, roads, to minimize the possibi'lity of excessive maintenance costs and occasional loss of service. 2) Because of the variable bedrock and soil conditions across the p.oject area,-it will be absolutely critical for individual soils and foundation investigations to be conducted for each building- site. Simijiity Uiainige plans should consider the locations of buildings and roads and on overall integrated drainage plan shoulO 5e Oevised that will seek to minimize erosion and related damages. 3) Percolation tests indicate that some lots wil'l most likely have conditions where engineered septic systems wi'11 be necessary f91 proper leach-fie1d [erformance. PotLntia] 'lot purchasers should be advised of this by appropriate plat notes. GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTUHE t2- ROY ROMER Govetnor JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer OFFTCE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 June 7, 1989 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. Garfield County Courthouse Gienwooci Springs, C0 8i601 Re: PinYon Peaks Subdivision Prel 'im'i narY P1 an Sec. 1l & 14, T7S, R88W Dear Mr. Bean: 1,1e have received additional information concern'ing the above referenced prel i mi nary p'l an from Lee Leavenworth, I e$al counci J foI the - project froponents . Ihcl uded was a I i st of the augmentati on water from Case No. 7gCWg7 committed to other developments and a copy of the shares of the Park Ditch owned by the Carbondale Land Dbvelopment Corporation. Mr. Leavenworth also states -that the wells to be constructed for this development will be w'ithin 200 feet of their decreed locat'ions. This information addresses the concerns we expressed jn our last letter to the county dated May 2, 1989. As long as the condjtions djscussedjn Mr. Leavenworth's lLtter to the county are complied with, we have no further objections to this proposal. We would point out, however, that the consumptive use analysis by Mr.'Zaircanella did not include water for livestock as pei^ Case No. 79-Ct^197. It appears that adequate water wil'l be available for the l'ivestock allowed by the decree. S i ncere'ly, Q^.,*tr%//lor Hal D. Simpson, P.E." Deputy State Engineer HDS/JCM :?957 I cc: 0r1yn Bell, Div'ision Engineer Steve Lautenschl ager Lee Leavenworth - /'/- JAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOYAL E LEAVENWOHTH JAMES S. LOCHHEAD W. DAVID RIPPY 1011 GRANDAVENUE P.O. DFAWER 2O3O GLENWOOO SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (3O3) 945-226 1 M.ay 10, 1989 Mr. Mark BeanGarfield County Planning Department I09 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Pinon Peaks Subdivj.s!on/nt CorPoraLion Dear Mark: I am writing on behalf of the Carbondale Land Development Corporat,ion. I am writing to respond to the letter from the Division of Water Resources dated May 2, 19S9, concerning the proposed water supply for the Pinon Peaks Subdivision. First,, It tfre outset, Iet me say that I concur in your recornmendation thatr prior to final plat approval r do approved augmentation plan be submitted along with the letter frorn the State Division of Water Resources confirming that the augmentat,ion plan will meet the water right needs of Ehe subdivision. We are confident that our proposals to address the concerns of Ehe Division of Water Resources wilt be satisfacLory and that they will approve the proposed water supply plan. Carbondale Land Development Corporation (Clrc) is the owner of five shares of t.he Park Ditch and Reservoir Company as indi- cated in the prior water augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 7gCWg7. A copy of the stock certificate is enclosed. The Division also askeO for a breakdown of the augmentation front Case No. 79CW97 that has previously been utilized in other augmentation plans or conveyed to third parties. To date, a total of under B.O acre-feet of the 42.44 acre-feet of excess historic consumptive use determined in said case has been uti- lized by third parties. A detailed breakdown of this amount will be provided to the Division of Water Resources' I would note, however, that the 42.44 acre-feet of excess historic con- sumptive determined in Case No. 79CW97 is in addit'ion to the 5.5i acre-feet of consumptive use committed to the augmentation plan decreed in Lhat case. Thereforer the augmentation for the iinon peaks Subdivision remains viable and intact and unaffected by prior commitments of excess augmentat,ion waEer. In addition, CLoc will be conveying a sufficient amount of shares in the Park Ditch to ensure [fraC the Park Ditch has adequate replacement' water available for the subdivision, including Lots I and 17. - /t1- I.EAVENWORTH & I,OCT AD, P.C. Mr. I,lark Bean Page 2 May 10, 1989 The Division of Water Resources is also correct' that the exist,ing r"ii-i" not within 200 feet of the decreed location of any of the ;ve1ls adjudicated in case No. 79CW96' CLrc intends t,o dril1 a new well to be used to provide t'he -subdivision'swater supply uritfrin 200 feet of an exiiting decre-ed location and will submit evidence of the location and irre yietd of this well ;;i;.-i; final plat: rl addition, Lots 1 and 17, which are pro- ioseO to have iirOiviOuat wel1s, will, at the time of f inal platr be served uv *.irs drilled within 200 feet of existing decreed weIIs. To the extent the decreed l0cat'ions are not l0cated on in" Iot, tinif plat will provide for easements for Lhe drilling of a well within 200 feet of the decreed location and easements f or a water line to the property boundary. Therefore, all wells will be drilled within ZOO-f""i of thei; decreed locations, and ; change of water right application will not be required. The Division is also correct that the existing augment,at'ion plan does not provide for augmentation during the winter (November I through April 30). However, no winter calls have occurred to date and, as indicated in t,he attached Ietter from wright water Engineers, are not expected to occur in Ehe fore- seeable future. Howeverr to ensure that sufficient water rights are available in the future to provide winter augmentat'ion in the event it, is needed, cLDC will convey to Ehe Homeowners Association a total 0f 5.51 acre-feet of COnSUmptive use asso- ciated with the Park Ditch shares. As you can s9e from wright water Engineers' letter, this quantity_ of- water., because of the reduction in the number of Io[s involved in the propo-sed =y?- division from that contemplated in Case No. TggtlgT I will provide ; sufficient amount of augmentation water to cover any augmen- tation needs dur ing th; winter period. The Homeowners essociation document,J will clearly indicate that, in the event winter augmentation is required, if,e HomeownerS Association will be required to pursue any water court apPlica-tions needed for this purpose. However, because augment'alion during lhu winter p"ii"d i= not likely to occur in the foreseeable futurer we believe it is premature to pursue or require the applicant t'o pursue such an lpplication at this t'ime ' Finally, I would reiterate my opinion that' t'he total amount of lawn irrigation provided for the 69 units can be reallocat'ed to the 19 units without further water court approval, since the location of the land to be irrigated has not changed ' */( - \\ \ ".al $t e) bt 3) p\,,# bt w D '*) // bt7/ !al v/ .,FTHECAPITALSTOCX'.THE PARK DITCH AND RESERVOIR COMPANY FULLY PAID. BUT SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENTS A5 PROYIDED BY THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION ,/mrrztfrm/b.an4zzu/tz,ha/*t/.#z'6trrnorrt/r)tu,/zt//tz;/1t/i*rl/erurr/tht /iri-rw./Vdbr*V,u/torutnzr-indzr,/,//ru'6rr*y'iru7eVrr/tafr7.etzt/rz2er/. './/t.t,'Qc.r/r{tba/e,/rz/rrVg;yzr/; -N,ffi ,iffi.ffi zM*ffiSfu ciE\i);n . .."..--_:*<-,-Rf ;G'.R' 6t,rzi ffis.;R;,N'GR.'*.NiG; il h) - -] \fs- t Px\:\', ,;)) 'fi') $),/ h) $)'/ v)) ..{ ( e) \.. ial w h),)) \. 'i)\ #s ): .-*i€ffiur.,- t[frrEurrfrlitutl oqit/arer/,/ofuory'ld--.Vct - ----:-:='-91rrrn.r,/ -,,o"^ o, THE PARK D ITCH AND R ESERVoIR coMPANYOF THE CAPITAI. FULLY PAID. BUT SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENTS AS PROVIDED BY THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION ,/ranl-&ra/bat2/rt rrrr"il,cr/oo/,tro/.fia'/'iu1r'ry4/rlut./t7'//ic' /h(/1rlrtr"/t)t' /r*-*ii)ilvrill/lrr*vrrrVi,,,)rrriilrhr.:a/ilr,f/ht/ry'2rfuy'ny'afi7enr/t,,iir,,/. In lllitness lllhsreuf, ../ftz.orrtu/.Toltorrrhon. /ir4l rrrr.t,"r/.,.//ir,;,'//r'rhy'rrr/e,/a /k,trf1c'/;/,)r/;;,)4,;//tigii14t*il:rl:l:,, i/t/torv.!1tr,,/n: 7;,(1. ,# r*'";1'2/o;4il ///ii2,:----a 4 - 21lr.,7_ 'Jo/*..,r/,.* "R srloENT : @ u,,rs rrr \ND.RHSHRVC \=cE D I l\l l='e';:.' r-:r-r f ==r-\ ater Engineers, lnc. vffi Wright W DENVER OFFICE 2490 West 26th Ave., Suite 100 A Denver, Colorado 80211 (303) 480-1700 TULsA OFFICE 201 wesr 5rh St., Suite 130 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 (918) 584-7136 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE 81B Colorado Avenue P. O. Box 219 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 1303). 945-77s5 Denver Direct Line: 893-1608 May L0, 1989 Scott Writer Pinyon Peaks Development P.O. Box 9705 Aspen, CO 8L6Lz Re: Pinyon Peaks Development Dear Mr. Writer: At your reguest we have revie'nred the augmentation plans for the Pinyon Peaks subdivision (previously the Carbondale Land Development Companysubdivision). water court case No. 79C,ir91 provided a "legal" water supplyfor 72 single family units with 3.5 persons per lot, with each personutilizing 90 gallons of water per day. The augrmentation plan presented in 79Ovf97 also provided for two horses per lot for 39 Iots. The total con- sumption of water for the originally proposed development ( including three additional lots) as provided in the augmentation plan vras 5.51 acre-feet of consumptive use. It is our understanding that the new configuration of the development will have only 19 lots and will use less water than the original plan. Since less water will be used the 79C,r91 decree will stil1 cover the "legal"water reguirements for the development. We assume that each lot will have a year around occupancy rate of 3.5 people reguiring 90 gallons per capita per day. each lot in the proposed subdivision would have a total of 3600 sguare feet of irrigated lawn and garden or a total of 1.57 acres of irri- gated land. Table 1 presents Lhe water reguirements for the currently plarmed Pinyon Peaks subdivision. The total future consumpti.ve use of the Pinyon Peaks subdivision will be 3.89 acre-feet. This is less than the original 5.5L acre-feet provided forin the oriqinal decree. It is our opinion that the proposed new future uses can be adeguately provided for in the augrmentation plan, Case No. 799i197. It is our opinion that there will be no non-irrigation season call on thejunior well rights r:nti1 such time as oil shale or other major indusErial use on the rvestern slope are developed. Thus no winter augmentation is needed in the near future. However v!,e recorTmend that Pinyon Peaks plan on providing winter augrmentation water in the future. This can be done by assigning 1.00 acre-feet of lhe 199f97 consumptive use to the homeowners(that portion not reguired for direct summertime augmentation). In turn the homeowner would agree, when reguired, to build a 1.5 acre-foot pond and operate it as an augrmentation reservoir to meet senior downstream calls. 'l,i - Jo' :l !.. January February March April May June July Augrust September October November December TOTAL 0.71 0.00 0.64 0.00 0 .7L 0.00 0.69 0 .2L 0.71 0.37 0.69 0.98 0.71 1. i.3 0.71 1. L3 0.69 1.05 0.7r. 0.90 0.69 0 . 00 0.71 0 .00 B.38 5.77 TABLE ]. PINyON PEAKS STJBDMSION $iATER REQUIREX{n{TS* VIATER REQUIRE{EVIS In-HousePotable lrr. Total(1) (2) (3) (Values in acre-feet) CONST,MPTIVE USE fn-House Irr. Total(4) (s) (6) (Values in acre-feet) 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.14 0 .22 0.09 0.24 0.33 0.08 0.64 0.73 0.09 0 .75 0.83 0.09 0.75 0.83 0.08 0.70 0.78 0.09 0.59 0.68 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.71 0.64 0.71 0 .90 t .0B L.66 1. B5 1. B5 1.7 4 1.5r. 0.69 0.71 14 .15 1.01 3.81 4.82 'k PIus 3 contract lots outside of subdivision(1) rncrudes a population of 77 (21 lots with 3.5 peopre per lot) andwater for 50 houses at Ll gallons per day.(2) L.74 acres (19 lots at 3600 square feet per lot and 3 lots at 2500 square feet per lot.).(3) (1) + (2).(4) 12? of (1).(5) 66% of irrigation efficiency.(6) (4) + (5). :i,'' - 22 - lvl\-lUr I L u llJ UUll vtJrlJt Ivc.lLlUll l, l'.rLt tUL 1989 Garfield CounLy Planning Department 109 BEh Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 8160I Dear Planning Staff: AE, the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation Districtr the pinyon peaks subdivision Preliminary Plan was reviewed The Board felt that, the concerns they had raised in their initial review had been adequat,ely addressed by the engineering firm regarding waste disposal and the water iysgem. The Board also felE that proper mitigation has been taken for wildlife protection with the plan- They would urge that all engineering guidelines be followed by the developer, and would ag.in state [hat [he proper reclamation of any road disturbance is very important for the prevention of erosion and the preservation of water quality. ,'0s -g: April 21, Againr they feet that well planned reclanation less movement of material and proper placement will resulL in reduced costs on the project- The Mount, Sopris Soil Conservat,ion District Board appreciates the opportunity for input on this developmentr and notes that soil and water conservation is Eheir prime concern. Jim Granger President. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District The Soil Conservation Service can be for seeding of disturbed areasr both a disturbed area will allow material during any excavation contacted for infornntion on reconrnendations for species and amounts. CONSE RVATION DEVELOPMENT SE LF.GOV E RNME NT of of Sincere ry, d_.A/-r-x--.r,.- 0 P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8160I APR 24 lggg