HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Correspondence109 Eiqhth Street, Suite 303
Glenvrood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Pinlacn peaks, Garfield County
Dear l4ark:
The p:rpose of this letter is to provide revision to previously gener-ated engineering reports in support of the addition of Iot 19 to thePinlon Peaks Subdivision.
Referencing the land use breakdown, the total nunber of lots protrnsed,ard totar nunber of buirdinq units propose<i is nineteen. rt" grossdensity protrnsed r^ourd, therlfore, be 1-0.4 acres per 1ot, as comparedto the 10.9 acres per lot previously proposed.
Referencing my March 14, 1989, re1rcrt on potable dornestic water sys-tems, the basic onclusions and reconrnendaiions would essentially staythe same. Ttre sizing of the various facilities would reflect a totalof 17 users (a change from 16 users). The increase r^,ould be a;proxi-matery s.r,x. percent. Ttre 10r0oo ga11on cistern r,,,ourd remain applicablef9r auxiliary fire water source-. The p.*p*g requirement 'jna wellyield rocurd increase from 25 gtrn to 27 gpn. -The storage tank reservoirat. twice average a day rrcu1d be approiimately 31,000 ga11ons. sincewater storage tanks are usualry abft b be oLtained in roroob gartoninsrements, we feer that the 3d,000 ;Ji"r-t""r. previously reconrnendedwould stilI b" ,l appropriate size witr, tr,e addiiionar us6r. A11 linesizes vvould remain the iame. The additional uaA"a Iot 19 would requirean in-house booster Prmp to provide aiditional pressure in the dornesticsystem in-house.
Referencing the report on individual sewage dis1rcsa1 systems, the re-port remains valid for this trnrticular side locition. Referencing thesite access, rots 11 arrl 12, as reconfigured, will share a conrnonaccess drive. Iot 19 wirl access directiy oif the propo=J publicroadway system.
r trust the above narrative is sufficient to supplement the nxcdifiedsite plan attached hereto. As always, r remain ivailable to providewhatever inpr.rt 1ou reguire into the *review poo.."=. please feer freeto call me if you have any questions.
Respectfully subnitted,
April 1
SCHMUESER MRMN ME)ER,
Dean W. Cordon, p.E.
President
DVG:1ecl9039
cc: Mr. Scrctt l,friter
Mr. Mark Bealr planning Di
Garfield Courity
ffi-r#*".+$"b
* i3lzf s or,EI +
Ket
CO'VSULT,,VG E'VG,,VEEPS & SURYEYOES
2 Grand Avenue, Suite 212
-,enwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004
N MEYER INC.
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
JAMES S. LOCHHEAD
W. DAVID RIPPY
LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT I-AW
April l7 , 1989
1011 GRANDAVENUE
. P.O. DRAWER 2O3OGLENWOO_D SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602TELEPHONE: (eO3) gas-eZOi - ---
Mr. Scott WriterP. O. Box 9705Aspen, CO 8L6),2
Re: Pinyon peak Subdivision Water Supply
Dear Scott:
At your request, r am writing to supplement my earlierletter to you of March 21, 1989, concerning the lega1 watersupply for the proposed pinyon peak subdivision. it is myunderstanding that you now contemplate 19 lots rather than the1B rots mentioned in my earliei letter. As noted in thatletter, there is presently a regal water suppry for up to 69Iots. The only effect adding an additional iot-riff hive willbe to reduce the amount of lawn irrigation on the 19 lots. Theexisting decree in case No. 79cw097 permits a tot.ar of 69,000square feet of lawn irrigation (69 1ois x IrO00 square feet perrot ) . since -thu property to be irrigated is not changing , th"existing 69r000 square feet of lawn irrigation can be rearlo-cated among the_ 19 lots, permitting a toCal of 3r631.56 squarefeet of lawn and garden irrigation per lot.
rn concrusion, the existing decrees can be utilized to pro-vide ? lega1 wa.ter suppry for your development. rf you have anyquestions or wish to discuss this mattei further, f-eeI free tocontact me.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C.
LEL: r1n
ave nworth
Mount S ris Soil Conservation District,av;BOX 1 302 GLENWOOD SPBINGS
April 2L, \989
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Bth Street, Suite 303
Gl-enwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Planning Staff:
At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil- Conservation Districtr
the Pinyon Peaks Subdivision PreLiminary PIan was revj-ewed.
The Board felt that the concerns they had raised in their initial review had
been adequately addressed by the engineering firm regarding waste disposal
and the water system. The Board also felt that proper mitigation has been
taken for wildlife protection with the p1an.
They would urge that all engineering guideJ-ines be followed by the developer,
and woul-d again state that the proper reclamation of any road disturbance
is very important for the prevention of erosion and the preservation of water
qua"lity.
Again, they feel that well planned recLanration of a disturbed area wiLl al1ow
Less movement of material and proper placement of material- during any excavationwill result in reduced costs on the project.
The Soil Conservation Service can be contacted for infornntion on reconrnendationsfor seeding of disturbed areasr both for species and amounts.
The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District Board appreciates the opportunityfor input on this <ievelopment, and notes that soil and water conservationis their prime concern.
Sinc.erely, /r.y*r- .^/-.*--.7
Jim Granger President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
COLORADO 81601
CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT SELF-GOVERNMENT
Roaring Fork School District RE-l
8ox 820
Glenwood springs; cotoiado 91602-0820
Telephone (309) 945-65SS
DWTGHT L. HELM, Superintendent
DR. JAMES L. BADER, Asslstant Superintendent
ROBERT COLLETT, Assistanl S uperintendent
Mr. Mark BeanGarfield county Dept. ofBuilding Sanltatlon and plannlng
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO g1GO1
RE: P.U.D.
Dear Mark:
April 25, 1989
Sincerely,
The Roaring Fork schoor Dlstrict Re-1 has no concernsregarding the above-referenced subdivision and wourd ask fora donation 9_f g20o per dwerllng in lieu of the randdedi-catlon. This is in line with our recent request of otherP.U.D. s.
We should arrange todiscuss updating our presenthave any ldeas or concerns,will contact you in the near
get together some time soon to; land dedicatlon pollcy. If youI would like to hear them. Ifuture.
DLH/ j ct
STATE OFCOLOI1ADO
COTORADO DEPARTMENT OT HEATTH
222 So.6th SL, Room 232
Crand Junction, Colorado 81501
April 25, L989
,tr
)
- ,0
.,,i
d.ru
Roy Romer
Covernor
Thomas M. Vernon, M.D.
Executive Director
Iulark Bean
Garfield County
109 Bth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs C0 81601
RE: Pinyon Peaks Subdivision, Garfield County
Dear Mark:
I have reviewed the preliminary plan for Pinyon Peaks Subdivision and have the
following conments:
1. The well system that wl1l serve more the 15 lots will be consi.dered a
Public Water System by the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Rigulatlons;
therefore, the design for collection and treatment of the water must be
submitted for review prior to construction.
2. The iron concentration from the above well was above the 0.3 nglJ-
secondary standard. Secondary standards are non-enforceable, but each
potential home buyer should be warned that iron 1eve1s above 0.3 mg/1 can
cause staining of plunbing fixtures and laundry.
3. Individual sewage dlsposal systems must be handled at the County level
unless they reach a design flow of 21000 gpd or greater.
If you have any questions, please call ne at 248-7L50.
John R. Blair, P.E
District Engineer
I'Iater Quality Control Division
JRB/mb
cc: Carbondale Land Development Company
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Ine.
Fleld Support, Denver
File
Sincerely,
2929W
ROY R. ROMEF
GOVERNOR
sws@ru
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 8O2Os pHONE (303) 866_261 1
GA-89-0003
JOHN W. ROLD
DIRECTOR
'al.-t-t ",}
i. i, ig8g ,,i
,J.I
. .-,."!--*-.+,. "-".r- _u _.;,t f.y
r'-
i\L
L,.,i.lApril .l3, .l989
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfi.eld County Department of Building, Sanitation
and Pl anni ng.l09 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8.l60.l
RE: PINYON PEAKS SUBDIVISION
Dear Mr. Bean:
At.your_request and in accordance with s.B.35 we have reviewed thematerials for the proposed residential subdivision referenced above. From ageotechnical standpoint the subdivision is entirely feasible if certainprecautions related to slope stability, drainage, ind serag. disposal arefollowed. These are addressed in^the accompanling Lfncoln DeVore report andthe 'letter of March 18, r969, to scott llritEi trori r,ticrr;i;r-LilpirtiiConsulting Geologist.
I ) Steeper. parts.of the project area are potentia'l1y unstable andshoul d be avoi ded as bui I di ng si tes. Suffi ci ent' setback s shoul dbe made for utility lines and where possible, roads, to minimizethe possibility of excessive maintenance costs and occasionalloss of service.
2) Because of the variable bedrock and soil conditions across theproject area, it will be absolute]y critical for indivfdual soilsand foundation investigations to be conducted for each buildingsite. Similarly drainage plans should consider the-iocations 6fbuildi.ngs and roads and on overall integrated drainage planshould be devised that will seek to minimize erosion"init related
damages.
3) Percolation tests indicate that some lots will most 'likely haveconditions yhgle_engineered septic systems will be necessiry forproper.leach-fie1d performance. Potential 1ot purchasers shouldbe advised of this by appropriate plat notes.
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTUBE
@xffi?
@@"b)\'{oqi!9Zl
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
'1313 Sherman Street-Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
May 2, 1989
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Dept.
Garf i el d Count..v Court house
Glenwood Springs, C0 8l60l
Re: Pinyon Peaks Subd'ivjs.ion
Prel imi nary P1 an
Sec. 11 & 14, T7S, RBSt^l
Dear Mr. Bean:
We have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plan for a proposed 19unit subdivision on 197 acres. [.Ie commented on t-he'sketch plan'jn'a letterdated February 7, 1989. At that tjme 18 lots were proposed 'on Z4O acres.Some of our concerns were answered jn th'is prel im'inary'ptin sufmittal .
The water supply is proposed to be a well system. Theaugmented'in accordance with case No. lgcwgl using siock jn theReservojr. In our previous retter, we asked f6r a detailedaugmentation water from Case No. 79CW97 for this and other developments .nOproof of ownersh'ip of sufficjent shares of the park Djtch stock. Th.is'informat jon was not subm'itted. t,Je cannot recommend approvil of tni r propoialuntil we receive th'is information.
wel I s are to be
Park Di tch and
breakdown of the
It appears that some of the wel I sused for this subd'ivision. All the wellsctrnstructeci wirhin Z()v feet of their
decreed in Case No. 79CW96 are to be
decreed in Case No. 79CW96 must be
decreeci iocatrons in accordance withWater Court rules.^ Diligence on the wells (CLDC Wells Nos. 2 through 14) ,uigrgnted in 88cw282.. It appears that only'CLDC well nos. z, 4, 5, 6, 7,'and gwill be located on the land included in t-hethese proposed wel I s are wi th i n 200 feetsubmittal is to have its own well. A1so, noneexisting well shown on the utility plan,applicant must obta'in a change of watei right
move the I ocat'i on of decreed -
wel I s .
The informatjon submitted by Mr. Dean Gordon 'indjcates an adequatephysical supply 'is ava'ilable foi the proposed wells. Mr. Gordon also'ind'icates that the Pi nyon Peaks Homeowners' Assoc'iat j on wi I I own and operate
proposed subdi v'isi on. None ofof Lot l, which accord'ing to theare wi th'in 200 feet of the
drawing which was submitted. Thefrom l,Jater Court 'in order to
ROY ROMER
Governor
MAY
i*LU L."rUrGnirt"
Mr. Mark Bean
May 2, 1989
tf...water. system for the remaining 17 lots. t^le would l'ike to see the waterrights used to augment depletions -(Park D'itch shires) "ionu.y.d to itithomeowners. group- to guarantee adequite replacement water is ava.ilable jn thefuture. The two lot owners for the Lots I aira tZ should be included in thehomeowners association, even though the submittal staies they are to navejnd'ivjdua'l we11s, since these lots aie also a part of the iugmentaiion p1an.
According !o.the augmentatjon p1an, the wells are to operate under thejrown priority between November I and April 30 each year. i'to ieptacement *ii.twas provided in.the_augmentat'ion plan fbr this perioi each y.... Should someof the conditjonal water. righti downstream b! perfected in tt. futuie, tfresewells-qay be called out. This-would cause the cultajlment of these *.iri -ov
out office. up to the pr esent time, no winter calls ha,,,e cccui rec.
Water Court Case No. 79CW97 al1ows for 69 lots with up to 1000 squarefeet of lawn and garden and no more than two horses .u.h. ' Th.is p.opoiuireduces the lots to 19 and jncreases the lawn and garden-io 3632 squire'feetper 1ot. The total water avajlable for lawn and gi.d.n--*ouia' not .increase.
I! .is. the opinion of Mr. Loyal E. Leavenworth, aiiorr.v-io. ir,e .ppiia;;i;that the exjsting decrees can ititt be uiiiir.o. we irave some questionconcerning thjs.opin.ion. In any event, the total arouni oi-iirigation'iiio*eOpV tne augmentation plgn is 1.75- acres.' Thls -includes
2500 square foot oflawn and garden on each of three lots appaiently outside this subdivjsjon.
, In. summary, we cannot recommend approval of this proposal until we can beshown that the applicant still owns sufficient augmentation water to replaceIh. . out-of-prioljty depletions from thii -aevetopment-ina iit wels wilt belocated wjthin 200 feet bf decreed locations. A change of water right (andperhaps the.augmentatjon plan) will be required jf the wells to be constructedfor th'is subdivis'ion are not wittrin 200 reeii oi-il,. decreed location in CaseNo. 79CW96.
S i ncerel y,
0*,,*AMU
5.,,. iial D. S iriipsoii, p. E.
Deputy State Engineer
HDS/JCM:21941
cc: Qrlyn Be11, Div.ision Engineer
Steve Lautenschl ager
Page 2
Mount S ris Soil Conservation District
April 21, 1989
Garfield County Planning Department
1O9 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springsr CO 81601
Dear Planning SEaff:
At the regular monthly meeting of Ehe Mount Sopris SoiL Conservation Districtr
the Pinyon Peaks SuMivision 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 system. The Board also felt 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 again state that t,he proper reclamation of any road disturbance
is very important for the prevention of erosion and the preservation of water
quality.
Againr they feel that well planned reclarnation of a disturbed area will allow
Less movement of material and proper placement of material during any excavation
will result in reduced costs on the project.
The Soil Conservation Service can be contacted for infornation on reconrnendations
for seeding of disturbed areasr both for species and amounts.
The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District Board appreciates the opportunity
for input on this developmenE,r and notes that soil and water conservation
is their prime concern.
CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT SELF.GOVERNMENT
APR 24 tggg
GAftriciD Cd0ffif
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
r:i-i i
(*!
lL-l -t'.-.'J-
- ftr:-
Mount Sopris SoiI District
STATE uFCOLORADO
April 25, 1989 'i APR
Id
l!:. ...
(.'t.i
Mark Bean
Garfield County
L09 Bth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs C0 81601
RE: Pinyoa Peaks Subdivision, Garfield County
Dear Mark:
I have reviewed the preli.miaary plan for Pinyon Peaks Subdivision and have the
followlng eomments:
l-. The well system that will serve more the 15 lots will be considered a
Public Water System by the Colorado Prinary Drinking Water Regulations;
therefore, the design for collection and treatment of the water must be
subnitted for review pri.or to construction.
2. The lron concentration fron the above well was above the 0.3 mg/1
secondary staudard. Secondary standards are non-enforceable, but each
potential hone buyer should be warned that iron 1evels above 0.3 mg/l can
cause staining of plurnbing fixtures and laundry.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEAI.TH
222 So.6rh 5L, Room 232
Crand Junction, Coiorado 81501
3. Individual sewage disposal systems
unless they reach a design flow of
If you have any questions, please call
Sincerely,
f-) //
\,M"^-rJohn R. B1air, P.E
District Engineer
I{ater Quality Control Division
JRB/mb
cc: Carbondale Land Development' Company
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Iac.
Field Support, Denver
File
must be handled at the County leve1
21000 gpd or greater.
me at 248-7750.
Roy Romer
Covernor
Thomas M. Vernon, M.f
Executive Director
2929W
ROY R. ROMER
GOVEBNOR
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING _ 1313 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (3O3) 866-261 1
Department of Building, Sanitation
, Suite 303
olation tests indicate that some lots will
ditions where engineered septic systems will
per leach-fie1d performance. Potential lot
advised of this by appropriate plat notes.
lll-','-*."-._--!-.-F-r
rr: ^ 1 I. i.,i i9B9 i
r ';z;u, ii t; t--_ ___:t fV
GA-89-0003
I
most I ikely have
be necessary for
purchasers shoul d
JOHN W. ROLD
OIRECTOR
rrl
April j3, .l98
Mr. Mark Bean
Garffel d Cou
and Pl anni
1 09 8th Stree
G1 enwood Spri
Dear I'lr. Bean:
At your reque
material s for
geotechni cal
precautions r
fol I owed. Th
the I etter of
Consul ti ng Ge
s, Col orado 81 601
P INYON S SUBDIVISION
and in accordance with S.B. 35 we have reviewed the
the proposed residential subdivision referenced above. From a
tandpoint tfre subdivision is entirely feasible if certain
ated to slope stability, drainage, and sewilge disposal are
e are addressed in the accompanying Linco'ln DeVore report and
t)St,
sh
be
th
lo
rih -t 8, I 969, to Scott l.lri tbr irori ruicrrol as Lampi ri s,
1 ogi st.
r parts of the project
I d be avoi ded as bui 1 d'ing
de for utility lines and
possibil ity of excessive
s of service.
Be
pr
a
s'l
Pe
co
pr
be
bui 1 di ngs and roads and on overal'l i ntegrated ,crai nage p1 an-
uld 5e devised that will seek to minimize erosion and relatedsh
da ges.
area are potentia'l]y unstable and
si tes. Sufficient setbacks shoul d
where possible, noads, to minimize
maintenance costs and occasional
use of the varfable bedrock and soil conditions across the
ect area, it will be absolutely critical frrr individual soils
foundation investiqations to be conducted for each building
. 5imilarly drainige p'lans should consider the locations of
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTURE
ROY ROMER
Governor
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
Mr. Mark Bean
Garf i e'ld County
Garfield County
Gl enwood Spri ng
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street-Floom 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3s81
May 2, 1989
illAY 4 1989
Gni*li;ll-i;
I ann'i ng Dept .
urthouse, c0 8160I
Re: Pinyon Peaks Subdivisjon
Prel iminary Plan
Sec. 11 & 14, T7S, R88W
'iewed the above referenced preliminary plan for a proposed 19on ),97 acres. We commented on the sketch plan in a letter
, 1989. At that time 18 lots were proposed on 240 acres.
rns were answered in this preliminary pian subm'ittal.
supply is proposed to be a well system. The wells are to be
rdance w'ith Case No. 79CW97 using stock in the Park Ditch andour previous letter, we asked for a detajled breakdown of ther from Case No. 79CW97 for thjs and other developments andhip of suffic'ient shares of the Park Ditch stock. Thisof subm'itted. [,Je cannot recommend approval of this proposalthis information.
that some of the wells decreed in Case No. 79CW96 are to be
i n ?OO feet of thei r decreeci 'iocatr ons i n accordance w'ith. Djligence on the wells (CLDC t^lells Nos. 2 through 14) was282. It appears that only CLDC well nos. 2,4,5, 6, 7, and 8
the land'included'in the proposed subdiv'ision. None ofwells are w'ithin 200 feet of Lot i, which according to the
e jts own well. Also, none are within 200 feet of the
hown on the util ity p1 an draw'ing whjch was submitted. Thetajn a change of water right from Water Court 'in order to
of decreed wel I s.
tion submitted by Mr. Dean Gordon 'indjcates an adequate
i s ava'i I abl e for the proposed wel I s. Mr. Gordon al sothe Pinyon Peaks Homeowners Association will own and operate
Dear Mr. Bean:
l^le have reunit subdivisi
dated February
Some of our con
The water
augmented in acReservo'ir. In
augmentation waproof of owne'informati on was
unt'i I we rece'i
coiist,rucied wi
Water Court rulgranted i nwill be located
these proposed
subm'ittal i s toexisting well
appl icant must o
move the locatio
It appear
used for this ivision. All the wells decreed'in Case No. 79CW96 must be
The
phys i ca1
i nd'icates
'info
suppl y
th at
Mr. Mark Bean
t'lay 2, 1989
HDS/JCM:21941
cc: 0rlyn Be11, D'iv'ision Engineer
Steve Lautenschl ager
Page 2
the water system for the remajning 17 ]ot:r- tlle would like to see the water
iigi'ti used io -iugment aept.i'ions (Park Ditch shares) .conveyed. -to. tllt
homeowners group [o gu.rahtee adequite_repl.acement water is available 'in the
future. The two lot owners for the Lots I aha tZ should be included in the
homeowners assoc'iat'ion, even tfrougl't the submittal states they are to have
indiv.idual welfr, iini.'these lots aie also a part of the augmentation pian'
According to the augmentat'ion p1an, the wells are to operate under their
own p.i..itv" Uetween N6vember t aha 4pril.30 each year.. No rep'lacement water
wii piovided- .in i6.-irgmeniat'ion pl an fbr thi s. period each year. Should some
of the cond.itionif--iii.r righti downstream bb perfected in the future, these
welii may be called out. Thjs-would cause the cui^tailment of these wells by
our r:ffjie. Up to the present t'ir:le,'no winter calls have occui"reC'
Water Court Case No. TgCWgl allows for 69 lots with up to 1000 square
feet of lawn and-g.ii.n .nd no more than two horses each' Thjs proposal
,.dr.., the foti to 19 and'inCre.u.r the lawn and garden t0.3632 square feet
p;;-i;i. fn. total water available for lawn and . garden would not increase.
ii js the opinion of Mr. Loyal E. Leavenworth, attorney for the applicant,
that the exi st j ng d..r..s can iti t t be uti I 'ized. l'Je have some questi on
ion..rnlng ttris'o[inion. In any event, !l'g total amount of irrigation-allowed
UV if'. aufimentaiioi pf in ir 1.76' acres.' Th'is 'includes 2500 sgq9r9 .foot of
i"awn ana larden on eich of three lots apparent'ly outs'ide this subdivjsion.
In summary, we cannot recommend approval of this proposal unt'il we can be
shown that the ippfi.unt still owns sufficjent augmentat'ion ,water to replace
in. outlof-prioiltv--o.pietions from this development and all wells will be
located wjthjn 2OO ieet bf decreed locations. A change of- water right (9n{
p;ih;p; t6e augmentiiion piun) will be required'if t[e we1ls to be constructed
?or this subdivis'ion are not witnin 200 feet of the decreed location in Case
No. 79CW96.
S i ncerel y,
$ar lial D.
Deputy
ftv",^r. Alta/
S'irnpsori, F.E.
State Engineer
Mount ^Conservation D istrict
P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOO SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
April 21, 1989
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Bth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Planning Staff:
At 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 adeguately addressed by the engineering firm regarding waste disposal
and the water system. The Board also felt that proper mitigation has been
taken for wildlife protection with the pIan.
They would urge that all engineering guidelines be followed by the developer,
and would again state that the proper recl-amation of any road disturbance
is very important for the prevention of erosion and the preservation of water
quality.
Again, they feel that well planned reclamation of a disturbed area will allow
less movement of material and proper placement of material during any excavation
wil-I result in reduced costs on the project.
The Soil Conservation Service can be contacted for inforrnation on reconrnendations
for seeding of disturbed areasr both for species and amounts.
The Mount Sopris SoiI Conservation District Board appreciates the opportunity
for input on this developmentr and notes that soil and water conservation
is their prime concern.
Sinc.erely, L,.y-, .^'/--n-y
Jim Grange, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
CONSERVATION OEVELOPMENT SE LF,GOVE R NME NT
APR 24 tggg
GAitrir-,-Ll CCUitl y
o
ROY ROMER
Governor
JEBIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street-Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
May 2, 1989 G,'rlrriuil";
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County P1ann'ing Dept.
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, C0 81601
Re: Pinyon Peaks Subdiv'is'ion
Prel jminary P1 an
Sec. 11 & 14, T7S, R88t,
Dear l'lr. Bean:
We have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plan for a proposed 19unit subdjvisjon on 197 acres. t,Je commented on the sketch plan in a letter
dated February 7, i989. At that time 18 lots were proposed on 240 acres.
Some of our concerns were answered in this preliminary plan subm'ittal.
The water supply is proposed to be a well system. The
augmented 'in accordance with Case No. 79CW97 using stock jn theReservo'ir. In our previous letter, we asked for a detailed
augmentat'ion water from Case No. 79CW97 for this and other devel opments andproof of ownershjp of suffjcjent shares of the Park Ditch stock. Thisjnformation was not subm'itted. We cannot recommend approval of this proposaluntil we rece'ive this information.
It appears that some of the wells decreed in Case No. 79CW96 are to be
used for this subdivision. All the wells decreed in Case No. 79CW96 must be
cuitsirucied withi n 200 feet of the'ir decreeci 'iocatrons in accorclance with
l,Jater Court rul es. Di 1 igence on the wel I s (CLDC Wel I s Nos. 2 through 14) wasgranted jn 88CW282. It appears that only CLDC well nos. 2,4,5, 6, 7, and 8will be located on the land included in the proposed subd'ivis'ion. None ofthese proposed wells are within 200 feet of Lot I, which according to the
submi ttal 'i s to have j ts own wel l . A1 so, none are wi th i n 200 feet of theexisting well shown on the utility plan drawing which was submitted. The
appiicant must obtajn a change of water right from Water Court jn order to
move the location of decreed wells.
The 'informat'ion subm'itted by Mr. Dean Gordon 'indjcates an adequatephysical supply is available for the proposed wells. Mr. Gordon alsojndicates that the Pinyon Peaks Homeowners Assoc'iation will own and operate
wel I s are to be
Park Ditch and
breakdown of the
0
ir;;- 4rc;;
Mr. Mark Bean
May 2, 1989
Page 2
the water system for the remain'ing _17 lots.. we would l'ike to see the water
iigf,ti-used io -iugment aepletions "(Park Djtch shares) conveyed -to. this
homeowners group -io gu..ahtee .d.qrit.- repl.acement wateris avai l abl e j n the
future. The two lot owners for the ioit t ahd 17 should be included in the
homeowners association, even iftougn the submjttal states they are to have
ind1vjdual wellt, tini.'these loti iie also a part of the augmentation plan'
According to the augmentatjon p'lan, the^we1ls are to operate under their
own piio"itv" Uetween N6vember t ahO 4prit.30 each year.. No replacement water
,ir piorided"in the augmentation-p1an fbr this, period each year- Should some
of the conditionir--iii.r-r'ight! Jownstream bb perfected in the future, these
*.ff ,'r.V Ue catted out. Thjs-would cause the cui^ta'ilment of these wells by
or. ofiiL.. Up to the present tin'le,'no w11:ter calls have occui"reC'
Water Court Case No. 7gc[/g7 allows for 69 lots w'ith up to 1000 square
feet of lawn and-gu.J.n und no more than two horses each. Th'is proposal
reduces the lots to 19 and jnC"..r.r the lawn and garden t0,3632 square feet
p;;-i;i. ii,e toiit water avai I abl e for I awn and, , g.t9gn !9.111. not 'increase '
ii ii tf,. opinion of Mr. Loyal q. Leavenworth, attorney for the applicllt,
that the existing decrees can iiift be util jzed. 1,1e have some question
ioni.rning irrir'opinion. tn ani event,!!',9 total amount of irrigation^allowed
UV if,. auimentaii;; p jin i r 1.76" acres. ' Th'is j ncl udes 2500 sgLlqrg . foot of
iinn inO daraen on each of three iots apparently outside this subdiv'isjon.
in summary, we cannot recommend approva'l of this proposal until we can be
shown that the ;ppli.;;i ititl owns sufficient augmentation ,water to replace
ine ouilof-prioiitv O.pietions from this dev6lopment and all wells will be
located w.ithin 200 feet of decreed locatjons. A change of- water night (1n9
p;;h;pa ttre augmenti[ion planl witl be required if t[e wells to be constructed
ior ti.ris subd.iuiilon are nbt witnin 200 feet of the decreed locat'ion in case
No. 79CW96.
S i ncerel Y,
Q"",^r-Ad-U
lar lial D. Sirnpsoii, F.E.
Deputy State Engineer
HDS/JCM:21941
cc: 0rlyn Bell, D'ivision Eng'ineer
Steve Lautenschl ager
SCHMUESEF G(I MEYER INC.
May 10,1 989
Mr. Scott Vtrriter
P.O. Box 9705
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear
I have calculated and plotted the descriptions
along the access rcad to lour project. It
Develotrment bmpany deeded the land to each adj
way line of a 60 foot road. Carbondale
retained title to this strip of land from
easterly boundary.
I am enclosing a map that shovs this strip a1
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER ORm{ MEltER, INC.
? Grand Avenue, Suite 212
.nwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004
/,"-,
/
b/-son, R.L.S.
Manager
xl{:1cl9039
Enclosure
FS & SURYEYOPS
adjacent landowners
s the Carbondale Iand
iner to the right-of-
Develognent Comtrnny
county road to your
with adjacent ovrners.
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
JAMES S. LOCHHEAD
W. DAVID RIPPY
Mr. Ivlark Bean
Garfield County Planning
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO
LEAYENWORTH & LOCH P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 10, 1989
1O11 GRANDAVENUE
P.O. DRAWER 2O3O
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81 602TELEPHONE: (3o3) 94s-2261
Depa rtme n t
81601
RE:
ment Co rat ion
Dear l{ark:
I am writing on behalf of the Car ndale Land Development
the letter from the1989, concerning thes Subdivision. First,in your recornmendation
approved augmentation
rcxn the State Division
augmentation plan willion. We are confident'ns of the Div i s ion ofthat they will approve
Corporation. I am writing to respondDivision of Water Resources dated tutuy 2proposed water supply for the pinon pe
at the outset, let me say that I concurthatr prior to final plat approval r dnplan be submitted along with the letter :of Water Resources confirming that themeet the water right needs of the subdivithat our proposals to address the conceWater Resources wilI be satisfactory andthe proposed water supply plan.
arbondale Land Development CorporatiJon (CLDC) is the ownerve shares of the Park Ditch and nes{rvoir company as indi-in Lhe prior water augmentation prhn decreed i; case No.
7 . A copy of the stock certificfte is enclosed. Theion also asked for a breakdown of the augmentation frornNo. 79CW97 that has previously been utilized in otherntation plans or conveyed to third parties. To date, aof under 8.0 acre-feet of the 42.84 acre-feet of excessric consumptive use determined in shio case has been uti-by third parties. A detailed br{akdown of this amountbe provided to the Division of wat$r Resources. r wouldhowever, that the 42.44 acre-feet of excess historic con-ive determined in case No. 79cw97 is in addition to theacre-feet of consumptive use committed to the augmentationdecreed in that case. Therefore, tt{e augmentation for thePeaks subdivision remains viable and intact and unaffectedior commitments of excess augmentati$n water. rn addition,will be conveying a sufficient amount of shares in the park
to ensure that the Park Ditch ha$ adequate replacementavailable for the subdivision, inclilaing Lots I and t7.
Ca
of fiv
cated
7 9CW97Divisi
Case I
augme n
Lot alhistor
I izedwill t
note,
s umpt i
5.51 aplan d
P inon
by pri
CLDC w
Ditch
wa ter
Pinon Peaks Subdiv i s io
Carbo Land DeveI
LEAVENWORTH & I,OCHIIEAD, P.C.
Ivlr. I"lark Bean
Page 2
May 10, 1989
The Division of Water Resources is
existing well is not within 200 feet of
any of the wells adjudicated in Case No
Lo drilI a new weIl to be used to Pr
water supply within 200 feet of an exist
will submit evidence of the location a
prior to final ptat. In addition, Lots
posed to have individual wells, will, at
be served by wells drilled within 200 f
weIls, To the extent the decreed locat
the lot, final plat will provide for ea
of a well within 200 feet of the decr
for a water line to the property bounda
will be drilled within 200 feet of thei
a change of water right application will
The Division is also correct that t
plan does not provide for augmentat
(November 1 through April 30). Howeve
occurred to date and, as indicated in
Wright Water Engineers, are not expect
seeable future. However, to ensure that
are available in the future to provide
the event it is needed, CLDC will c
Association a total of 5.51 acre-feet
ciated with the Park Ditch shares. As
Water Engineers' IetEerr this quantity
reduction in the number of lots invol'
division from that contemplated in Case
a sufficient amount of augmentation wa
tation needs dur ing the winter Pe
Association documents wilt clearly indi
winter augmentation is required, the Hom
be required to pursue any water court
this purpose. Howeverr because augmen
period is not likeIY to occur in the
believe it is premature to pursue or
pursue such an application at this time.
Finally, I would reiterate mY oPini
of Iawn irrigation provided for the 69
to the 19 units without further water c
location of the land to be irrigated ha not changed.
also correct that the
the decreed location of
79CW96. CLDC intends
ide the subdivisionrs
ng decreed location and
the yield of this weII
and L7 , which are Pro-the time of final Plat,et of existing decreed
ons are not located on
nts for the drilling
Iocation and easements
. Therefore, all wells
decreed locations, and
not be required.
existing augmentation
on during the winter
r no winter calls have
he attached Ietter from
to occur in the fore-
sufficient water right,s
winter augmentation in
ey to the Homeowners
consumptive use asso-
can see from Wright
water, because of the
d in the proPosed sub-
. 79Cw97, wiII Provider to cover any augmen-
iod.The Homeowners
ate that, in the event
owners Association wilI
foreseeable futurer w€
uire the applicant to
n that the total amount
nits can be reallocaLed
rt approval, since the
applications needed for
ation during the winter
($
(6
G
(G
$ft
''s
fi
(
fr
d
,e
\=t/.(9c
(GN4G\.S\*\dsh'.,R;Gs6
$)\\
y)
il
S
-^-tffih"--."iffi-
;;%;ttzi,
OFTHECAPTTALSTOCKO'THE PARK DITCH AND RESERVOIR COMPANYFULLY PAID' BUT SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENTS AS PROVIDEO BY THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
/mnlfi,raffi.anfuzru,r*12 /,rtda,*/.#e,'6rriartt/tlyt ,/.4t.//ta /tart/zr/trtz/.it
/tz'z/zm ar:6qsy'tfu7tuy,ty'tt*t ,iasr.ent/zrty'1/ra'lrrh/rtru7zy'rry'orfrf ttr/ruittr/.
-lnlllitnssslllhzrzul,,4rq,z-.acZ'€.z,r7zzu./tbru/41zualzt/,.//ti|6,e,rlfi2a/e,/a/,,A-,t*,ozet/.*"n***-%r,,44*arK,z! T,!P1*;;//: #{/'\
)*n4-.-')
?-<<-
't,.-7
"r!
.. *.:
'(w_/ryytz_.r.@/:7^WWV ww
Rk\. -G.R..
ilxconnonnleo uirrren rlrE LAws or r". s-r*TE oi ib*odi
t[ffiElnffiIfit[Ele-i-.*i;-rii.=.,!,.:i---L--, *.-' ,.,,. ,rl-=-+ t-f,=r:-u4r,C*rr,- - ,tJ://ic
's*:((*:(f:*dt'rffi ;?";r,.trE*,o,*:;-';;7/"t
FULLY PAID, BUT SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENTS AS PROVIDED BY THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
,/ru,nafrr.a/&anz/ttrotr,.ilz, /oartur/,#c,'/ti,r/rozr/i,tr ./u .,//iz /trri/tr,/ttrrry'.t)t
/tcrttbuzr/y-cy'//irurV:rry'otr.ltrritr/rrrr7ifi if,:rt/ry')rfu Vrr/"r?ttlruiru/.
In lllitness lllhereuf, #e Lrtt/ffi,2/1r,rrt/ron /t)rJ rtrnJru/ /l'ni'/hr/r/liu/c./a y'),.tirttrr/
,&Vz/a,z*r47r,ror/*::**/ ry{iVrrl .utrr/ r/.i 'fitrTrt/,r/t. .7i,r7/'/r,1ft' ltercy11,/1,,r//:!"/
.\\
Y\.\
"4.))v,/
ry
N
lD'
tv:,[6
lt*
IU:
It
i$lnl
q
(&
\$
lq
\\
G
(0
,edffirhr-*-..d6-mh=,
Effifu#6
^\ilt
,{(.ill
fJ)
h)
w,N
n)
ht
w
h)1I\
,q)//
)
b t/;,,at:
Wright Water Engineers, tnc.
DENVER OFFICE
2490 West 26th Ave., Suite 100 A
Denver, Colorado 80211
(303) 480-1700
TULSA OFFICE
201 West 5th Sr., Suite 130
Tulsa, Oklahom a 74103
(918) sB4-7135
I{ay 10 , t9B9
CLENWOOD SPRINCS OFFICE
818 Colorado Avenue
P. O. Box 219
Clenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
(3O3) 945-77s5
Denver Direct Line: 893-1608
Scott Writer
Pinyon peaks DevelopmentP.O. Box 9705
Aspen, CO BL6L?
Re: pinyon peaks Development
Dear I,1r. Writer:
At your request we have reviewed the augmentation plans for the pinyonPeaks subdivision (p-reviousry the carboidale. _Land Development company
:Y!?":?l];^ water court cas-e No._ 7_9cw97 provided a ,,legal,i warer supplyror tz srngre -family units with 3.5 pers;ns per rot, *i*, each pu?ion:llil3ing 90 gallons o-f water.per day.'rr,e iuEnentation pran presented in79CJi?7 arso provided for two hbrses -p"r lot for 39 lots. The totar con-sumption of water for the originally'propo"LJ development ( including threeadditional lots) as provided iir trre augme';iitlon plan was 5.si-u"r"-feet ofconsumptive use.
rt is our understanding that the- new config:ration of the development willhave only 19 l-ots and ,0i11 use less water-tnu., the origlnuf' f:.un. sinceless water will be used the 7gufigl decree will still -cover'the ,,1ega1,'water reguirements for the development. we assume that each lot will havea year around ocfllpancy rate of 3-.5 peop.le. reguiri.ng 90 gafions per capitaper day- Each Lot in -tfe proposed iutxiivis:.on would have a total of 3600sguare feet of irrigated lawn and garden or a total of 1.57 acres of irri-gated land' $bl.e 1 presents thl water reguirernents for the currentlyplanned pinyon peaks subdivision.
The total future consumptive use of the pinyon peaks subdivision will be3'89 acre-feet- This ii less than the originil 5.s1 acielreef-proviaed forin the original decree. rt is-our opiniln that the propor"a'new futureuses can be adequately provided for in the augmentation p1an, case No.79CJ,197 .
It i" our- opinion that there will be no non-irrigatLon season carl on thejunior well rights until such time as oil- shale or other major industrialuse on the western -slope are developed. Thus no winter atigmentation isneeded in the near futuie. However we recomnena tnaCninyor-i"aLs plan onproviding winter augrmentaLion water in the future. Thi; can be done byassigning 1- 00 acre-feet of the lgo,rgT .onrrrplive use to the homeowners
!.tt',u! portion not -required for direct summertime augrmentation). rn turnthe homeowner would agree, when reguired, to build a i.s acre-ioot pond andoperate it as an augrmentation reseivoir to meet senior dovmstream cal-Ls.
TABLE 1
PIMON PEAKS SUBDIVISION I{ATER REQUIREI{EIi'IS*
WATER REQUIRE{ENIIS
In-HousePotable Irr. Total(1) (2) (3)
(Va1ues in acre-feet)
CONSUI{PTIVE USE
(Va1ues in acre-feet)
Lrr.
(s)
January
February
March
April
may
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL
0.71 0.00
0.64 0.00
0.71 0.00
0.69 0.21
0.71 0.37
0.69 0.98
0.71 1. L3
0 .71, 1. L3
0.69 1.05
0.71 0.90
0.69 0.00
0.71 0.00
B.38 5.71
0.7L
0.64
0.71-
0.90
1. 08
L.66
1. B5
1. B5
L.14
1.61
0.69
0.7r_
14.15
In-House
(4)
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.09
1.0r.
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0 .14
0.24
0.54
0.75
0.75
0.70
0.59
0.00
0.00
Total
(6)
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.22
0.33
0.73
0 .83
0. B3
0 .78
0.68
0.08
0.09
* Plus 3 contract }ots outside of subdivision(1) Includes a population of 77 (2t lots with 3.5
water for 50 houses at 1l- gallons per day.(2) L.74 acres (19 lots at 3600 square feet per lot
square feet per lot).(3) (1) + (2).(4) t2Z of (L).(5) 662 of irrigation efficiencY.(6) (a) + (5).
3.81- 4.82
people per lot) and
and 3 lots at 2500
LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 23, 1989
kriir-ii'lsLi., U,,)iJi-tfY
Very truly yours,
LOCHHEAD, P.C.
Leavenworth
1011 GFANDAVENUE
P.O. DRAWER 2O3O
GLENWoo_D_ spnt NGS, co[onaoo a r ooz. .. -TELEPHONE:(3o3) sas-2261 - ---
'
;,..'i.* EXPRESS MAILMr. Jim MacDonaldOffice of the State EngineerDivision of Water Resorlrces1313 Sherman Street, Room g1g
Denver, CO 90203
Re:
LEL: r1n
Enclosurescc: Scott Writer
Ir,lark Bean
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
JAMES S. LOCHHEAD
w. oAvto nrppy
Dear Mr. MacDonald:
r spoke to you on the telephone recently concerning the pro-posed water supply for the piion pe-atcs subdivision in Garfieldcounty proposed by the carbondale r,anJDevelopment corporation.The Division of wlter Resources has raised several concerns intheir letter to Garfield county dated May z, 19g9. The purposeof this letter is to respond to- those concerns.
Attached hereto is a letter dated May 10, r9g9, that wasprovided to Garfield county which addresses many of the concernsyou expressed in your rettlr. The only concern not addressed inmy May 10 letter is-the quantity of ",ig*.ntation wat.er that has.oreviously been sold from the u*""s= c6nsumptive use determinecin thai case and unrelated to the proposea subdivision. A totalof 7.49 acre-feet of the excess consumptive use has been con_veyed. Attached hereto is a record of those sales. some haveceen included in plans for augmentation and many have not buthave simply been the basis for ihe iss,rince of welr permiLs. Tothe. extent possible, r have included- *=" numbers where known.Perhaps orJ-yn Ber-l can prorride adciricnar ease nurnbers.
Pinon peaks Subdivision PreI iminar PlanSections ll and 14 , t. 'i
Wright Water Engineers, lnc.
DENVER OFFICE
2490 West 26th Ave., Suite 100 A
Denver, Colorado 8021'1
(303) 480-1700
TULSA OFFICE
201 West 5th St., Suite 130
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
(918) s84-7136
llay 24, L989
CLENWOOD SPRINCS OIFICE
818 Colorado Avenue
P. O. Box 219
Clenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
(303], 94s-77s5
Denver Direct Line: 893-1608
OI
[1
)4t*d[vF
lilktAY 2 5 1s3eLoya1 Leavenworth, Esq.
Leavenworth & Lochhead, P.C.
L0L1 Grand Avenue
P.O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-
Re: Finyon Peaks Deveiopment
LEAI/Ef{UfOIIIH & LOCHHEAO, P.C.
Dear Lee:
In an effort to put Ehe proposed future development's water needs in per-
spective with "non-regulated" development of the 1and, we calculated the
proposed water reguirements and consumptive use based on the following
cri teria:
22 Housing Units3.5 People per Unit90 Gallons per Capita
Lze, In-house Consumptive Use
L.74 Acres Irrigated Land
66% lrrigation Efficiency50 Livestock Units
Based on these assumptions the annual water diversions for the proposed
development would be 14.15 acre-feet with an annual consumptive use of 4.82
acre-feet.
For comparison purposes we evaluated the water reguirements if the property
was developed with 35 acre "exempt" lots which would not be subject to the
count]/ approval- process. An exempt domestic well can potentialiy serve up
to 3 homes on a single 35 acre tract. For lhe purpose of analysis we have
considered only one house per 1ot irrigating up to one acre. The following
assumptions were used:
5 Units total for the same tract3.5 People per Unit90 Gallons per Capita
L2eo In-house Consumptive Use5 Acres Irrigated Land
662 Irrigation Efficienry
The annual diversions under the above scenario would be 18.35 acre-feet
with a consumptive use of Ll-.1-6 acre-feet. Thus the unreg,r:lated develop-
ment could divert 30? more water and consumptively use 130? more water. By
approving the proposed subdivision the County would actually be reducing
the allowable future diversions and consumptive use with the 1and.
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
JAMES S. LOCHHEAD
W. DAVID RIPPY
LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 25, 1989
1O11 GRANDAVENUE
P.O. DRAWER 2O3O
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81 602
TELEPHONE: (303) 945'2261
l'.:.:ili: , [1;.',' lii lggg ir, ',
't--i:rt- '; -.Jrs,.l;i.rl_i_ *,.,t-,it {.i f
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, Co 81501
Re: Pinon Peaks
Dear Mark:
Because of the objections that were raised at the last
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting concerning the Pinon
Peaks development, i thought you might be interested in seeing
the enclosed letter. The purpose of this letter is to show the
amount of groundwater withdrawals and consumption that could
occur under a 3S-acre lot development scenario utilizing exempt
domestic weII permits. As you can see, an unregulated develop-
ment under the 35-acre 1ot scenario could divert 30 percent more
water and consumptively use 130 percent more water. A11 the
water consumed under the subdivision plan is replaced pursuant
to the plan for augmentation.
Therefore, the potential effect on groundwater supplies. from
denying the proposed subdivision would be far more significant
than allowing the development to go forward.
Please provide this information to the Planning & Zoning
Commission members. If you have any questions, feel free to
contact me.
Very trulY Yours,
LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C.
E. Leavenworth
LEL: rln
Enclosurecc: Scott Writer
Tom Zancanella
ROY ROMER
Governor JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGTNEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street_Room g1g
Denver, Colorado g0203
(303) 866_3581
June 7, 1989
Re: Pinyon peaks Subdjvisionprel jmjnary pl an
Sec. ll & 14, T7S, Rggt.l
Dear Mr. Bean:
lrle have received addjtional informatjon concerning the above referencedprel iminary p1 an from r-ee r_eiv;r;;;ih; "ilsar t6rnii r io. the projectproponents' Included was a I jst of it,. irgrentation water from case No.79cw97 commjtted to other devergRr.ni, ;il ; copy of the shares of the parkDitch owned bv the carbondale [ina D;;;i';;r;ni .co"poration.
Mr. Leavenworthal so states that the we'l is-- to ue coii[iucted ho.-ir,ii'devel opment wi 1 1 bewithin 200 feet of their decreed locati;;;. - --'
This 'information addresses the concerns we expressed in our lastletter to the.county oafeo lliv z, tgag:- A; iong., the conditions discussedin Mr. Leavenworth,s tLtter io -in"' ;;;;iy ";"; complied with, we have nofurther objectjons to thjs proposal. w. *orro point out, however, that theconsumptjve use angH...i: by-Mr.'zahcaneita-'JiJ-iot include water for livestockas per case No' 79cw97. -It
aDpears ttrai iuequate water will be avajlable forthe l'ivestock al lowed bV the-Oeiree.
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County planninq Deot.Garfield County Courtholse '
Glenwooci Springs, C0 gib0l
HDS/JCM:29571
cc: 9llVn 8e11, Djv.ision EngineerSteve Lautenschl ager
Lee Leavenworth
Sincerely,
wrr/,//
tor Ha1 D. Simpson, p.E.
Deputy State Engineer
TABTE 1
PII{yON PEAKS SUBDMSION I^IATER REQUIREI,XE\TS)',
WATER REQUIIIfl,IEX\ES CONSUI{PT]VE USE
In-House
Potable
(1)
(Va1ues in
0.71
0.64
0.71
0.69
0.71
g.6e
0.7L
0.7L
0.59
0.71
0.69
0.71
8.38
acre-feet )
fn-House
(4)
(Values in
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.09
0. 09
0. 08
0.09
0.09
0. 08
0.09
0.08
0.09
1.0L
acre-feeL )
Irr.
(2)
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0.2t
0.37
0.98
1 .13
1 .1_3
1.05
0.90
0. 00
0. 00
5.77
Total
(3)Irr.
(5)
TotaI
(6)
January
February
I,larch
April
llay
June
July
Augrust
September
October
November
December
TOTAL
0.71
0.64
0.71
0.90
1.08
1.66
1.85
1. B5
I.7 4
1.61
0 .69
0.71
14 .15
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.14
0.24
0. 64
0.75
0.75
0.70
0.59
0.00
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.22
0. 33
0.73
0 .83
0 .83
0.78
0. 6B
0. 08
0.00 0.09
3.81 4.8Z
per lot) and
lots at 2500
* Plus 3 contract lots outside of subdivision(1) rncrudes a population of 77 (zl }ots with 3.5 peoplewater for 50. _h^ou5es at 11 gallons per day.(2) 1.74 acres (19 rots at 36-00 "guui" fee[, per rot and 3sguare feet per lot).(3) (1) + (z).(4) 12% of (1).(5) 65? of irrigation efficiency.(6) (4) + (5).
LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT I-AW
June 13, 1989LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
JAMES S. LOCHHEAO
W. DAVID RIPPY
Mr. Iv1ark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eighth Street, Suite 305
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
1011 GRANOAVENUE
P.O. DRAWEB 2O3O
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81 602
TELEPHONE: (3O3) 945'2261
JUN 1.t 1gB9
ILr-ii
Re: Pinon Peaks Subdivision Preliminarv PIan
Dear lvlark:
Enclosed please find two opinion letters concerning the CLDC
WelI No. 5. The new well was drilled at the decreed location
and, according to both engineers, has the capacity to provide
the Subdivision's water supply requirements withouL interfering
with other weII users. please ensure that the Planning and
Zoning Commission members receive copies of these letters. AIso
encloied is a letter dated June 7 , 1989, from the State
Engineer's Office indicating they have no further objections.
Very trulY Yours,
LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C.
Leavenworth
LEL: rln
Enclosures
cc: Scott Writer w,/enc.
william L. Lorah w/enc.
Scott Fifer w/enc.
CUUNT
ENARl ciH lnc. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
June 9, 1989 -=SW%
-ZANr-
Mr. Scott Writer
P.O. Box 9708
Aspen, CO 8i6i2
RE: C.L.D.C. Well No. 5, Pump Test
Dear Scott:
#&N
Pursuant to your request, we have completed a reconnaissance level anulysis
of the rvell-pump test data associated rvith your recentlv completed C.L.D.C.
Well No. 5. You have asked for an opinion as to whetirer or not the date
susqests that a reliable physical water supply can be developed to ser..e x
pro:osccj se.,'enteen unit resiclential ce.,,elopment in the vicinit,,,. It is oui-
uncerslanding that tiie deveiopment rvould include limired outsicc larvn
iri'igation and stock rvatering and that total annuai diversions *,ouici nor
excecri 10 to 12 aci-e feet of water. The foilorving provides a sumnitr],oi oui-
::i-,nCS. t
T::e iniormalion provideC us indicates ihat the pump test was conduc:ed u','
Wrigirt Water Engineers over a 24 hour period beginning at 10:.12 Air,l. \,1lrv
-1:. -9S9. A sustrined punrping rate cf 50 gallons per r:rinure (gpr::1 r,.,r:s
acnieveci after approximateiy 3 hours oi operation. Based upon our revie,,,,,
and analvsis of the pump data, the foliorving observations are made.
A time-dra*,dorvn anaivsis was compieted to ascertain the
aou ifer ciraracteristics. The analysis reflects that the
transmissivity of the aquifer is nnproximately 800 lt2/day. This
vaiue is reiatively high and indicates that the rvell has very good
potential for deveiopment of a reliable domestic rvater supplv
svstem.
'fhe observed drawdorvn associared rvith the nearby (800 feet + -)
"log-house" rvell rvas negiigible. This indicates that the storage
capacity (storitivity) of the aquifler is relarively good.
332 gijnf, Street, Surre 325 P.O Dra't,cr 160 Glen,vood Solngs, Cotorado 61602 (303) 915.2236
.)
N{r. Scott Writer
June 9, 1989
Page -2-
The rvell recovery data show that the rvell did not fully recover
to the pre-test static water leve\24 hours after the pump test was
terminated. This indicates that a continuous discharge of 50
gallons pef minute exceeds the aquifer recharge ability.
However, rve understand that the C.L.D.C. Well No. 5 will irave
a maximum diversion capacity of 20.0 gpm and an average
diversion rate of 7.5 gpm.
In summary, based upon our review of the pump test data, it appears that tl:e
C.L.D.C. Weil No. 5 can reliably support a residentiai community ol
approxinrately seventeen units. At the contemplated average pumping raie
of 1.5 gpm and an annual rvithdrarvai of 10 to 12 acre feet oi ivater. it is
improbabie that tire ri,ell rvill interfere vrith neighboring water supplie.s.
If you have any questions concerning this ietter, please do not hesitate to call
me.
Qi-^-.-r,,Jltltul \-l-!,
E.\iARTECI], INC
J-'1 / \//z1! t
-'f'-
..
-ntla
-/ ).-....; .' / r'n
/^ a ii.' \^^tf l.rr.:r,r\. UIULL I rIUl
Hvdrologisi
RSF/bea
25S-01
I-ee Leaven'w'orC1
\Vright Water Engineers, lnc.
DENVER OFFICE
1.190 West 26th Ave., Suite 100 A
Denver, Colorado 8021'l
(303) 480-1700
TULsA OFFICE
20'1 West 5th St., Suite 130
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
(918) 584-7135
GLENIVOOD SPRINCS OFFICE
8'18 Colorado Avenue
P. O. Box 219
Clenwood Springs, Colorado 81502
(303) 94s-Zss
Denver Direct Line: 893-1608
June 13, l9B9
Scott Writer
Pinyon Peaks Development
P.O. Box 9705
Aspen, CO 8L672
Pinyon Peaks Development
l-\a:r Cnnl-1.lLULU.
Per our contract prcposal of ilay 5, 1989 we have completed exp1or3.-i.on andtesting of CLDC Well +5. The well was drilled at its decreed location inthe NE1/4 of the }'llr'i1rz4 of section 14, Township 7 south, Range BB iresc ofthe 6th P.I'I., at a point which bears 586o53'46"8 a distance of 1B8O feet
f rom the northwest corner of said Secticn 14. The wel-1 location '*'as f :eLdstaked by Schmueser, Gordon, lleyer, fnc.
lre Eecicgl ai the area ccnsists of surficial overburden and ilar::: Sa::-3ione anC basal"r talus underiain bv ilarcon Formaticn bedrcck. Tl: i'larscnrcrmati.cn consi"sts of reddish arkcs:.c sandstone with inter::is cis:.1-tsc:ne, clavscone, and scme ccnqi:nerate and linestone. Ti.: i,'a:er:earinc zones tn che ilarccn Fcr:racion are qeneral-]v lccated rn f :e.cr-ur:s,::ul-t.s and weal:iv cenen:eci sedinen..ar..' bedi. Shelic:t Dril-lrnq Cc:ian'.' :fl-:sa.L:, Cci-:rac: uc:f :':=d a speelst:r ::.-ary r:g to :c:scruc: ':LnC '.;el--
= j.
l::e ccns:rucr"icn i:.agran and general ceciogic 1og of CLDC Wel-l- +5 :s sit'.rrrin figure 1. Frcm fioure 1 it can be seen that 61 feet of 7 inch suriace
casing',.ras used and 350 feet of 5 ti'2 inch steel casing was instali:i. The
a 1 la in^L a!^^l ^-^:-.- ^^-c^--!-j j- LL^ r----! j ^- .-.-11-Lrr -us=- uuirr:J *ab u:L !ULoL:u -rl Llle l'Ic,LU(-l1 f Uf llleLrOIl --! -.i.eincerval from 2BO to 100 feet.
On ltay 31, l-989 a 24 hour pumpr-ng test was performed cn CLDC WelL =1. The
p'Jrnnlnq race of the'"'eil- becan at 1"7.i qrn and r.,'as inc:=ased when i: bec:.:re
apparen: that the 1o',..'er prcciuc:ron rate -xcuici not signifi.cantj.y si:=ss :he;el-1. After 150 minutes of pumoing ',.;ater producticn f rom the xerl '..,as
increased to 50 -opm. ri:ty gal.lcns per minut.e was the maximum pump:::g raceof the test pump,vhich had been instaLl:ti in the weIl. The wel-1 wls puncedat 50 qtrn for the ren'arnder of Lhe 24 hcur cesi. A tocal of 70,300 :il-Linswere punped during the test period.
The maxirm:m dra'"dor,un during the pumping testpresents a plot of the time versus dra',ydown ofexhibited continuous drarvdown with time over the
was 3.58 feet. Figure 2
the pumoed well. The well
pumping period.
Water samples for quality analysis were taken 19 hours into the punpr-ngtest. During the pumping test basic rn?ter guality parameters were moni-tored. The ternperature of the ground',vater was 59oF, the conclucr-ivity
avera_oed 415 ptthos/cm, and the pH averageC 7.1.
Tn LUs / oree,auRD EN i:
IlAROON
FORMAT IO N
- Red.Jis!, arkosic
tonJsto.re w i ih
in#.r&Js of si/t-
s*cne , cloys*one,
oncl Scrne
?r.3iornera.ic q.r
l;me -=fon€ .
?.c,c'i-s 3€re.ral!"Cel,carecus
6RoUi-_., SURFACE
S'/z incL o,C.sleel .rsi^i
-7 ;,..ch o.O. Surface casinq
ce.neale.L in plc.ce \'
5'i ;nctt o,O. -<'l-6el ce5i^1
5loT pe,- i.-r-., :e'-{- !r",'^ ?=; ''lo +oo ft. (sioi-= o(:pt-..-\.
3 fc * i,.ches b^i -/ 2 ;^.h
Sca<,^3 )
TIGUIj.E
CLDC WELL NO. 5
I Ger.,ERALl z=D coNsrii,ucrroN
Ivi--+-
I
'l
l
feei cLC =a n
Tr,1--naH a^lnVt,r,tau
6e :_v9_=::^ l_c- --l-e_G
ri
oM
^oFM
nr
FO
F:
96
x
-t
sl
A)a<-8q
-5
{
t'
:i\
n
c
t.
t-
-1 -
cil
-1
---- -E
----t
----9
----9
----r
----8
----6
----0I
' i"i
l\
rV
{'
--l
Scott I.Iriter
June 13, 1989
Page 4
The recovery curve of Lhe welI, plotted as residual draurdown, is shown onfigure 3. a projection of the residual drawdown curve shows that the draw-
down will not be zero when t/t' becomes unity. This would indicate thatrecharge to the well during the test was less than 50 gpm pumping rate.
The field data for both the pumping and recovery tests are-atiaclied.-
In addition, two observation wells were monitored, one well was located 700feet from the pumped well, the second was located 3000 feet from the pumpedwell. Neither of the observation wells showed any measurable driwdown
beyond barometric effects.
The average annual ',vater diversion reguirement for the propcsed subdivisionwill be approximately 7-9 It is our opinion that CLDC WeLl *5 is cap-wr.LJ- De approxlmacely /-v gpm. It ls our oplnr.on that CLDC Wei--L *5 :.s cap-able of providing this modest amount of groundwater fcr the proposed sulc-divisicn without adversely impaccing other existing water weLl users.
It is cur opinion that the annual average recharge (natural precipitation)to the 200 acres of Pinyon Peaks property will exceed the 14.5 acre-feetwhich !s proposed to be withdra'.rn by the subdivision. The net effect to
the aqr.:ifer will be deminirm:s.
hie wilL inform you of the water guality of the groundwater once we receivethe labcratory results. '
source is acceptable.
If you have any questions
TAZ/nliLL,:o.arr
891-04t. C00
The preliminary field test wouLd indicate that the
please feel- free to call.
Very truly yours,
}M,IGHT I^IATER. EJGINEEF,S, INC.
BY -l-h^,^^,.. l 7a^-"-^, qL[q
Thomas A. Zancane]Ia, P.E. \
Vice Presideni
l(c 5rD 6 i.:-
,f-
'/..\-t:
tix
-s l-r1
.Z (T\
_o_\J
C
-jr
-o
oM
7OEFIC?n=
NTrO
FO
E>aao-
^7e6
<E
:.i
x
a
a
='!
=;
-ll
- -D-,
--=-I:I
't
.l
,.l
.n
5
C
C
---1
N f.lf ,\ t fi'L')- I r' ,
.___,
----9
----9
----!
----8
----6----0I
.J,:L.L''UMP TEST BASIC DATA JOB NO.
yELL NAHE; _ An tT€R No. S
srAlc wArER sgyEy, ?*L, t* /.1.
TYPE CF TEST:a
PUMP SETTING:
OBSERVATION WELLS 2 ttnnon<-\ r^',el I
CLU, tJo. 4-
C .i7. i,3 |
27_ |
MEASURING POIHT: h? I a,'*l,l.. ' #. >f,o.C
TOTAL OEPTH , ,f SO ry', .I
0
WE u u DATA
it .c.
{,l.,a- -,!, -,;a -€+t,, a
11 --q I t - t: / I..r ' - - ?--, ^?'-/? .^--9 ./ '
,r/ tri rr 'ro ,l Jron
TOP OF SCREiN:
l^ h.r)
MAKE:
MODEL:
EOWL DIAHETER,- H.p
ototr etTBr rr - Jt!!VOLTS: AMPS:
DA'E |,,,. i,,i,.;*,lrou^,Io^,,
r^rE.i I
LEYEL I
ORAW-
00tfx ,, l,r, l;l*^,1 COT H EXTS
l,*,,,^.
znb.azl c. tZ I t: /r-l I I I i a-[ 7,-, .
-
at)6
l-
1
i
I
i
I
i
;
IiI
t'f , "i L-2,
I rzzzl tcrs I
ltzvzt tzc i
-2-i iao i i la*r.a:l t-tz I i I I ! lf,t5.(1/152la*r. a:I t-tz I i
l-LL:r1 -
1- r -
etl ;. (.-
I : -''.)
l.
1..-^t 4,l;--l ,',
| ' z:'-l a l2t:. ,, I ^ -1 I
I r- ^- 'I /C. I :ir lll
t-!/-!/<l
i,-.-!
3tl
I
i
I
Z3 a ....
I -. ' r,
I a. 4
- -". /-*
l-
PUMP MOTOR
l-illl
MP TEST BASIC DATA
*ELL NAME: /l)r,;rtra AJo, S
STATIC WATE R sEyEs. ? *L , /'!
TYPE 0FTES.T'. fiurnn,na
PUMP SETTINGI
OBSERVATION \YELLS:
c L 04 il),"q
I^TE R
LEYEL
MEASURTNG PorNT: /of "l klu
TOTAL OEPTH , +3; 1,I,
ToP oF scaEEx, ?&l4t
JOB NO.
WE u L DATA
ORAW.
00trx CC ! I EHTS
HAKE'
BOWL DIAMETER'-
oro= et7r.VOLTS: AMPS:
l:11.1 +3 I I l-:-:..i,', l:.2,. I t I I I l.rs
,:1 -;: i l:,tf.?()i .... I i I i I I tr.r
, i j I I I I I I lz- l-'.':'-i -- *.' .-..),---1.-^,L/.,-
I
I
ll
I lZ-,^;i-t :._: l:; I i I
I
I
:l
ir"
E.I
l
I
I?n3.I
I
I
iI):4
lr
J
ll
I| _--_
I' _-_
_ -l_31 t*'t€=3__ ' |z:_2.c1, t.q4 'rc,_jz.+j_.___l _
136Z ?,pl
li{
I
i-ii1.
I ?-u::." -i Z . !:t - l. -- ll-l-^-li--rl
| ; l--..:l
.zl
,+l
z%,01
+3-cel
t-
lrl(:l ':,, i
t,i).-=l '<2, i
,l?'A | 'd ir, i
I t7-3? ' ;<5 / I
PUMP MOTOR
MCDEL'-
TYPE:-
lltoarE I TtrEl rtxurEstHouisI I nt I
rr. I saxo'1 | CoxTExT
l:??lzqz l !.o< lqol I I 1u.c.
i^ -*:l l,c= i I l:.q.:cl-.:
r=i -_.-.., I I I
_ ,-__.i ii2t. l I l_.._1, - l_l l-=1,;l.a r
ltZt
rlll itlll
\,t,-;l 1 .--, ]?L;e ')-;') 7-i.1 I l;-.- | I
r,'=i -,-: l
:l'.- ; I l?'-J.=. 12,-. I l^1:--,;i
A.L?. 1 I I ,^ ltz.zi
.-^l-,-^ I lr?u I =- t>r I - I -lI I -:' lta, tl
,"4-.i
[Er]
r-1 I
\7i
Oi-a.:
:\L
i
]\J
iV')l.N;\i
{ (--
fr^)
Ui
\\) Dt;
-t
NJ
AJ
I
t.}--\TJ
oi I i$N.i,IDA:ro
f .r in. I
_ ; vI
lu J
\J ; .N)U g),\J (
\-.t-J
NrfiN ${"oit
s
\]
ei-.{nt
I
tt.\,t
\\)
$
\D:\
u\
C\S
.C{
U)r
x
-\
No
aln
N\\)
N
\ ^,
=E-*.
}-
\)t
fi-
f-
(\J
}N
tl
Dr
i nro
J
\l \,\) \//ib"
I
il
J
lr
I
t' ) I
I
-1
-, .
!
i.-
t'-
I
I
Ctttil,I iJt+.
I tn{'-:rt
'1 -r r 'm 1.1 II t.. Ir, ]:J
t I L -ri okl: rrl+ :_ tr*Tfu .I
l!lG Ilol:druriil\)\o
/e
t, i,6tl
6;
.si
r
'\F
u)
-
^a\
I
I
{-
n
0/
-J--=
U
o
qJ
\i
-J!
^tF\r
lJ
v
.b)>
ls
lE
F'
s-
oo
q
L
NJ
lo
\
Idirr
-isl
"rl
Ifhi
-E
"]il
rU
Irl
>\
I
Jil3
ll
i{.-,
o-l
OIft-
a
l
UI.itr
:rrl
rD1
I
,l
I>ll'l
I
_l
U
,l
ci
-i-l
-1,.s I
I!l\i\--
NdN
\j
(\!
N
!1
$1\
Ir It:l\ci\J
ItiI 6-:ll0l
\oti
I
r-i
I
-\i
ciJ]
-l:l-crfl*\3,t
q\]
rl.l
1:l
TI
{
>l
'l
r:lf
1
tl
ilJ
F
a
a.I
c\s\
dil
;
l--1i
a:*lI'nl
\
{
_\]J\t
I
Jl
a'.,J
']
,15i;
ri': - li.t_ ,- s
,--a
;c
,s ltr
-F A.\
I
I
I,t1
rl
J
!
loei 55r5
i\ a15
t-:
,o\!I ., i
, il-ts
i\-o
\$-.
N
o
\'i'\i
I
I
t{rI
il\
iL-la
t\i.s
ROY ROMEB
Govemor
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engrneer
Mr. Mark Bean
Garf i el d County P'l ann i ng Dept .
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, C0 81601
Re: Pinyon Peaks Subd'ivision
Prel imi nary P1 an
Sec. 1i & 14, T7S, RSBbJ
Dear Mr. Bean:
We have recei ved addj ti onal i nformat i on concerni ng the above referencedcrel i mi nary pl an from Lee Leavenwort,h, 1 egai c6unci I for the projeciprcoonents. incl uded was a I i st of the auqmentati on water from Case -
No.79CN97 conrmitted to other developments ani a copy of the shares of the park
Drich owned by the Carbondale Land Development Corp-oration. Hr. Leavenworthal so states that the wel I s to be constructed ior thi s devel opm-nt wi I I bJ
wi ihi n 200 feet of thei r decreed I ocat.ions.
Thi s j nformatj on addresses the concerns r./e expressed i n our I astletter to the county dated May 2, 1989. As long as the conditions discussed
i n Mr. Leavenworth's I etter to the county are lompl i ed wi th, we have nofurther objec'uicns_ to this proposal . ite would point out, however, .uhat theconsumptjve use analysis by Mr. Zancanella djd not jnclude water for l.ivestockas per Case No- 79CW97. It appears that. adequate water will be available forthe livestock allowed by the ciecree.
HDS/JCM z?9577
c-c:_ 0rlyn 8e11, Djvision
Steve Lautenschl aqer
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street-Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-358't
June 7, 1989
S r ncerei y,
#%//
for Ha1 D. S'impson, P.E.- Deruty State Engineer
JUN 12 i9B9
Lee Leavenworth I
Engi neer