Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 05.15.2006Exhibits for Public Hearing held on May 15, 2006 xt Letter Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended F Application G Staff Memorandum H Memorandum from the Road and Bridge Department dated December 6, 2005 I Letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey dated November 30, 2005 J Letter from Mountain Cross Engineering dated December 6, 2005 K Email from the City of Rifle dated November 21, 2005 L Letter from The Division of Water Resources dated 12/2/05 M Letter from Vegetation Director date 12/9/05 N Letter from Dan and Dawn Bailey dated 12/9/05 0 Memorandum from the County Environmental Health Manager dated 12/5/05 P Owner Authorization to Shari Neuroth dated 12/12/05 Q Letter from the Division of Wildlife dated 12/05/05 R Letter from HCE to B&P received April 3, 2006 S Letter from Stuver. LeMoine, and Clifton dated 3/16/06 T Letter from Mtn. Cross Engineering dated 5/10/06 tk Uhl cin 4,, Nc� i .51 w --I- j4hcrr • • BOCC 05/15/06 FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for a 4 lot subdivision on thirty-six (36) acres. OWNER (APPLICANT) Terri Patrick ENGINEER High Country Engineering LOCATION Parcel lies between Rifle and Silt, north of I-70, at the end of CR 259. WATER SEWER ACCESS EXISTING ZONING ADJACENT ZONING Individual wells for each lot. Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) Private Access Easement from CR 259 (Jewell Lane) ARRD ARRD , II PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVEWAY • • I. PROJECT INFORMATION The Applicant proposes to divide the 36 -acre parcel into 4 residential lots. The development proposes that each lot will contain a single family home. All lots are between five (5) and seventeen (17) acres in size. The property lies at the toe of a hogback and generally consisting of rolling pasture land. The property is presently improved with a single-family dwelling on the north portion of the property. The property has been used for agricultural purposes. Existing vegetation includes limited mature cottonwood trees, sagebrush, and grasses. A stock pond also exists on the site. The site possesses a 180 degree view of the Bookcliffs and Colorado River valley. The property is served by a 14' wide gravel road which extends from the end of County Road 259 along the eastern boundary of the property. The most significant feature on the property is the Farmer' s Irrigation Ditch (situated within a 110' easement, approximately) which meanders through a large portion of the property. Large lot agricultural and residential uses surround the property. II. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN According to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, this site lies in Study Area II and is designated as outlying residential which assumes the 2 acres per dwelling unit density. The property is not located in the urban area of influence for Silt or Rifle. As a result, the residential use, density, and subdivision design are all consistent with and conform to the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan. III. REFERRALS Staff referred the application to the following review agencies and departments for general and/or specific commentary. The comments received have been generally incorporated into this memo where appropriate. a. City of Rifle: Stated they had no issue with the proposed development (Exhibit K) b. Town of Silt: No comments received. c. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: (Exhibit H) d. Rifle Fire Protection District: No comments received. e. RE -2 School District: No comments received. f. Colorado Division of Wildlife: (Exhibit Q) g. Colorado Division of Water Resources: (Exhibit L) Colorado Geologic Survey: (Exhibit I) h. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: (Exhibit M) i. Mountain Cross Engineering: (Exhibit J) j. County Public Health Department: (Exhibit 0) 2 • IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ARRD ZONE DISTRICT The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required regulations of the ARRD zone district. A. Proposed Uses The Applicant proposes single-family dwelling units on all of the 41ots which are contemplated as "uses by right" in the ARRD zone district. The following regulations are required of any residential development in the ARRD zone district: B. Common Dimensional Requirements 1) Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%) 2) Minimum Setback: • Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; • Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line; • Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. 3) Maximum Height of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet 4) Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations V. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The following is an analysis of the proposed development against the County's Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. A. Water The development proposes that individual wells will supply domestic and irrigation water to each residential lot. The application included an analysis of both the physical and legal nature of the water proposed for the subdivision conducted by Zancanella & Associates dated September 1, 2005. At present, two wells have been permitted and drilled which are discussed below. The Applicant intends to drill two more so that each lot has its own well. Legal Water Regarding legal domestic supply, according to the analysis, it appears the subdivision will divert an average of 4.75 AF annually and consumptively use 1.55 AF with transit losses included. A 3 well, the "Silt Heights Well", was drilled under a domestic well permit approved by the Colorado Division of Water Resources. The Applicant obtained a substitute supply plan from West Divide Water Conservancy District Contract for the 1.55 AF needed to supply legal water to the subdivision. This is an activated contract. Physical Water Regarding physical domestic water supply, two wells have been drilled and pump tested at varying rates over 4 -hour periods. As a result, the analysis concluded that "based on the pumping tests from both wells, with water storage to handle peak demands, the two wells should be adequate to serve two of the single-family lots. It may be necessary to limit irrigation withdrawals during extended drought periods. Zancanella suggests an alternate outside irrigation source be developed, if possible. It is reasonable to assume that two additional wells will be obtained." Water Quality Regarding domestic water quality, the analysis reported that the water from the well was tested and found to have a poor quality, in that, it exceeded the maximum contaminant level for selenium turbidity, sodium, chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, iron, and fluoride. The analysis states that "treatment of the water will be necessary prior to human consumption." Treatment could be achieved by a Reverse Osmosis (RO) type system. This system will also further impact well and septic system due to excess demand. The Applicant committed to requiring this type of system of all the new single-family dwellings on the lots. A plat note will be added as follows: The water quality analysis as contained in the Water Supply Plan prepared by Zancanella &Associates on September 1, 2005 states that the water from the well was tested and found to have a poor quality, in that, it exceeded the maximum contaminant level for selenium turbidity, sodium, chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, iron, and fluoride. The analysis states that "treatment of the water will be necessary prior to human consumption." It is required that treatment of this water shall be achieved by a Reverse Osmosis (RO) type system. Due to excessive water consumption required by an RO system, all design flows for Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall also be engineered to accommodate RO treatment systems. Irrigation Water Regarding irrigation water, the report only indicates that water will be diverted (from the wells) to irrigate up to 2,500 square feet of lawn and other equivalent outside uses. This is an issue because the report states "it may be necessary to limit irrigation withdrawals during extended drought periods. We suggest an alternate outside irrigation source be developed, if possible." As you are aware, all lots, pursuant to Section 9:51, shall be provided an adequate irrigation water supply. The Applicant also owns 5 shares of the Farmer's Irrigation Ditch which are proposed to be given to each new lot owner. As is typically required, the shares actually will need to be deeded to the HOA which will allocate the water to the new lots. This will need to occur at final 4 • plat. While two wells have been drilled and tested, the Applicant shall drill and test two additional wells as part of the final plat approval process. As is always required by Garfield County, the Applicant / developer shall demonstrate the following for all physical water supplies proposed in a subdivision: (I) That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used; (2) A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level; (3) The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge; (4) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots; (5) An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day; (6) If the well is to be shared, a legal, well sharing declaration which discusses all easements and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the system and who will be responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made for these costs; and (7) The water quality be tested by an independent testing laboratory and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates. Mountain Cross Engineering conducted a review on behalf of the County and provided the following comments. Water Supply 1. The water supply plan provides results and permits for two wells. Based on these results it is probable that two other wells can be permitted, but not certain. Prior to Final Plat the other two wells need to be permitted or a water distribution system meeting the requirements of Section 9:50 of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County needs to be proposed. 2. There are no specifics concerning the irrigation water. Article VII and VIII of the Protective Covenants requires irrigation water come from the irrigation ditch per allotted share but no volume or flow rate is specified. The August 29, 2000 letter from the Silt Water Conservancy District requires the future irrigation be only on ground that is historically irrigated. No delineation of historically irrigated area is shown. Perhaps the allotment of one share per Lot does not coincide with the historically irrigated area. This should be investigated. 5 • • 3. How is the Fire Protection Pond proposed to be filled? Which share is to be used for filling the pond? 4. Why is there no consumptive use or evaporative losses allocated for the fire protection pond? Are storage and evaporation allowed uses of the water from the Farmer's Irrigation Company Ditch? Plan Sheets 5. What is the required cover on the 36" pipe? It appears that there could be less than 12". The profile of the road may need to be modified if the culvert flowline and size is constrained. 6. How does storm water cross either CR 259 or the shared driveway access at the intersection with CR 259? Is a culvert(s) required? 7. It appears that the 30,000 gallon fire storage volume is at an elevation of 5692'. If this is correct then it also appears that some seasonal fluctuation is to be expected in the water surface elevation. This would then decrease the fire storage volume. Is this decreased volume acceptable to the Fire District? 8. How is this pond to be filled and maintained? 9. The depth of the pond is relatively shallow, especially in light of the seasonal variations. At the proposed water depths wetland plants are expected to thrive and engulf the entirety of the pond. This could pose significant functional problems to the fire protection use proposed. 10. The pond intake appears to be placed directly on the bottom of the pond. Generally the intake is placed above the bottom of the pond a set distance to limit the amount of silts and sediment that would be pumped. Mountain Cross conducted a follow up analysis of the Applicant's response to these issues and provided the following comments (Exhibit T): The response dated March 25, 2006 from High Country Engineering, has been reviewed for comments to the Preliminary Plan submittal for Silt Heights. Generally, all the comments have been addressed. Many are to be incorporated at the time of final plat with revisions to the protective covenants and/or plans. We find that this is acceptable, as long as it as also acceptable to the Commissioners of Garfield County. The one exception to the above may be the water supply. It appears that many of the comments concerning water for landscaping, well wastes, and fire supply are pending a West Divide Water Conservancy augmentation plan that is pending in Water Court. It is 6 1 difficult to determine the impacts if the plan is not approved. It may be appropriate to approve the Preliminary Plan with the condition that the augmentation plan be approved prior to Final Plat. However it may be more appropriate to have this determination prior to Preliminary Plan approval. The Division of Water Resources reviewed the proposal and stated, "It is our opinion that the proposed domestic water supply is physically adequate; however, material injury will occur to decreed water rights unless the Applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits for the proposed wells pursuant to the West Divide's temporary substitute supply plan. Due to lack of information submitted, CDWR cannot comment on the physical adequacy of the irrigation supply. The use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of.a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place of use is changed." (Exhibit L) B. Soils /Topography /Radiation Soils on the site are identified as Kim and Potts Loam which are deep, well -drained, moderately sloping soils. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is high. On the Kim Loam surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is moderate. On the Potts Loam surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is severe. On the Kim Loam, low strength and steep slopes are the main limitation to community development. On the Potts Loam the limitations are low strength, shrink -swell potential, and slope. HP Geotech performed a subsoil study on the property and concluded that "The natural clay subsoils appear to have expansion potential when wetted. Expansive clay soils require special designs to limit the risk of foundation and floor slab heave. Concentrated load on spread footings, structural floor slabs, drilled or driven piles and sub -excavation of expansive clays are possible methods to mitigate the expansion potential." Dwellings and roads can be designed to overcome these limitations with engineered foundations and septic systems. Based on these subsoil limitations, Staff strongly suggests a plat note be required that states the following: "Based on the analysis of the subsoils on the property, Individual Sewage Treatment System and foundation designs are required to be conducted by a registered professional engineer licensed to practice within the State of Colorado. These studies and or/ plans shall be submitted with individual building permit application for each lot. The cost of these studies shall be borne by the individual property owner." The gamma radiation survey conducted by HP Geotech resulted in the conclusion that no mitigation of radiation should be required. Colorado Geologic Survey provided comments on the proposal stating: Careful management of the subsoils and the groundwater is essential on this property to 7 • • avoid foundation problems due to swelling and collapsing soils and drilled pier foundations may be necessary in areas with high clay content. As a result, site-specific soil investigations should be conducted at the proposed building sites per the recommendations of HP Geotech. Regarding erosion, there are steep banks adjacent ,to the irrigation ditch, which runs through the property. Piping, or underground erosion, is possible next to the ditch. Building envelopes should have a setback from these steep slopes. Standard erosion control practices should be utilized during construction to mitigate for erosion. The property has stiff clays at relatively shallow depths below the surface, which may lead to perched groundwater. HP Geotech recommends that an underdrain system should be provided to protect below -grade construction from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup. There are numerous areas with man-made fill on the property that must be removed and replaced with structural fill prior to construction. (Exhibit I) C. Roads /Access The development proposes access to the four lots from CR 259 by way of a 600 linear foot dead- end cul-de-sac with a turnaround that the end. The access road will utilize a portion of an existing thirty (30) foot wide access easement to CR 259 currently providing access to the property. The road servicing the 4 lots appears to meet the required "semi -primitive" standard. This standard calls for a minimum 40 foot right of way with each lane at least 8 feet in width with a gravel surface, a maximum grade of 10% percent, a shoulder width of 2 feet, and a ditch width of 4 feet. It appears the existing access easement also serves other properties and therefore the Applicant does not have sole ownership of the access easement serving the subject property. It also appears that the easement may partially lie on adjacent parcels. Since the current access easement is held by neighboring properties it may be necessary for the Applicant to obtain permission from the easement holders to change the use of the easement and to make it a publicly dedicated right of way. The Applicant' s attorney provided a letter (Exhibit S) that asserts that the easement is a non- exclusive easement and that the Applicant may make "reasonable use of the easement so long as it does not interfere with the right of the properties the easement benefits." Because this is a subdivision where the access road will serve more than 1 lot, Section 9:34 is required such that "All streets are dedicated to the public but all streets will be constructed to standards consistent with these Regulations and repair and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the subdivision." This shall also be included as a plat note on the final plat. The Garfield County Road & Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and has no objections to this subdivision request with the following conditions. The Applicant shall apply for a driveway access permit issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. and comply with the conditions of 8 • the permit. This would include a paved apron at the driveway approach to CR 259 and a stop sign. The stop sign and the installation shall be as required by the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. D. Fire Protection The site is located in the Rifle Fire Protection District (RFPD). The Applicant proposes to construct a 30,000 gallon pond to store fire protection water for the subdivision. The application contains a letter from RFPD indicating that the proposed subdivision lies within the District and that the District can provide fire and medical services to the development. The District provided the following recommendations: 1) Vegetation should be removed from near any structures in order to provide a safe zone in the event of a wild land fire; 2) When constructing access roadways into the parcels, consideration should be given to the weights of fire apparatus and accessibility during adverse weather conditions; 3) The address of the properties are to be posted where the driveway access the County Road and on the residence itself if a shared driveway if used. Letters are to be a minimum of 4 inches in height, 1/2 inches in width and contrast with background colors, 4) The District recommends the development of a fire protection water supply in the area. Water supply should be a minimum of 30,000 gallons and within two road miles of the subdivision with an approved method of fire department access and connection. The proposal does meet the District's minimum for having an approved water supply within two road miles; and 5) The district would like to continue to work with the applicant to ensure that the access road is suitable for emergency vehicle access. Mountain Cross Engineering reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments that need to be addressed by the Applicant: 1. How is the Fire Protection Pond proposed to be filled? Which share is to be used for filling the pond? 2. Why is there no consumptive use or evaporative losses allocated for the fire protection pond? Are storage and evaporation allowed uses of the water from the Farmer's Irrigation Company Ditch? 3. It appears that the 30,000 gallon fire storage volume is at an elevation of 5692' . If this is correct then it also appears that some seasonal fluctuation is to be expected in the water surface elevation. This would then decrease the fire storage volume. Is this decreased volume acceptable to the Fire District? 4. How is this pond to be filled and maintained? 9 • 5. The depth of the pond is relatively shallow, especially in light of the seasonal variations. At the proposed water depths wetland plants are expected to thrive and engulf the entirety of the pond. This could pose significant functional problems to the fire protection use proposed. 6. The pond intake appears to be placed directly on the bottom of the pond. Generally the intake is placed above the bottom of the pond a set distance to limit the amount of silts and sediment that would be pumped. E. Drainage / Wetlands The application includes a drainage study performed by High Country Engineering (HCE) that states that the development will have minimal impact on drainages running through the property. No detention ponds are necessary to contain any increase in historic flows of the property. Where possible, driveways will follow existing topography. Where drainage crossings are required, adequately sized culverts will be installed to convey the historical flows through the property. The drainage report concludes that the subdivision has been designed to mitigate the expected impacts of storm water runoff as outlined in the County' s drainage regulations. Beach Environmental delineated a small wetland area on the west side of the Farmer's Irrigation Ditch. This does not appear to be near any area where development is contemplated. It shall be delineated on the final plat as wetlands. Mountain Cross Engineering provided the following review comment which needs to be addressed by the Applicant: Access to Lots 3, 2, and perhaps 1 will need to cross the proposed roadside ditch. How will the ditch flow be maintained with the anticipated driveways? If a culvert is proposed what size is necessary? Is the proposed ditch section sufficient to convey the anticipated flows? On the Plan Sheets, what is the required cover on the 36" pipe? It appears that there could be less than 12". The profile of the road may need to be modified if the culvert flowline and size is constrained. How does storm water cross either CR 259 or the shared driveway access at the intersection with CR 259? Is a culvert(s) required? F. Wastewater The Applicant proposes that individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) are proposed for each lot. The applicant should be aware that the covenants must contain provisions for ISDS maintenance, including a detailed maintenance plan. Close attention should be paid to the soils in the area regarding the appropriateness of ISDS which will need to be engineered systems. Staff provided the Applicant with a good maintenance guide to reference at the National Environmental Service Center at http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc septicnews.htm./ . The application materials do not include any information regarding a detailed maintenance plan. 10 • • The County Environmental Health Department suggests waste water generated from the RO systems could be diverted from the ISDS to fill the fire protection pond. The Applicant is reviewing this alternative. It would be beneficial in that it would augment the ditch water used as well as reduce stress on ISDS. G. Wildlife The application contains a wildlife study prepared by Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, Inc (Beattie Report). This report concludes that the subdivision will affect birds and small mammals associated with shrubland and grassland (western meadowlark, western kingbird, cottontail rabbit, deer mouse, meadow vole) and will affect mule deer. Additionally, due to the widespread availability of shrubland and grassland in Grass Mesa area, the subdivision will not cause significant population declines of theses birds and mammals. Foraging areas for mule deer will be reduced; however, mule deer will still have access to nearby undeveloped grasslands / haylands and shrublands on Silt Mesa. The prey base for coyotes, foxes, skunks, raccoons, crows, red-tailed hawks, ad owls will be diminished. There are no federal or Colorado threatened, endangered, or candidate wildlife or Colorado species of special concern which will be significantly impacted by the subdivision. In conclusion, although there will be a reduction in the quantity and distribution of wildlife, existing wildlife species should still maintain a presence on the development. Many affected species will relocate to undeveloped areas in the development. This subdivision will not result in the loss of critical wildlife habitat, nor will it affect wildlife migration corridors. Retaining native vegetation in those areas outside of building envelopes, laws, and entrance roads will benefit wildlife. Staff held a conversation with the Division of Wildlife District Manager, Brian Gray about the proposal. The DOW agrees with the comments provided in the Beattie Report as well as indicating the common threats by subdivisions which include dogs at large, fencing, and weed management. (Exhibit Q) H. Ditches and Easements As noted, the Farmer's Irrigation Ditch runs through the property. This ditch shall be legally described on the final plat. As commonly required, all easements of record shall be legally described on the final plat. The Garfield County Vegetation Manager has noted that irrigation ditches are common sources of weed infestations. The weed management plan should address weed management along ditches. I. Assessments / Fees The property is located in Traffic Study Area 6 of the Capital Improvements Plan which requires development to pay a Traffic Impact Fee. The Applicant can expect to pay approximately $210 per average daily trip for the 4 lots which generally equates to $8,038.00 of which $4,019.00 is due at final plat and the remainder half is paid as building permits are pulled for each lot by the individual lot owners. These fees will be more accurately determined at the time of final plat. 11 • • The development is also located in the RE -2 School District which requires a cash -in -lieu payment of a School / Land Dedication Fee of $200 per unit to be paid in full at the time of final plat. VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS The Planning Commission recommends approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan for the Silt Heights Subdivision with the following findings: 1. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law for the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties were heard at the hearings. 3. That the application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4:00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 4. That the application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4.00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. 5. That the application conforms to and is compatible with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. 6. That the proposed preliminary plan is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On December 14, 2005, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the Preliminary Plan of the Silt Heights Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Applicant shall include the following plat notes on the final plat: a) One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. b) No open hearth solid fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision. One (1) new solid fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the 12 • 1 regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances. c) All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. d) No further divisions of land within the Subdivision will be allowed. e) Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. f) All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County. g) Based on the analysis of the sub -soils on the property, Individual Sewage Treatment System and foundation designs are required to be conducted by a registered professional engineer licensed to practice within the State of Colorado. These studies and plans shall be submitted with individual building permit application for each lot. The cost of these studies shall be borne by the individual property owner. h) All streets are dedicated to the public but all streets will be constructed to standards consistent with Section 9:35 of the Subdivision regulation of 1984, as amended and repair and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association of the subdivision. i) The mineral rights associated with this property (also known as Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Silt Heights Subdivision) have been partially severed and are not fully intact or 13 J) • transferred with the surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s). The water quality analysis as contained in the Water Supply Plan prepared by Zancanella & Associates on September 1, 2005 states that the water from the well was tested and found to have a poor quality, in that, it exceeded the maximum contaminant level for selenium turbidity, sodium, chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, iron, and fluoride. The analysis states that "treatment of the water will be necessary prior to human consumption." It is required that treatment of this water shall be achieved by a Reverse Osmosis (RO) type system. Due to excessive water consumption required by an RO system, all design flows for Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall also be engineered to accommodate RO treatment systems. 3. The Applicant shall prepare an "Individual Sewage Disposal System Operation and Maintenance Plan" to be submitted to the Planning Department Staff for review prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. This plan shall be incorporated into the covenants as part of the final plat application review. 4. The protective covenants shall assign responsibility for weed management along roadsides and in common areas to the Homeowners Association. The covenants shall describe how weed management shall occur on individual lots and be managed by each individual lot owner. 5. The Applicant shall provide a map or information (prior to final plat) that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will be held for revegetation. 6. The Applicant shall provide the revegetation security in the form of a separate letter of credit (amount determined by the County Vegetation Director) to Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the County's adopted Reclamation Standards. The release of the security shall not occur until a formal opinion has been rendered by the County Vegetation Director as to the level of successful revegetation. This requirement shall be incorporated within the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA). 7. The Applicant shall provide a "Soil Management Plan" to the County Vegetation Director for approval as part of the final plat submittal. This plan shall include 1) provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil, 2) a timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles, 3) a plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. 8. The Applicant shall provide approved well permits for the wells that are to be drilled to provide water to the subdivision and an approved West Divide Water Conservancy District 14 • • contract as part of the final plat documents. In addition, and prior to the signing of the final plat, all physical water supplies shall demonstrate the following: a) That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used; b) A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level; c) The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge; d) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots; e) An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day; f) If the well is to be shared, a legal, well sharing declaration which discusses all easements and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the system and who will be responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made for these costs; g) The water quality be tested by an independent testing laboratory and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates. 9. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) as well as the protective covenants shall provide that the irrigation water rights / ditch shares currently assigned to the property are conveyed to and owned by the Homeowners' Association (HOA). All related easements shall be shown on the final plat and dedicated to the HOA. 10. The Applicant shall pay the Traffic Impact Fee to Garfield County to be calculated and paid prior to recordation of the final plat. 11. The Applicant shall pay the cash -in -lieu for the School Site Acquisition Fee for the RE -2 School District of $200 per dwelling unit prior to recordation of the final plat. 12. The Applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the protective covenants regarding fire protection for the subdivision: a) Vegetation should be removed from near any structures in order to provide a safe zone in the event of a wild land fire; b) When constructing access roadways into the parcels, consideration should be given to the weights of fire apparatus and accessibility during adverse weather conditions; c) The address of the properties are to be posted where the driveway access the County Road and on the residence itself if a shared driveway if used. Letters are to be a minimum of 4 inches in height, 1/2 inches in width and contrast with background colors, 15 • • 13. Should crossings of the Farmers Irrigation Ditch be required to access building sites, the crossings shall be approved by the Silt Water Conservancy District. Proof of this approval shall be submitted with any building permit application. 14. The applicant shall apply for a driveway access permit issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. and comply with the conditions of the permit. This shall include a paved apron at the driveway approach to CR 259 and a stop sign. The stop sign and the installation shall be as required by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. r�' 61 5 6A4 -o A jii) N 17. 16 • • GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form EXHIBIT Date Sent: November 15, 2000 Comments Due: December 6, 2005 Name of application: Silt Heights Subdivision Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff contact: Fred Jarman 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objections to this subdivision request with the following conditions. The applicant shall apply for a driveway access permit issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. and comply with the conditions of the permit. This would include a paved apron at the driveway approach to Cr. 259 and a stop sign. The stop sign and the installation shall be as required by the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept By: Jake B. Mall Date November 30, 2005 Revised 3/30/00 •• COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources - 1313 Sherman Street, Room 716 . Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 EXHIBIT STATE OF COLOR1 COLORADO D November 30, 2005 Legal: ESES28, T5S, R92W Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning Dept 108 8th St. Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Silt Heights Subdivision CGS Review No. GA -06-0003 Dear Mr. Jarman; DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972), I visited the site and reviewed the site plan on November 21, 2005. The site consists of approximately 36.4 acres and the proposed subdivision would split the existing property into 4 residential lots. There is an existing house on Parcel 4. Included in the review package were a sketch plan and preliminary plan documents by High Country Engineering (10-12-05), a Preliminary Subsoil Study by HP Geotech (10- 31-05), a Gamma Radiation Survey by HP Geotech (6-9-00), and a Drainage and Engineers report by High Country Engineering (10-18-05). 1. Subsurface properties. The Preliminary Subsoil Study by HP Geotech included 2 test borings to investigate the subsurface conditions. The test borings indicate that the subsurface on the property is predominantly sandy and silty clay overlying dense clay and sand with sandstone bedrock at 12 and 36 feet in depth. HP Geotech suggests that there is strong potential for swelling based on swell/consolidation tests. Careful management of the subsoils and the groundwater is essential on this property to avoid foundation problems due to swelling and collapsing soils. Drilled pier foundations may be necessary in areas with high clay content. Site-specific soil investigations should be conducted at the proposed building sites per the recommendations of HP Geotech. 2. Erosion. There are steep banks adjacent to the irrigation ditch, which runs through the property. Piping, or underground erosion, is possible next to the ditch. Building envelopes should have a setback from these steep slopes. Standard erosion control practices should be utilized during construction to mitigate for erosion. Silt Heights SubdivisionnGS Review No. GA -06-0003 Page". 3. Perched groundwater. The property has stiff clays at relatively shallow depths below the surface, which may lead to perched groundwater. HP Geotech recommends that an underdrain system should be provided to protect below -grade construction from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup. 4. Fill. There are numerous areas with man-made fill on the property that must be removed and replaced with structural fill prior to construction. 5. Accessory Building Sites. The accessory building sites for parcels 2 and 3, shown on the preliminary plan, are on the opposite (west) side of the irrigation ditch from the access driveway. If the accessory building sites are to be utilized, then an engineered bridge must be constructed over the irrigation ditch. These accessory sites may be more problematic for shallow groundwater, because they lie at a lower elevation than the rest of the building envelopes. If the recommendations in the Preliminary Subsoil Study by HP Geotech and the recommendations in this letter are followed, then this office has no other concerns regarding the geologic hazards at this subdivision. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact me at (303) 866-3350, or andy.gleason(a�state.co.us. Sincerely, 7K4 Andy Gleason Geologist • • STATF OF COLOT EXHIBIT COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 E-MAILED COLORADO E-MA 1/,--?,0-c- 1 November 30, 2005 Legal: ESES28, T5S, R92W Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning Dept 108 8th St. Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Silt Heights Subdivision CGS Review No. GA -06-0003 Dear Mr. Jarman; DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972), I visited the site and reviewed the site plan on November 21, 2005. The site consists of approximately 36.4 acres and the proposed subdivision would split the existing property into 4 residential Tots. There is an existing house on Parcel 4. Included in the review package were a sketch plan and preliminary plan documents by High Country Engineering (10-12-05), a Preliminary Subsoil Study by HP Geotech (10- 31-05), a Gamma Radiation Survey by HP Geotech (6-9-00), and a Drainage and Engineers report by High Country Engineering (10-18-05). 1. Subsurface properties. The Preliminary Subsoil Study by HP Geotech included 2 test borings to investigate the subsurface conditions. The test borings indicate that the subsurface on the property is predominantly sandy and silty clay overlying dense clay and sand with sandstone bedrock at 12 and 36 feet in depth. HP Geotech suggests that there is strong potential for swelling based on swell/consolidation tests. Careful management of the subsoils and the groundwater is essential on this property to avoid foundation problems due to swelling and collapsing soils. Drilled pier foundations may be necessary in areas with high clay content. Site-specific soil investigations should be conducted at the proposed building sites per the recommendations of HP Geotech. 2. Erosion. There are steep banks adjacent to the irrigation ditch, which runs through the property. Piping, or underground erosion, is possible next to the ditch. Building envelopes should have a setback from these steep slopes. Standard erosion control practices should be utilized during construction to mitigate for erosion. FROM :Mour,4ainCrossEng,Inc December 06, 2005 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning 108 81I' Street, Suite 201. Glenwood. Springs, CO 81601 FAX NO. :9709455558 •c. 06 2005 MOUNTfI ENGINEERING,INC. EXHIBIT CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN RE: Review of Sketch/Preliminary Plan Submittal for Silt Heights Dear Fred: A review has been performed of the documents for the Sketch/Preliminary Plan Submittal for Silt Heights. The package was foundto be well organized. The following comments; questions, or concerns were generated: Protective Covenants: 1.. Definition for Lot/Lots refers to Lots 1-5. Only four lots are proposed. 2. Individual Wells refers to Lots 1-5. Only four lots are proposed. Geotechnical. Report: 3. Soils with expansive potential were encountered, Specific building foundation designs will be necessary. A note on the Final Plat would satisfy this recommendation. Wildlife Report: 4, The recommendations in the Wildlife Report 'should be included in the Protective Covenants. Water Supply Plan: 5. The water supply plan provides results and permits for two wells. Based on these results it is probable that two other wells can be permitted, hut not certain. Prior to Final Plat the other two wells need to be permitted or a water distribution system. Meeting the requirements of Section 9:50 of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County needs to be proposed, 6. There are no specifics concerning the irrigation water. Article VII and VIII of the Protective Covenants requires irrigation water come from the irrigation ditch per allotted share but novolume or flow rate is specified. The August 29, 2000 letter from the Silt Water Conservancy District requires the future irrigation be only on ground thatis historically irrigated. No delineation of historically irrigated arca is shown. Perhaps the allotment done share per Lot does not coincide with the historically irrigated area. This should be investigated. 7. How is the Fire Protection Pond proposed to be filled? Which share is to be used for filling the pond? 8. Why is there no consumptive use or evaporative losses allocatedfor the fire protection pond? Are storage and' evaporation allowed uses of the water from the Farmer's Irrigation Company Ditch? 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH:.970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross..engram FROM :Mount�inCrossEng,Inc Silt Heights FAX NO. :9709455558 •c. 06 2005 04:11PM P3 Page 2 of 2 12/06/2005 Drainage Report: 9. Access to Lots 3, 2, and perhaps 1 will need to cross the proposed roadside ditch. How will. the ditch flow be maintained with the anticipated driveways? if a culvert is proposed. what size is necessary? Js the proposed ditch section sufficient to convey the anticipated flows? Shallow Utility, Water Service, and Sewage Treatment Report: 10. A proposed ISDS operation maintenance plan needs to be provided. Septic systems should be addressed in. the Protective Covenants. Plan Sheets: 11. What is the required cover on the 36" pipe? It appears that there could be less than 12 The profile of the road niay.need to be modified if the culvert flow!i.ne and size is constrained. 12. How does storm water cross either CR 259 or the shared driveway access at the intersection. with. CR 259? :Is a culvert(s) required? 13. It appears that the 30,000 gallon fire storage volume is at an elevation of5692'. I•fthis is correct then it also appears that some seasonal fluctuation is to be expected in the water surface elevation. This would then decrease the fire storage volume. Is this decreased volume acceptable to the Fire District? 14. How is this pond to be filled and maintained? 15. The depth of the pond is relatively shallow, especially in light of the seasonal variations. At the proposed water depths wetland plants are expected to thrive and engulfthe entirety of the pond. This could pose significant functional problems to the fire protection use proposed. 16. The pond intake appears to be placed directly on the bottom of the pond. Generally the intake is placed above the bottom of the pond a set distance to limit the amount of silts and sediment that would be pumped. Feel {free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or Comments. Sincerely, MountaiCross Engi.p ering, Inc. t 1 its Hale, PE C: Mr. Daniel Dennison, High Country Engineering, Inc. AI CROSS E C Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design R26 1/2 CrLind Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 5.1601 P: 970.945.5544 1, 970.945.5558 www.mountnincroweng.com • Fred Jarman • EXHIBIT From: Matt Sturgeon [msturgeon@rifleco.org] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 9:53 PM To: fjarman@garfield-county.com Subject: Silt Heights Fred, Rifle has no comments re Silt Heights Subdivision. As always, thanks for the opportunity to comment. Have a great holiday season! Matt Sturgeon, Director Planning and Development City of Rifle 1 .. • STATE OCOLO � EXHIBIT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 www.water.state.co.us December 2, 2005 Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning Dept 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Silt Heights Subdivision Sketch/Preliminary Plan Secs. 27, 28 & 34, T5S, R92W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 39 Bill Owens Governor Russell George Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, P.E. State Engineer Dear Fred: We have reviewed the above -referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 36.435 acres into four residential lots with one single-family dwelling and one accessory dwelling on each lot. The applicant proposes to supply domestic water through individual on -lot wells. Sewage disposal is to be through individual septic systems. Irrigation water will be provided through the dedication by the applicant of one Farmers Irrigation Company share to each lot for this purpose. Domestic use is estimated at 350 gpd per dwelling, and the irrigation of 2500 square feet per lot is estimated to require 1.6 AF annually. The applicant currently holds five well permits for the subject property. Permit No. 210911-A was issued for the replacement of an existing well. A condition of approval on the permit requires the applicant to submit a Well Abandonment Report to affirm that the old well has been plugged and abandoned. No such report has been received by this office Since Permit No. 210911-A was issued pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A) as the only well on the parcel and the parcel is now being subdivided, the presumption under CRS 37-92- 602(3)(b)(II)(A) that there will not be material injury to the vested water rights of others or to any other existing well from such well will no longer apply. As such, an augmentation plan is required to offset depletions caused by the pumping of all wells. Based on me above, Permit No. 210911-A cannot be considered a legal source of supply. Since the applicant currently holds four permits issued pursuant to 37-90-137(2), Permit No. 210911-A should be cancelled and the well should be plugged and abandoned. Permit No. 61928-F was issued for the Silt Heights Well No. 1 on November 2, 2004 and expired on November 2, 2005. The applicant may submit evidence of well construction and pump installation along with the required $30.00 late filing fee to reinstate the permit. Permit Nos. 61929-F and 61930-F were issued on November 2, 2004 for the Silt Heights Well Nos. 2 and 3, respectively. The expiration date for both permits has been extended upon the applicant's request until November 2, 2006. Permit No. 61931-F was issued for the Silt Heights Well No. 4 on November 2, 2004. A Well Construction and Test Report was received by this office on April 13, 2005. The applicant must submit a Pump Installation and Test Report along with the required $30.00 late filing fee to maintain a valid permit for this well. The uses of Silt Heights Well Nos. 1-4 are each limited each to ordinary household purposes inside one single-family dwelling and one accessory dwelling unit and the irrigation of not more than 2500 square feet of home gardens and lawns. • • Fred Jarman Silt Heights Page 2 December 2, 2005 The maximum pumping rate for each well is 15 gpm, and the average annual diversion from all four wells combined is limited to 4.57 AF. The submittal also included a copy of Contract No. 020328SHS(a) between the applicant and West Divide Water Conservancy District (District) for 1.55 AF of replacement water. The September 1, 2005 Water Supply Report by Zancanella and Associates, Inc. included in the submittal incorrectly indicates that the Silt Heights Well No. 1 was drilled under Permit No. 210911-A. As stated above, Permit No. 61928-F was issued for the Silt Heights Well No. 1. This report indicates that both constructed wells were completed within the Tertiary Wasatch Formation. The report references a well test completed by Samuelson Pump Company, which indicates that the well constructed under Permit No. 210911-A produced an average of 7.5 gallons per minute over a two-hour period on April 14, 2003. The report also incorrectly indicates that the Silt Heights Weil No. 2 was constructed under Permit No. 61931-F. As stated above, Permit No. 61931-F was issued for the Silt Heights Well No. 4. The well test completed by Samuelson Pump Company indicates that the Silt Heights Well No. 4 produced an average of 3 gallons per minute over a three-hour period on April 5, 2005. If the additional wells have similar production rates and sufficient storage capacity is provided, the domestic water supply should be physically adequate. No information was provided regarding the irrigation water supply. Based on the above, and pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), it is our opinion that the proposed domestic water supply is physically adequate, however material injury will occur to decreed water rights unless the applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits for the proposed wells pursuant to the District's temporary substitute supply plan. Due to a lack of information, we are unable to comment on the physical adequacy of the irrigation supply. The use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place of use is changed. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance. Sincerely, Craig M. Li , P.E. Water Resource Engineer CML/CJL/Silt Heights.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 James Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39 • • MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Silt Heights Subdivision Date: December 9, 2005 EXHIBIT ti\ Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Silt Heights Subdivision. Mr. Beach in his Wetlands Report, mentions the noxious weeds plumeless thistle and Canada thistle. Mr. Beattie in his Wildlife Report mentions "tamarisk trees are scattered among the sagebrush on Lotl ". The Vegetation Management Department requests that the applicant survey the parcel for Garfield County Noxious Weeds and provide a weed management plan for any weeds found on the property. It is the recommendation of this department that the applicant be required to treat the tamarisk trees prior to the issuance of any permit or before final plat. Russian olives should be treated in the same manner if they are inventoried on the property. tf\ • • • EXHIBIT g We feel the Silt Heights Subdivision proposed by Terri Patrick should not be approved by the planning commission for the following reasons — 1) Lack of water - when we moved to our property our well produced 3 gallons a minute. Our well now produces less than 1 a gallon per minute. We feel this is because of all the wells that have been drilled since our well was drilled. When 2 more wells are drilled we will probably have no water. We have to haul our water, and I think that if this new subdivision is approved they will end up having to haul water also. 2) What water will be used to fill the pond they are proposing for fire protection. How will it be kept from evaporating. How will the pond be kept from leaking. Terry Milton put a pond on his property and it did not hold water. Will the pond location affect where the school bus turns around? If the pond breaks will it flood Everett Jewell's house? 3) At the current time there are subdivisions that have been approved within a 3 mile radius, and at this time we do not feel another one is needed. Some of these subdivisions are — the Native Springs Subdivision, the Sun Meadows subdivision, and Paul Bagley has 10 acre lots on County Road 260. Until these subdivisions are at capacity we don't need any more. All of these subdivisions have more water, both domestic & irrigation, and some have utilities. 4) We also feel that 8 homes is too many. The impact on the surrounding wildlife will be too much. The deer will be affected because of their migration to the farmers irrigation ditch for water. 5) Who is going to maintain the shared access road from the end of the public right of way to lot 4. 6) We do not want to be forced into joining a home owners association for maintenance of the road. We have taken care of the shared access road for 8 years jointly with Bob & Sue Coquoz. Terri has never done any maintenance on the road, or offered to help pay for any of the gravel that has been put on the road. We are concerned that even though she says the homeowners association will take care of the road, based on past experience with Terri it will never happen. 7) We are not sure if Terri owns her Mineral Rights. How are the new owners going to feel about a drill rig on their 5 acres. Thank you for your consideration. Please do not approve this subdivision. Dan & Dawn Bailey eGarfield County 1 • Public Health Memorandum 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 PH (970) 625-5200 FX (970) 625-4804 To: Fred Jarman, Senior Planner From: Jim Rada, Environmental Health Manager Date: December 5, 2005 Subject: Silt Heights Subdivision Preliminary Plan Application Review I offer the following comments with regard to this proposed subdivision application. Water Supply EXHIBIT 9 0 Although the quantity of water appears to be adequate as demonstrated by the pump tests, the quality of water is far from ideal. Homeowners will need to be aware of the risks of elevated selenium as the levels detected in well #1 exceed the Colorado Primary Drinking Water MCL for this parameter. Owners should be advised in some manner to routinely monitor (test) their water supply for selenium along with coliform bacteria, even if they install treatment systems. Property owners can expect to install significant point of service water treatment equipment in order to prevent problems normally associated with very hard and turbid water as well as problems associate with significant iron content. In addition, high levels of sulfate and iron could lead to long-term fouling of wells, pumps and plumbing fixtures due to development of naturally occurring organisms that metabolize these minerals. Property owners will likely need to conduct routine maintenance on their wells to control development of these organisms and the associated effects that they have on both water quality and quantity. ISDS As with other recent subdivisions, the soils in this area appear to be in the poor category in terms of suitability for ISDS. Although there is no percolation data, the NRCS soils information in the drainage report and the geotechnical report indicate that the predominant soils in this area have moderate to low permeability and significant shrink -swell potential. These concerns for regular household wastewater flows will likely be overcome by the large lot size, however, property owners can expect to install very large and expensive ISDS. Although I concur with Zancanella and Associates that design engineers will need to consider the wastewater flow from any water treatment system in terms of its potential effects on the ISDS I strongly discourage the discharge of this waste stream to the ISDS. Additional flow of clear water could quickly overwhelm the marginal soils. Perhaps it might be advantageous to look at the opportunity to pipe water treatment waste to an onsite water feature, drywell, fire protection cistern, or to a collection line that drains to the fire protection pond. Recommendations Perhaps a plat note could be added that would require the developer to provide educational information regarding water quality in the subdivision and what a homeowner will likely have to do to make the water potable and palatable. In addition, the educational materials should include information about well operation and maintenance needs for wells with water of this quality. Although not specifically required by the ISDS Regulations, I recommend that water treatment devices be discharged away from the septic systems. Such discharges could have extremely detrimental effects on the operation of these systems. l • 1 EXHIBIT P I, Terri Patrick, give my permission to Shari Neuroth to answer any questions pertaining to my subdivision, Silt Mesa Heights, at the Garfield County Planning Meeting on December 14th, 2005. If needed, I will be available by phone. \Ur la 1 i Patrick Date Notary • STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Bruce McCloskey, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 December 5, 2005 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 80601 RE: Silt Heights Subdivision, Sketch / Preliminary Plan Dear Mr. Jarman: For Wildlife - For People District Wildlife Manager, Brian Gray, has had the opportunity to review the referral documents for this proposed subdivision. He is also familiar with this area and was able to make a site visit several days ago. Since a comprehensive wildlife report was completed for the property, many of the issues concerning wildlife in the subdivision area have been addressed. The wildlife issues regarding dogs, fencing, game damage and nuisance species have been thoroughly covered in the report. The Colorado Division of Wildlife supports the suggested restrictions that are referred to on pages 16-21 of the report. Some of the impacts to wildlife in the area will be minimized if these restrictions are implemented. The wildlife report states in the summary of wildlife impacts that foraging areas for mule deer will be reduced and that the prey base for many other species will be diminished. It also states that many of the affected species in the developed area will relocate to undeveloped areas. While the impacts to wildlife in this area will not be overly significant on a small scale, the cumulative increase in developments such as this will have significant impacts to populations of wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on land use issues for Garfield County. If you have any questions, please contact Brian Gray (DWM Rifle North). Sincerely, Dean Riggs Area Wildlife Manager cc: John Bredehoft Ron Velarde Brian Gray John Toolen 2005 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Russell George, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair • Tom Burke, Vice Chair • Ken Torres, Secretary Members, Robert Bray • Rick Enstrom • Philip James • Claire O'Neal • Richard Ray • Robert Shoemaker Ex Officio Members, Russell George and Don Ament • CIVIL ENGINEERING An Employee -Owned Company 3/25/06 Revised Response Letter to the comments from the review Engineering: December 06, 2005 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • LAND SUR engineer from Mountain Cross 9007, t add RE: Review of Sketch/Preliminary Plan Submittal for Silt Heights Dear Fred: A review has been performed of the documents for the Sketch/Preliminary Plan Submittal for Silt Heights. The package was found to be well organized. The following comments, questions, or concerns were generated: Protective Covenants: 1. Definition for Lot/Lots refers to Lots 1-5. Only four lots are proposed. This has been revised. 2. Individual Wells refers to Lots 1-5. Only four lots are proposed. This has been revised. Geotechnical Report: 3. Soils with expansive potential were encountered. Specific building foundation designs will be necessary. A note on the Final Plat would satisfy this recommendation. .l note has been added to the final plat. Wildlife Report: / The recommendations in the Wildlife Report should be included in the Protective Covenants. This will be addressed prior to submittal offinal plans. Water Supply Plan: /The water supply plan provides results and permits for two wells. Based on these results it is probable that two other wells can be permitted, but not certain. Prior to Final Plat the other two wells need to be permitted or a water distribution system meeting the requirements of Section 9:50 of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County needs to be proposed. The owner understands that the remaining two wells must be drilled and tested for adequacy 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.8676 phone 970.945.2555 fax www.hceng.com 14 Inverness Drive East, Suite F-120 Englewood, CO 80112 303.925.0544 phone 303.925.0547 fax ., Silt Heights f • Page 2 of 5 • 12/06/2005 prior to recording of the final plat. There are no specifics concerning the irrigation water. Article VII and VIII of the Protective Covenants requires irrigation water come from the irrigation ditch per allotted share but no volume or flow rate is specified. The August 29, 2000 letter from the Silt Water Conservancy District requires the future irrigation be only on ground that is historically irrigated. No delineation of historically irrigated area is shown. Perhaps the allotment of one share per Lot does not coincide with the historically irrigated area. This should be investigated. The owner is working with the Silt Water Conservancy .District to determine what uses are proper. for- the 4 shares in the landscaping of the lots. The 5th share is dedicated to the fire protection pond. How is the Fire Protection Pond proposed to be filled? Which share is to be used for filling the pond? The pond will be filled in the future with the 5th share from the Farmer 's Ditch during the irrigation season. The pond will be filled with waste water front the well water treatment systems ofLots 1 through 3 in the non -irrigation months. If this pond is not maintaining the 30,000 gallon level, the homeowners association will be responsible for trucking the necessary water to the pond. A letter from West .Divide Water Conservancy District is included in the submittal package that states the issues of water allotment can not be addressed until the augmentation plan is approved fi?r this portion of Silt Mesa in Water Court. We can't dedicate our well water for use in fire storage until this plan is in place. The district expects this to be resolved in the next 3 months. Why is there no consumptive use or evaporative losses allocated for the fire protection pond? Are storage and evaporation allowed uses of the water from the Farmer's Irrigation Company Ditch? These questions are valid. As stated above this change in use is still pending with the West Divide Water Conservancy Districts augmentation plan approval. Drainage Report: Access to Lots 3, 2, and perhaps 1 will need to cross the proposed roadside ditch. How will the ditch flow be maintained with the anticipated driveways? If a culvert is proposed what V size is necessary? Is the proposed ditch section sufficient to convey the anticipated flows? The roadside ditch on the west side of the road has been upsized to 24" deep to allow for future driveway culvert installations. The 24" roadside ditches and 15" driveway culverts will be sufficient to pass the anticipated flows. Shallow Utility, Water Service, and Sewage Treatment Report: A proposed ISDS operation maintenance plan needs to be provided. Septic systems should / be addressed in the Protective Covenants. The .ISDS systems are now covered in the covenants. Plan Sheets: Silt Heights • Page 3 of 5 • 12/06/2005 What is the required cover on the 36" pipe? It appears that there could be less than 12". The V profile of the road may need to be modified if the culvert flowline and size is constrained. We do have one foot of cover on the irrigation pipe upon fiirther investigation. How does storm water cross either CR 259 or the shared driveway access at the intersection /with CR 259? Is a culvert(s) required? The intersection acts as a high point in the drainage and the roadside ditches split to the east and west. The irrigation ditch intercepts all the roadside drainage to the north of the irrigation ditch historically. The improvements to the road will not change this scenario. It appears that the 30,000 gallon fire storage volume is at an elevation of 5692'. If this is correct then it also appears that some seasonal fluctuation is to be expected in the water /surface elevation. This would then decrease the fire storage volume. Is this decreased volume acceptable to the Fire District? Thef re department will expect that the pond be monitored and the niiiliinum storage volume maintained throughout the calendar year. How is this pond to be filled and maintained? / .The pond will be filled with ditch water from the Farmer 's .Irrigation Ditch during the V irrigation season and with wastewater from the well treatment systems of'lots 1, 2, and 3 in the non -irrigation season. The depth of the pond is relatively shallow, especially in light of the seasonal variations. At the proposed water depths wetland plants are expected to thrive and engulf the entirety of the pond. This could pose significant functional problems to the fire protection use proposed. The pond will be treated to prevent wetland plant proliferation per the covenants and will be the responsibility of the HOA. The pond intake appears to be placed directly on the bottom of the pond. Generally the /intake is placed above the bottom of the pond a set distance to limit the amount of silts and 1./ sediment that would be pumped. We will adjust the dry hydrant intake to limit the issues related to the silting of the pond bottom. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, PE Silt Heights • Page 4 of 5 • 12/06/2005 3/25/06 Response Letter to the Comments from the review engineer from Garfield County Health Department: December 05, 2005 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Water Supply Although the quantity of water appears to be adequate as demonstrated by the pump tests, the quality water is far from ideal. Homeowners will need to be aware of the risks of elevated selenium as the levels detected in well #lexceed the Colorado Primary Drinking Water MCL for this parameter. Owner should be advised in some manner to routinely monitor (test) their water supply for selenium along with coliform bacteria, even if they install treatment systems. Property owners can expect to install significant point of service water treatment equipment in order to prevent problems normally associated with very hard and turbid water as well as problems associated with significant iron content. In addition, high levels of sulfate and iron could lead to long-term fouling of wells, pumps and plumbing fixtures due to development of naturally occurring organisms that metabolize these minerals. Property owners will likely need to conduct routine maintenance on their wells to control development of these organisms and the associated effects that they have on both water quality and quantity. These recommendations will he added to the covenants and can be added as plat notes i f the County , ttioLlld pX"E' E'Y. - . ISDS As with other recent subdivisions, the soils in this area appear to be in the poor category in term of suitability for ISDS. Although there is no percolation data, the NRCS soils information in the drainage report and the geotechnical report indicate that the predominant soils in this area have moderate to low permeability and significant shrink -swell potential. These concerns for regular household wastewater flows will likely be overcome by the large lot size, however, property owners can expect to install very large and expensive ISDS. Although I concur with Zancanella and Associates that design engineers will need to consider the wastewater flow from any water treatment system in terms of potential effects on the ISDS. I strongly discourage the discharge of this waste stream to the ISDS. Additional flow of clear water could quickly overwhelm the marginal soils. Perhaps it might be advantageous to look at the opportunity to pipe water treatment waste to an onsite water feature, drywall, fire protection cistern, or to a collection line that drains to the fire protection pond. The revised plans show the wastewater of the water treatment system to be directed to the fire protection pond. This should keep the ISDS system front being overwhelmed. If the County feels a plat note is necessary to prepare homeowners for the possibility of'an expensive ISDS system, the owner wotdd a'. Silt Heights Page 5 of 5 12/06/2005 Recommendations Perhaps a plat note could be added that would require the developer to provide educational information regarding water quality in the subdivision and what a homeowner will likely have to do to make the water potable and palatable. In addition, the educational materials should include information about well operation and maintenance needs for wells with water of this quality. Plat notes for ISDS systems and water quality can be added if the County Commissioners feel it is necesswy together with notes in the covenants and restrictions. Although not specifically required by the ISDS Regulations, I recommend that water treatment devices be discharged away from the septic systems. Such discharges could have extremely ,detrimental effects on the operation of these systems. The revised plan is to take the treatment discharge to the fire protection pond. Dan Dennison High Country Engineering May.10. 2006 10:2IAM Oil COUNTRY ENG] PICKED UP BY HAND Terry Patrick P.O. Box 561 Rifle, Co 81650 EER:NG March 16, 2006 RE: SILT HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION Dear Terry: EXHIBIT S Enclosed herein please find a revised draft Grant of Easements and Declaration, together with a redline version which highlights the changes since the last draft. I believe I have incorporated the requested changes and revisions. As you know, when we put the last draft together, it was anticipated that there would be five lots rather than four. One of the changes we made was to delete reference to an easement from the Farmers Irrigation Ditch to what was parcel 5. It is my understanding from looking at the preliminary plat that alI lots will have direct access to the Farmers Irrigation Ditch and an easement for access to the Ditch will not be necessary. Please also note that the section on sewer disposal systems may need some additional input from the Engineer. We have added provisions into the latest draft concerning weed management, wildlife, ISDS and fire protection. We also added other language requested by the County. T am not sure what is needed with regard to the pond and waste water issues. Let me know what language you desire and I can insert the same. Please also take a look at the irrigation water issue. The note from the County indicated that the Farmers Irrigation shares are to be conveyed to the Association rather than to the respective lot owners and we have inserted language to that effect. Ultimately, you will need a Subdivision Improvement Agreement as well and we will be happy to help in preparing this once you have more information on what is required for the same. Mav,10. 2006 10:22A1 COUNTRY ENGINEERING • No.1660 P. 3/3 As requested, we have also reviewed the issue of the access easement. Specifically, we have looked at the deed recorded in Book 1026 at Page 378, (the deed by which you acquired the property from the Elders). As you know, the property you acquired is subject to a "permanent non-exclusive access and utility easement" which benefits property to the north of yours. The deed prohibits the placing of any fence or obstruction across the easement. The easement reserved by the sellers in the deed to you is non-exclusive which means that you can make reasonable use of the easement so long as it does not interfere with the right of the properties the easements benefits. 1 do not see how your anticipated use of the easement interferes with the existing right of use of the properties to the north of yours. Once you have had the opportunity to review the enclosed please let me know how I can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, STOVER, LeMOINE & CLIFTON, P.C, Daniel D. LeMoine DDUpac Enclosures �...unt IIs`FAFSaf"`U. t _ .. and other good ..:id :ea Dollars •i-. .....bap t r:.-r<..,t ,, ijrrehy nye,ents orae- gr.•art.. hargarn, See Exhibit A which is :-rtached hereto and incorporated by reference. 10!GITFUER. .,'I, - . -3:,,, c ,� rot.;. -di .n avt,. ar ...t,r',.r r.encr- .t, .ret..:,riangnng. on .n lin;.wn.,n apps: - a.'?.. )r, Lr. ;c _ - i J.., e<..:a ind,r ar, '7-ai•hd r' e h! :u,,5 and profit t*. rent: and ail the 7„ m:.n.i .u. t t 'nefir -1 part, KitiJt•E•'ft taa nra• ive`<c.o:. tJ .tI , .,.. .' ' l.f• hf•i .,din,,,,, and appkil tt':..i1,1,' e,. TO H. F .INC! To fJo[ li t , :....-, :ti r,'we i,ari:..' .d and deseia bed, wit' the appo. le aneei, utitt. t}et tnur :trat tt u(tfw v , ,rui part. his _,.. ,a fotes ea. nn,t the said party of th,e first part. =ar• naraseif.:uri herr. e -r ertti sirs, a,ut udrr.t rvt:.aatnr , _ :unail!, grant. barge r.. and agree to and with the said pr.: f.f the second part. hc. heir rEnttuas:gn=, that at th, time of the ensrarirnp; and dc•tnerg if Chest. pre.-rnt.., he is wen 1,ehend of the premiows• u.hot: tN i...................sure. perfect. :hsniute and itrd is a> bVe e -tate •,f !ph, ritance, rn tax‘,..:n fnevitni . and fit- get.a, n r,zt'r,t. f h pow,, old .awfu:..at.iorits to grant, hang;tin..era tt..d _,,r:c �y the .•,, in :..,rine: and fr r'rn as. a''., xold thatthe carne are free and. ,:'ear from as former hIlk otit.•t grant,,, • argar.... •ak,'.#teu,v. saxe,. ....:t,..tz.. .. at *: .:nibrancYs of whatever kind or nature r.e..er., except as to those matters listed in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated by reference. e> „f the.. 501 party of the ,a0:on.1 part. in elasm the whole :,r any part the E}< DEFEND. Tbr s-24 alar niftntsr $ he applicable :atoll lresnier.,. y: e'rl ntulse•t iil • hand and sea : tP•" 'LW od yrar .' Gene Mulvihill as Trust€e in Trust for Andrew Mulvihill IF -44,1 in Trust vihil' as Trustee for Andre';, ".ulvit;i Addrr•o'; "Li.. fou K t- cat.'_dcrxrci's t.t�dL'.) .Ln Lrae c Soetirt '"'!::L of i0 the ro11 ay Beg.l nn_Lng t_ s, point. e;rr tlr_ ear; t 1 _ . �... 33, whence 'the no.. . r ries;i coI:sscr of i.ei Scut, beats N. 0"CI C'.w4" 6;. 653.92 f. _'.4.; c. .lt.r;{ line of eau C... s; L ng roadway the ` t l..f =`., l,lg six courses; along a curve to the fi(jhat. h... { a central .3 l�;l.c.� of".101'.3.`;>' y,;., r; radius of 6(h.79 %oa' i: engin of 1.19.59 .feet. and o, which the a ,4,:::: 51°08'41" E. 104.24 feet; thence S. 77'0;' 0' E. 20.94 feet; thence along a cl: rvo to tho loft ' av i n ; :s cc ntee +. angle of. 7'41'54"; a radius; of 000.00 feel, an antic length o, f 107,40 feet and of which the chord ba: s: 0L°24'36' E, 107.41 feet; Lta n::.c. r,. 85°1'113","E. a.t`r.,i..is feet; thence aloin' a curve to t::1 loft-. 1 ..v.i__g c>..htr,aaa angle of 9'33'40' a :radint of 650.00 teef, , an arc length of 100.12. feet <:sd of '0 the c ,.. near... 89'57'37" E. 100.01 foot; thence N. 85".1.5'/7' E. foot (to a point hcrooin.11 tog. t.`^3re 1 ori t iic. east:. line ne- of the west 15 acres of the , ° i Sin 8A, of Section 27, th .n e leaving said r0 .r5 N 0'13'07" W. 1305.67 foot along ti:c east line of_ t,I. West 15.00 acres of the SW14Sifi' of said Section thence N. 84°54a19 W. 490.04 fort alone the N of the Sw4SWt of said Scotto:: 27 to ttco :;.).r'thea ' said 8 >> : 2 '.� , trr, l , :. r' ra Corner<t E the ST %E.4>t� ; of, .. 87e01'43" W. 566.94 foot along :?S" pes..'.7e of Seetion ..f?:i .!8; t-hG1 ce S. 6°0 '3'-' fee?t.; to a pai7t. 1n the/ 000t :( of 00 e: io. r .s . . i fto -,,,,r,--,c, .' [ L a" (to a point Yrc.ac n , theace along Li:u centerline of at . ; fs'7 1': place! the following eight co i then,::(,.. ' r -t F. 405.03 feet; t: ,,nee along a et -ye to the lot . ': ; a central 4%.193e of 12°34'27", a ro1,. a en arc length of 35.'1 feet and of 2 l i r bears S. 12'21'53" E. 35.04 feet; thener S. L''�.. E_ 203.24 foct. thence along a curve to $.1'a.; left hal aq c7 t7-.Iltval ail}ie. of 37'03'30", a radt.0,-, of 'OL.00 fe,�ett`. an arc Zc:.:agti of 258.7;2 foot:r,c; e>f :Ale Lire c3aco(,; S. 37°10' 1,1 0. 254.23 f i i+i..'.tit'r, s 55°'�4'.2t" " ' - t 0 _ .0()..144 c :,�'vc to E t"ta* �l i r,�hk'. ha V*k aj t.?e) feet; t.:.: �. �.; j' 30 , ii c,3 7.fs;, 7'i fs' X it t x ., 1 an ' «'t Via+ arc 1(.:1-,, r . e it. •( $: r'r t chord t t o q. cud' i r.a7kt., ;r. 't,>.`' 1. )7.41 7s' 4:/**,a ?�-3'z. t•.°t c- 4 1 Reservations and exceptions contained in the United latent to the described Property. Rion of an undivided on' tr a l o i , gas and Jth r minerals owned under the described property, subject to leases, as reserved by J. Everett Jewell Warranty Deed recorded April 25, 1970 as F, o'K 409 at Page 337. half interest :in and fiy them in, on or existing oil and gas and Ora .Jane Jewe11 in Document No. 246121 in 2ii and Gas Lease recorded January 7, 1974 aF Document No. , , look 453 at page 476. way and easements as shown on the Boundary v Pioneer Engineering f, Surveying Company dated November 19'9, revised February 7, 1980. eed of trust from Richard E. Barr to the Public c;urfie1d County securing J. Evere't Jewell and Ora we;1, said Deed of Trust dated April 1, 1970 and d :April 23, .1970 as Document No. 246122 in Book 499 at essmcnts becoming due and payable after • May 10, 2006 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • MOl1NTPlI ENGINEE EXHIBIT CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN RE: Review of Response to Preliminary Plan Submittal for Silt Heights Dear Fred: The response dated March 25, 2006 from High Country Engineering, has been reviewed for comments to the Preliminary Plan submittal for Silt Heights. Generally, all the comments have been addressed. Many are to be incorporated at the time of final plat with revisions to the protective covenants and/or plans. We find that this is acceptable, as long as it as also acceptable to the Commissioners of Garfield County. The one exception to the above may be the water supply. It appears that many of the comments concerning water for landscaping, well wastes, and fire supply are pending a West Divide Water Conservancy augmentation plan that is pending in Water Court. It is difficult to determine the impacts if the plan is not approved. It may be appropriate to approve the Preliminary Plan with the condition that the augmentation plan be approved prior to Final Plat. However it may be more appropriate to have this determination prior to Preliminary Plan approval. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain oss Eng' e ing, Inc. / l ale, PE C: Mr. Daniel Dennison, High Country Engineering, Inc. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com