HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 08.09.2000PC 8/9/00
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: A request for review of a Sketch Plan for a four (4)
lot subdivision on thirty-six (36) acres.
APPLICANT: Terri Patrick
ENGINEER: High Country Engineering
LOCATION: trcel lies between Rifle and Silt, north of I-70, at
the end of CR 259. Sections 27, 28, 34, Township 5
S, Range 92 W.
WATER: Individual wells for each lot.
SEWER: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS)
ACCESS: Easement to CR 259
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD in all directions
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
According to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1984, this site lies in "District
D — Rural Areas / Moderate Environmental Constraints". District D is described as
having a fair ability to absorb growth. The suggested density is no more than one (1)
dwelling unit per five (5) acres.
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Site Description: The site lies at the toe of the hogback and consists of rolling pasture
land. Existing vegetation includes mature cottonwood trees, sagebrush, and grasses. A
stock pond also exists on the site (location is not shown on plan). The site possesses a
180 degree view of the Bookcliffs and Colorado River valley. Two manufactured homes
currentl occu s the ape ,onei.L hich is not shown on the plan). 1 he property is
served by a 14' wide gavel road which extends from the end of County Road -29
e easlern bau ry of the _property. The road partially lies on adjacent properties.
Ag cultural and residential uses surround the site.
Page 1 of 7
B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to divide the thirty-six (36) acre
parcel into four (4) residential lots. Each lot will contain a single family home. All lots
are between six (6) and ten (10) acres in size.
C. Adjacent Land Uses: Agricultural and residential land uses currently surround the site.
III. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS:
Referrals of the site plan were sent to the following:
A. City of Rifle: No response was received.
B. Town of Silt: See page . Has no comments since the project lies outside
the municipal boundary and the urban growth boundary.
C. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No response was received.
D. RE -2 School District: See page C . Has no concerns.
E. Garfield County Road & Bridge: See memo dated 7/26/00, page . Is in
need of further information. Prefers one entrance from the County Road. Access
should meet County Road standards. Fences will either need to be removed or
moved to the right-of-way line.
F. Rifle Fire Protection District: No response was received 6:511t)G. Garfield County Sheriff: �
�,Vro 6Z.d
H. Garfield County Vegetation Management See memo dated 7/26/00, page .
Has requested the applicant conduct a noxious weed survey and a written weed
management plan.
I. Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment: No response was received.
J. Division of Water Resources: Has determined that the proposed water supply will
cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. `-&- (1 —19
K. Garfield County Housing Authority: See page \ . Has no objections
L. Colorado Division of Wildlife: See page j . The DOW is unable to make
comments until a more detailed plan is provided and recommends that the
applicant hire a competent wildlife consultant to examine and address the
pertinent issues.
M. Garfield County Public Health Official: See page. In a memo dated
7/25/00, Mary Meisner's primary concern is the need for well water analysis and
the possibility of excessive nitrate levels.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal appears to generally conform to the Comp Plan. The
proposed density is one (1) dwelling unit per nine (9) acres, which is less dense than the
Comp Plan's suggested density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. The applicant
should be aware of the performance standards contained in pages 27-40 of the Plan as the
Page 2 of 7
subdivision process proceeds.
B. Zoning: A single family dwelling is a use by right in the A/R/RD zone district. The
applicant should be aware of the following A/R/RD zone standards:
Minimum Lot Area: Two (2) acres.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%).
Minimum Setback:
(1) 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;
(2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line;
(3) Side yard:: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the principal
building, whichever is greater.
Maximum Height of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet.
Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5
(Supplementary Regulations).
The second manufactured home on the site is only permissable by special use permit (see
sections 3.02.03 and 5.03.21 of the Zoning Resolution). If no special use permit exists
for the second dwelling unit it may be in violation of Garfield County zoning regulations.
The preliminary plan application must either include evidence that the second dwelling
unit legally exists or the second dwelling unit must be removed f om the property. (2,01.
�'
C. Subdivision: The lot de ' a.: - ars to g Neral y meet the standards set forth in the
Subdivision Regulations. However, the sketch plan lacks detail concerning existing
features and improvements on the site. This information will need to be shown on the
preliminary plan. The plan also does not indicate where CR 259 and CR 259a terminate. fl--° `'�`�-
F It appears that Lot 1 may possibly have three (3) required front yard setbacks and may
need to be enlarged accordingly. Some applicable general site standards (from section
9:00 of GarCo Sub. Regs) which the applicant should be aware of are as follows:
9:12 Land subject to identified natural hazards, such as falling rock, land slides, snow
slides, mud flows, radiation, flooding or high water tables, shall not be platted for any
use other than open space or an uninhabitable portion of a lot over two (2) acres, unless
mitigation is proposed by a Colorado registered professional engineer qualified to do
such design.
9:13: Development plans shall preserve, to the maximum extent possible, natural
features such as unusual rock formations, lakes, rivers, streams and trees. Where
appropriate, the subdivider may be required to dedicate lands to lot owners to preserve
Page 3 of 7
these features. In no case shall lots be designed such that a dwelling unit will be located
closer than thirty feet (309 to a live stream, lake or pond, regardless of the fact that
floodplain regulations may allow dwelling units located closer in some instances.
9:15: One (1) dog shall be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision; and
the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. The
requirement shall be included in the protective covenants for the subdivision, with
enforcement provisions allowing for the removal of a dog from the subdivision as a final
remedy in worst cases. (99-096)
9:16: No open hearth, solid fuel fireplaces are allowed anywhere within a subdivision. One
(1) new solid fuel burning stove, as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401,et.seq., and the regulations
promulgated thereunder, shall be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units shall be
allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances. (99-096)
9:17: Each subdivision shall have covenants requiring that all exterior lighting shall be
directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision. (99-096)
9:18: No further subdivision of a recorded subdivision shall be allowed, except where it
is provided for in an approved Preliminary Plan. (99-096)
9:21.3 Corner lots for residential use shall have extra width to permit the required
building setback from both roads, as required in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
of 1978, as amended
9:22 In no case shall a lot be created with accesses onto a public or private road with
less than twenty-five feet (259 of street frontage.
D. Soils/Topography/Radiation: Soils on the site are identified as "Kim Loam, 6-12%
slopes" and "Potts Loam, 6-12% slopes". The Kim and Potts Loams 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.
Dwellings and roads can be designed to overcome these limitations. The gamma
radiation survey conducted by HP Geotech resulted in the conclusion that no mitigation
of radiation should be required.
E. Road/Access: The subdivision must comply with the applicable road standards (Section
9:35 of the GarCo Sub. Regs.). The sketch plan proposes to make use of an existing
thirty (30) foot wide access easement to CR 259. The road servicing the four (4) lots
must meet the "semi -primitive" standard. This standard calls for a minimum forty (40')
Page 4 of 7
foot right of way with each lane at least eight (8') feet in width with a chip & seal or
gravel surface and maximum grade of ten (10%) percent. The application currently
proposes a dead end road in excess of the 600' permissable length without any
emergency access provisions. Applicable road standards (from section 9:33 of GarCo
Sub. Regs) which the applicant should be aware of are as follows:
9:33: Cul-de-sacs and dead end streets may be designed under the following
circumstances:
A. Cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided they are not more than six hundred feet
(6009 in length and have a turnaround radius of not less than forty-five feet (459 from
the center of the cul-de-sac to rad edge andffty foot (509 right-of-way for residential
development ...The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs for topographical reasons
and it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as
a part of the longer design; and
9:31 Access to all subdivisions shall be from a public street system.
9:34 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.
The applicant does not have sole ownership of the access easement serving the property.
The easement partially lies on adjacent parcels. Since the current access easement is
held by neighboring properties it will 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. Evidence of such must be included in the preliminary plan
application.
F. Fire Protection: The site is located in the Rifle Fire Protection District (RFPD). The
application does not address how fire will be mitigated. Section 9:51 and 9:70 (of the
Sub Regs) requires that all subdivisions have adequate fire protection in accordance with
recognized and customary engineering standards. Staff suggests the applicant meet with
the RFPD and include a fire mitigation plan in the preliminary plan application.
G. Water: The application states that individual wells will supply domestic water to each
residential lot. The applicant should understand that evidence of an adequate legal and
physical supply must be submitted with the Preliminary Plan application. The water
found on Silt Mesa is known to be of very poor quality and the applicant should be aware
that poor water quality may become a significant issue.
The application does not discuss how irrigation water will be supplied to the lots (in
accordance with section 9:51 of the Sub Regs). This information must be included with
the preliminary plan.
Page 5 of 7
H. Drainage: The application states that the development will have minimal impact on
drainages running through 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 applicant should be
aware of section 9:40 of the Sub Regs and include the appropriate level of detail required
in the preliminary plan application.
Wastewater: 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. A good maintenance guide to
reference is Pipeline, Fall 1995, Vol. 6, No. 4, which is available from the Planning
Department or can be found at the National Small Flows Clearinghouse at
http://estd.wvu.edu/nsfc.
J. Wildlife/Wetlands: The application does not contain any discussion of wildlife impacts.
Staff encourages encourages the applicant to work with the DOW and follow their
recommendations.
K. Assessment / Fees: As determined by Section 9:80 of the Subdivision Regulations, the
applicant will be required to dedicate a portion of the gross land area for open space,
parks, or schools, or pay fees in lieu thereof ($200 per each newly created parcel). The
property owner should be aware that the current agricultural valuation status of the
property will change following subdivision (ie, their taxes will increase). This area
appears to lie in traffic study area 6 of the Capital Improvements Plan. The applicant can
expect to pay about $2,100 per single family dwelling, minus the appropriate discounts.
In the event any fees increase before the time of final plat, the increased fees shall be
paid.
L. Other Utilities: Public Service is expected to provide natural gas and electicity. U.S.
West is expected to provide telephone service. Cable t.v. may not be available.
According to GarCo regulations, all utilities must be buried.
M. Ditches and Easements: Easements shall be provided for all existing and proposed
ditches. If no described easement of record currently exists for any of the existing
ditches, easements shall be created and described on the preliminary plan. 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.
N. Recommended Plat Notes and/or Covenants: The following plat notes should be
included on the preliminary plan and/or in the covenants:
1) Indicate the maintenance responsibilities of the road.
Page 6 of 7
2) All irrigation ditches and ditch easements are to be recognized and maintained as
existing and in place, in the usual manner.
3) One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be
confined within the owners property boundaries.
4) No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision.
One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units
will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances.
5) All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will
be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be
made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries.
6) No further divisions of land within the Subdivision will be allowed.
7) 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.
8) 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.
Other: The legal description shown on the sketch plan is not the same as the legal
description on the recorded warranty deed and will need to be corrected.
The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of
the Planning Commission review (valid until 8/9/01). If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed
subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission by 8/9/01, the
applicant will have to submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Department
for review and comparison with the original application.
Page 7 of 7
SILT PLANNING STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: KITT LYON
FROM: DAVIS F,ARRAR - SILT PLANNER
SUBJECT: SILT HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
DATE: 7:26'00
CC: CRAIG OLSON, SILT PLANNING COMMISSION
The proposed Silt Heights Subdivision Sketch Plan lies outside the Silt municipal
boundary by approximately 3.14 miles. It also lies outside of the Silt urban growth
boundary. Because of these characteristics, the Town of Silt has no jurisdictional review
of this project. The Silt staffhas no continents on this project at this time.
The town appreciates the referral of this application and the opportunity to review the
plan. If You have any questions, or request that the town provide specific input on this
application even though it lies out of our jurisdictional arena, please contact me.
JUL-UU-0000 IfIU 1C,4C fll ur11Ir1LLU o!17UUL U1JI [Inc
rmn NV. 0(UUCUrUC3 r. u►
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent:
Comments Due:
(a -q/era
742-6, /v o
Name of application: Silt Heights Subdivision Sketch Plan
Sent to: RE -2 School District
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the staff
contact in the event you are unable to respond by the date listed above. This form may be
used for your convenience, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary.
Written comments may be mailed or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staffcontact: Kit Lyon
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-5004
Phone: 970-945-8212
E-mail: "garcopin@rof net"
General comments:
This review agency recommends (circle one): Approval / Denial
The following are suggested conditions of approval, or are the reasons for denial:
Name of ret iew agency: r•.° t !? •`_ :1 , c
By: -; :�. _ .... ! ., 1y / Date: 71 F
{
Revised 3/30/00
RECED JUL 3 1 2000
Garfield County Road
& Bridge
Memo
To: Kit Lyon
From: Kraig Kuberry
Date: 7/26/00
Re: Silt Heights Subdivision Sketch Plan
I have reviewed the sketch plan for Silt Heights Subdivision. The results are as
follows:
• Need to know where the access road is going to be located. Would like to see
one entrance off of the county road. Would like to see the access road be
brought up to county standards.
• All fences need to be removed or set back to R.O.W line.
At this time, plans look good. I will review the access at a later date.
• Page 1
cc,
MEMORANDUM
To: Kit Lyon
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on the Silt Heights Subdivision
Date: July 26, 2000
Kit,
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Silt Heights Subdivision. My comments are as follows:
1. Request the applicant to conduct a noxious weed survey for the weeds listed on Garfield County's
Noxious Weed List (enclosed).
2. Ask them to submit a written Weed Management Plan provide for the management of any listed weeds
located on the property. Irrigation ditches are common sources of weed infestations. Their Weed
Management Plan should address weed management along all irrigation ditches.
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent:
Comments Due;
Name of application: Silt Ile ights S
Sent to: c GarfeTJ County Housing Authority
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the staff
contact in the event you are unable to respond by the date listed above. This form may be
used for your convenience, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary.
Written comments may be mailed or faxed to:
col? -110-0
67
Garfield Co
Staff co
109 8dr"'Str
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-5004
Phone: 970-945-8212
E-mail: "garvopin@rof net"
General comments: _p a_ v e n p
s Ci1t ,1 -11 d rove-.�rt—
ahS
This review agency recommends (circle one): Approval / Denial
The following are suggested conditions of approval, or are the reasons for denial:
Date: 1 `
Revised 3/30/00
• •
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
John W. Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
July 14, 2000
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building & Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Kit:
OF `1~
For Wildlife -
For People
I have reviewed the sketch plan for the Silt Heights Subdivision between Silt
and Rifle. Because the information provided by the applicant is minimal at
best and the fact that wildlife impacts are not addressed at all in the sketch
plan, I am unable to make comments for the Division of Wildlife until a
more concise plan is provided.
This Subdivision would be located in deer winter range and there will be
impacts on this species as well as many others. For this reason I recommend
that the Silt Heights Subdivision sketch plan be denied until such time that
the applicant addresses wildlife issues. I also recommend that the applicant
hire a competent wildlife consultant to examine and address such items as
fence specifications, dogs, covenants, winter range, possible wetlands, and
game damage. We look forward to reviewing the preliminary plan.
cc: Yamashita
files
Respectfully,
„0,
Don Crane
District Wildlife Manager
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Walcher, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Bemard L. Black, Jr., Chairman • Rick Enstrom, Vice -Chairman • Phip James, Secretary
13
•
RECEIVED JUL 2 4 MO
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAX: (303) 866-3589
http://water.state.co.us/default.htm
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
July 12, 2000
Re.. Silt Heights Subdivision Sketch Plan
Sections 27, 28 & 34, T5S, R92W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 39
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Dear Mr. Lyon:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 36.44 acres into
four single family Tots. The applicant proposes to provide water through individual wells on each
lot, and states that a well is already in use for an existing house on the property, but no well permit
information was provided. Sewage disposal is to be through individual disposal systems.
No information was provided concerning the physical adequacy of the water supply. As
outlined in the statutes, Section 30-28-133(3)(d), C.R.S., the subdivider is required to submit
adequate evidence that a water supply that is sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and
dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of water. Adequate evidence is
usually provided in the form of a water resource report, prepared by a professional engineer,
which addresses the quality, quantity, and dependability issues. A report of this nature was not
provided. See the attached Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supply Plan Reports for tie
necessary information.
The source of the proposed water supply would be from, or tributary, to the Colorado
River. The Colorado River is overappropriated, therefore an augmentation plan is required to
offset depletions caused by the use of water for this development.
Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds
pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), C.R.S., that the proposed water supply will cause
material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. If you or the applicant has any
questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
SorKenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
.KV VK%CMLLSiIt.Heights.doc
cc: Orlyn'Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Berquist, Water Commissioner, District 38
• •
GUIDELINES FOR SUBDIVISION WATER SUPPLY
REPORTS
A Water Supply Report is required for all subdivision proposals. Colorado Revised Statutes,
(C.R.S.), 30-28-133(3)(d) describes the basic requirements for water supply reports, while
C.R.S. 30-28-136 describes the review process. The statutes may be viewed at the
Colorado Statute Manager web site, http://www.intellinetusa.com/statmgr.htm.
This office reviews water supply report for subdivisions only upon referral from the
County as required by C.R.S. 30-28-136(h). Note that well permits cannot be issued in
areas that are over -appropriated until this office has approved the water supply
report and the County has approved the subdivision. Additionally, this office does
not provide engineering consultation and legal advice. For this information, please
seek private legal counsel and/or an engineering consultant.
PART i applies to proposals to obtain water from individual on -lot wells, central wells, or
other water source that is not from a municipality or quasi -municipality.
PART applies to proposals to obtain water from a municipality or quasi -municipality.
PART Ali applies to proposals to obtain water for land divisions that are to be exempted from
County subdivision regulations.
PART I
For those proposals that will obtain water from individual on -lot wells, central wellsor other
water source that is not from a municipality or quasi -municipality, the proposal will be
evaluated pursuant to C.R.S. 30-28-136(1)(h)(I). Under C.R.S. 1973, 30-28-136(1)(h)(I),
Counties are required to submit to the State Engineer all subdivision preliminary plans. The
State Engineer is then required to respond to the Board of County Commissioners in
writing, with an opinion concerning the potential injury to decreed water rights caused by
diversions to supply the subdivision and the adequacy of the proposed water supply.
In addition to the requirements specifically listed in statute, the report should address the
following:
a. The expected water requirements (total demand and consumptive use) of the
subdivision at full development for all anticipated water use (residential, lawn
irrigation, animal watering, commercial and industrial, etc.). Typically, the
analysis of water requirements and the associated consumptive use are
presented in gallons per day or acre-feet per year.
b. The source of water for the proposed subdivision, and the legal and physical
availability and dependability of the source.
c. Evidence of ownership or right of use of existing water rights.
d. An evaluation of the potential for material injury to all existing and proposed
water rights as a result of water use in the subdivision including the cumulative
effect of on -lot wells.
• •
e. A completed Water Supply Information Summary Form listing the proposed
uses.
f. A 1"= 24,000' (7.5 minute) scaled U.S.G.S. topographic map with the
boundaries of the proposed subdivision plotted as described by the metes and
bounds description.
Water Supply from Tributary Ground Water
In over -appropriated stream systems, where the water source for the proposed subdivision
is considered tributary, the withdrawal of ground water will cause material injury to other
water rights. A court approved plan for augmentation is required to offset the
depletions caused by the pumping of the tributary ground water and must be
obtained prior to this office granting approval of the proposed water supply. Ground
water in most areas outside the Denver Basin would be considered tributary.
In areas where water is available for appropriation, a plan for augmentation will generally
not be required. However, there are only a few areas on the Western Slope that are, not
over -appropriated. The Division Engineer should be contacted for this information.
Water Supply from Denver Basin Aquifers
The Denver Basin contains the Dawson (upper and lower in some areas),
Denver, Arapahoe (upper and lower in some areas), and the Laramie -Fox Hilts aquifers.
Please review Denver Basin Aquifer map to determine if your parcel is within the Denver
Basin. Depending on the location within the basin, the ground water can be nontributary or
not-nontributary. The Denver Basin Rules and Regulations and the State Wide Nontributary
Ground Water Rules should be consulted to determine whether an aquifer may be
considered nontributary or not-nontributary. In either case, the amount of water available
beneath the subject property must be determined pursuant to Section 37-90-137(4), C.R.S.
Information is available from this office that can be used in making this determination. Note,
any existing wells on or in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision must be considered in
this analysis since they may reduce the amount of water available by virtue of their prior
appropriation. This office would need to evaluate each situation on a case by case basis.
If the proposed water source is not-nontributary, C.R.S. 37-90-137(9)(c) requires
judicial approval for plans for augmentation prior to the use of not-nontributary
ground water.
The ground water in the Denver Basin aquifers is evaluated under 100 year aquifer life
criteria pursuant to the Denver Basin Rules, 2 CCR 402-6, and the Statewide Nontributary
Ground Water Rules, 2 CCR 402-7. These Rules may be obtained for a fee from our
Records Section at (303) 866-3447. Elbert, Adams, and El Paso Counties generally require
• •
new subdivisions to have a 300 year water supply. You should contact your particular
county for specific requirements. For subdivision proposals located in a Designated Basin,
the Ground Water Management District should be consulted.
PART II
In the event that a municipality or quasi -municipality (e.g. water district) is to supple water to
the subdivision, C.R.S. 30-28-136(h)(II) sets forth special procedures for proof of availability
of water. The municipality or water district must file with the Board of County
Commissioners (Board) and the State Engineer a report on the amount of water that can be
supplied to the subdivision without causing injury to existing water rights. This office, in turn,
must provide the Board with written comments concerning the water supply report. If the
water supply report is inadequate, this office must notify the Board and indicate the
deficiencies of the report.
In addition the requirements specifically listed in statute, the report should address the
following:
a. A summary of water rights owned or controlled by the municipality or district.
b. The firm yield of these rights.
c. The present demand on the system and the anticipated demand due to
commitments for service entered into by the municipality or district.
d. The amount of uncommitted firm supplies the municipality or district has
available for future development.
e. A completed Water Supply Information Summary Form listing the proposed
uses
f. A 1"= 24,000' (7.5 minute) scaled U.S.G.S. topographic map with the
boundaries of the proposed subdivision plotted as described by the metes and
bounds description.
g. A letter of commitment from the municipality or district must be submitted with
the subdivision proposal. The letter should include evidence that the municipality
or district proposed as the water supplier can and will supply water to the
proposed subdivision by stating the amount of water available for use by the
proposed subdivision and the feasibility of extending service to the new area.
This office maintains files on most municipalities and water districts, and when a particular
file is incomplete, this office will request additional information before completing a review.
The information on an existing municipality or a water district identified as a source of water
for a subdivision must include an evaluation of the legal and physical availability of the
water supply.
PART HI
Counties may exempt certain proposals from their full submittal requirements. Since these
"County exemptions" are not considered subdivisions, this office does not generally provide
review comments. The fact that a property is exempt from subdivision regulations does not
alter the duty of the State Engineer to protect senior vested water rights. A thorough review
of the permit application must be conducted in accordance with C.R.S. 37-92-602(3)(b) to
• •
determine the effect of the proposed well upon other vested water rights, including existing
wells. Subsection 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A) says "there shall be a presumption that there will
not be material injury to the vested water rights of others or to any other existing well
resulting from such well, which presumption may be rebutted by evidence sufficient to show
such material injury".
Well permits for the resulting Tots of a property split by exemption cannot be obtained prior
to the County approval. The County Commissioners must grant the exemption before the
applications for new well permits are submitted to this office. Furthermore, if the County
grants an exemption and there is an existing well permit for the property, this office may not
be able to issue additional well permits. For example, if the original permit was issued as
the only well on the tract and then the tract is divided and exempted, then that permit needs
to be canceled or amended prior to obtaining well permits on the new lots.
Many of the referenced rules herein can be obtained from the Records -Section of this
Office at (303) 866-3447. Please see publications to determine the cost involved.
Home Organization Groundwater Surface Water Dams Records Phcnes
Ib
1/4 R SUPPLY INFORMATION SUIIRY
Section 30-28-133,(d), C.R.S. requires that the applicant submit to the County,"Adequate evidence that a water supply that
is sufficient in terms of quantity, quality and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of waver.
1. NAME OF DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED
2. LAND USE ACTION
3. NAME OF EXISTING PARCEL AS RECORDED
SUBDIVISION FILING BLOCK LOT
4. TOTAL ACREAGE
5. NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED PLAT MAP ENCLOSED 0 YES
6. PARCEL HISTORY - Please attach copies of deeds, plats or other evidence or documentation.
A. Was parcel recorded with county prior to June 1, 1972? 0 YES 0 NO
B. Has the parcel ever been part of a division of land action since June 1, 1972? 0 YES 0 NO
If yes, describe the previous action
7. LOCATION OF PARCEL - Include a map deliniating the project area and tie to a section corner. .
1/4 OF 1/4 SECTION TOWNSHIP ■ N ■ S RANGE 0 E 0 1V
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN: 0 6T11 • N.M. 1 UTE 0 COSTILLA
8. PLAT - Location of all wells on property must be plotted and permit numbers provided.
Surveyors plat 0 Yes ■ No If not. scaled hand drawn sketch 0 Yes 0 No
9. ESTIMATED WATER REQUIREMENTS • Gallons per Day or Acre Feet per Year
HOUSEHOLD USE # of units GPD AF
10. WATER SUPPLY SOURCE
0 EXISTING 0 DEVELOPED
WELLS SPRING
WELL PERMIT NUMBERS
0 NEW WELLS -
PROPOSED AQUFEIIS -(CHECK ONE)
❑ ALLUVIAL ❑ UPPER ARAPAHOE
❑ UPPER OAWSOP ❑ LOWER ARAPAHOE
❑ LOWER OAWSaI 0 LARAMIE FOX HIU.S
COMMERCIAL USE # of S.F. GPD AF
❑ DENVER
❑ DAKOTA
0 OTHER
IRRIGATION # of acres GPD AF
STOCK WATERING # Of head GPD AF
0 MUNICIPAL
OTHER - GPD AF
0 ASSOCIATION
0 COMPANY
WATER COU IT DECREE CASE NO.'S
0 DISTRICT
TOTAL GPO AF
NAME
LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR
SERVICE 0 YES 0 NO
11. ENGINEER'S WATER SUPPLY REPORT 0 YES ❑ NO IF YES, PLEASE FORWARD WITH THIS FORM. (Tho may be required be ore our reviews completed)
12. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
0 SEPTIC TANK/LEACH FIELD 0 CENTRAL SYSTEM - DISTRICT NAME
❑ LAGOON 0 VAULT - LOCATION SEWAGE HAULED TO
0 ENGINEERED SYSTEM (Attach 1 copy of engineering design) 0 OTHER
• •
GaFfieCd County
Public Hearth °Nursing Service
Rif% Office ..
902 rIa:ug&nfaugfi, Suite 104
Rifle, Colorado 81650
(970) 625-5200
DATE: July 25, 2000
MEMO
TO: Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Co 81601
FROM: Mary Meisner
Garfield County Public Health Nursing
902 Taughenbaugh Blvd. Suite 104
Rifle, Co 81650
REGARDS: Silt Heights Subdivision Project Review
CktwoodSprings Office
199 8th St., Room 202
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 945-6614
After careful review of the subdivision application by Terri Patrick of the 36.40 acre tract of land into 4
single family lots. I have only one concern regarding the subdivision request.
• The need for well water analysis on each of the four family lots. Several wells analysis in the
drainage basin south of Harvey Gap, east of Rifle, west of Silt and north of the Colorado River on
individual or shared wells other than city water were found to have high nitrate levels. The nitrate
levels exceed health protective concentrations in ground water. Excessive nitrate levels were
found at several individual wells as apart of owner well maintenance.
Dc\IL ryn,04,Gdeub 4(+(-)--e-r4),
CAv646
De4t, czy4— ptaA, +10 --7) boo( L0 -41/A.
out,w
LiithA &pica
plAto— ic,49/ uuLe,Ri-
v
,atka/ti
a)uorQA,3-- 1)0 -em- wd12
Lfik i � Ito ict.Q
09PI,J2
— trIYA-A3- eibtocoAy\
Ov\ bt
CAA-
L./061(z'
.0cz
(ar—A—(4\—e-cry
cbtA fyykAApt GANIAJ/- az3q J2A,42,0
h-eActid's
au& c,nrtuAA--- ecO-RkA- GaT
Nerl AA° Wilec/ -elvA-e/6
GMS i1VU-
U
A)( (4v6)