HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 PC Staff Report 08.08.2001REQUEST:
PC 8/8/01
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
A request for review of a Preliminary Plan for an
eleven (11) lot subdivision on sixty-six (66) acres.
Request for approval of eleven (11) accessory
dwelling units for a total of twenty-two (22) units.
APPLICANT: Jim and Paul Luginbuhl
PLANNER: Land Design Partnership
ENGINEERS: High Country Engineering, Hepworth-Pawlak,
Zancanella and Assoc.
WILDLIFb: Beattie Natural Resources Consulting, LLC
VEGETATION: Beach Environmental, LLC
LOCATION: Parcel lies less than two (2) miles east of the City of
Rifle along County Roads 210 and 221. Sections
11 & 2, Township 6 South, Range 93 West
WA 11,R: Individual wells for each lot protected by WDWCD
contract.
Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS)
CR 221, "Green Lane"
A/RIRD
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
AJR/RD to the east, north and west. A/I and C/G to
the south.
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
According to the Comprehensive Plan of 2000, this site lies in the "Outlying Residential"
area. The suggested density is no more than one (1) dwelling unit per two (2) acres.
Page 1 of 14
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Site Description: The site is bordered by CR 210 to the east and CR 221 to the south. It
is separated from east Rifle by the high rock bluffs west of CR210 (Graham Mesa).
Below CR 210, the slope drops dramatically to the very gently sloping irrigated hay field
that comprise the vast majority of the property. The Lower Cactus Valley ditch runs
parallel to CR 210. An irrigation ditch runs diagonally across the site from the northeast
to the southwest and runs into a culvert under CR 221. To the west, almost entirely on
the adjacent parcel, two high voltage power lines run in a north/south direction. A small
wetland area exists along the southwest boundary of the property.
B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to divide the sixty-six (66) acre
parcel into eleven (11) lots. Each lot will contain a single family home and an accessory
dwelling unit for a total of twenty-two (22) residential dwelling units. All lots are served
by a centrally located cul-de-sac which is 1,250 feet in length. All lots are five (5) to six
(6) acres in size. The rear of each of the lots is restricted from building with the
exception of small livestock shelters. The covenants allow 3 horses/cattle per lot. An
extremely steep 2.4 acre area lies west of County Road 210. This area will remain as
"open space" so that no development occurs on it, and it will be maintained by the
Homeowners' Association.
C. Adjacent Land Uses: Agricultural and residential land uses currently surround the site.
Commercial uses exist to the south along Hwy 6 and are possible adjacent to the site.
III. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS:
Referrals of the site plan were sent to the following:
A. City of Rifle: See City's staff report, page _15 . Rifle would prefer the
property remain in agriculture, but recognizes the owners' right to develop the
property. Rifle prefers large lot residential development over
commercial/industrial development. Rifle has a concern that well water in the
area is known to be of very poor quality, and may not meet drinking water
standards. Rifle has also identified the possibility of well contamination by ISDS,
and suggests the applicant investigate tapping into the Cottonwood Springs sewer
line.
B. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No reply was received.
C. RE -2 School District: See referral sheet, page _18 . No concerns.
D. Garfield County Road & Bridge: Provided the following comments at sketch plan:
States an access permit that addresses drainage will be required. The R&B dept.
prefers there not be any accesses from CR210 (none are proposed) and requests
the fence be relocated to the r -o -w line.
E. Rifle Fire Protection District: No reply was received. Phone calls were not
returned.
Page 2 of 14
F. Garfield County Sheriff: See memo, page 19 . Reiterates the following
concerns made at sketch plan which include: 1)The cul-de-sac is over twice the
allowed length. Oversizing the road radius does not eliminate concerns about the
total length. 2) All roads shall be clearly marked with correct road numbers and
names. 3) All street addresses shall be clearly marked and visible from the road.
G. Garfield County Vegetation Management: See memo, page 20 . Notes that
sulfur cinquefoil is not known to exist in the County, and that the weed
management plan is acceptable. GCVM emphasizes the need to control
outbreaks of Russian Olive. The Revegetation plan must assign who is
responsible for implementation of the plan (either the HOA, or another party).
H. Garfield County Housing Authority: Provided the following comment at the
sketch plan phase: Expects the accessory dwelling units will help with the
housing shortage found in Garfield County. Requests to know whether the
a.d.u.'s will be deed restricted.
Division of Wildlife: See letter, page 22 . Concurs with the wildlife report
submitted and emphasizes the statements it contains regarding pet control,
fencing, garbage, and damage caused by wildlife. The DOW notes that these
recommendations are pertinent and will be beneficial to wildlife.
J. CO Dept. of Public Health and Environment: No reply was received.
K. CO Division of Water Resources: See letter, page 23 . States that the
proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, and
is adequate, so long as valid well permits are maintained for all wells, no
expanded use of unspecified irrigation water rights occurs, and the disposition of
well permit no. 208670 is resolved.
L. Colorado Geological Survey: See letter, page 25 . Notes that the geologic
hazards are relatively benign. The groundwater level is high and the soils are
known to be very soft. High seasonal groundwater may impact the ISDS
proposed. The CGS reiterates what was disclosed by the consultant: the soils
could experience large settlements if they become further wetted. It is essential
that the geotechnical consultant's recommendations are complied with, especially
regarding drainage, water management, and site-specific foundation excavation
recommendations.
M. Garfield County Engineer: No reply was received.
N. Garfield County Public Health Nurse: See e-mail correspondence, page _27_.
Although the well test for well #2 appears adequate, all the wells should be tested
after completion. The covenants are weak in the areas of trash/solid waste
storage and removal, which may result in more conflicts with wildlife.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal appears to generally conform to the Comp Plan, with
the following possible exception:.
Page 3 of 14
Goal 7.0: To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and
environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development.
This goal is supported by several objectives and policies which require adequate and safe
sewage disposal provisions be made prior to project approval. In cases where ISDS are
proposed, the site must be proven capable to accommodate these systems. All rural
development is required to show that legal, adequate, dependable, and environmentally
sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided prior to project approval.
Proposing 11 to 22 ISDS in an area with shallow groundwater and numerous wells does
raise concerns regarding the above stated goals and policies. See Wastewater and
Geotechnical sections of this report for further discussion.
B. Zoning: A single family dwelling is a use by right in the A/R/RD zone district.
Accessory dwelling units (ADU's) may be approved as part of the subdivision process as
long as the applicable ADU standards are met, and as long as the units are detached
(attached units fall under the definition of "two family dwelling units). The applicant
should be aware of the following A/R/RD zone standards and ADU 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 -eve (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).
ADU standards:
(1) The minimum lot size shall be four (4) acres containing a building site with slopes less
than 40% at least two (2) acres in size.
(2) The gross floor area for residential use occupancy shall not exceed 1500 sq. ft.
(3) Approval from the subdivision homeowners association and/or allowed by covenant if
applicable.
(4) Proof of a legally adequate source of water for an additional dwelling unit.
(5) Compliance with the County individual sewage disposal system regulations or proof
of a legal ability to connect to an approved central sewage treatment facility.
(6) Only leasehold interests in the dwelling units is allowed.
Page 4 of 14
(7) That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code
requirements. (A.95-076)
Please note that although some of the proposed building envelopes are less than 2 acres,
the flat/buildable area that exists exceeds 2 acres on each lot. [If the lots were severely
constrained by slope, with less than 2 buildable acres this would be an issue. Here, it is
not.] Since paragraph 24 on page 8 of the covenants references Garfield County's "a.d.u."
standards, staff does not have a particular concern about compliance with said standards.
C. Subdivision: The lot design appears to generally meet the standards set forth in the
Subdivision Regulations, with exceptions as noted elsewhere in this report. It should be
noted that corner lots (Lots 1 and 11) shall be required two front yard setbacks (see
section 9:21.3). It may be advisable to increase the width of these lots.
D. Geotechnical/Radiation: The application includes a report from Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical which states that the property is suitable for the proposed eleven (11) lot
development as long as the following geologic conditions are considered: drainage,
wet/soft soils, slope instability northwest of CR 210, and earthquakes. HP states some
preliminary design recommendations and notes that site specific studies should be
conducted for individual lot development. The preliminary recommendations include:
1. Foundations — Shallow spread footings bearing on the upper natural soils, full
basements may not be feasible in some areas, underdrain systems for below grade
areas.
2. Floor Slabs — Slab on grade construction, potential for settlement/heave if subsoils
become wetted.
3. Underdrain System — Groundwater encountered at a shallow depth, irrigation will
keep water level shallow, perched groundwater may develop, underdrain system must
be provided for below -grade construction (such as retaining and basement areas).
4. Site Grading — Cut and fill should be limited (cuts to 5'-8', fills to 5'), with proper
drying and compaction of soils prior to filling.
5. Surface Drainage — The grading plan should consider potential runoff from uphill
slopes, water should not pond, positive drainage away from buildings should be
maintained, and landscape irrigation should be limited.
6. Percolation Testing — A conventional ISDS should be feasible, although a mounded
type system may be needed in shallow groundwater areas. ISDS should be designed
by a civil engineer at the time of individual lot development.
HP has also performed a radiation survey at the site and stated that no mitigation of the
natural background levels should be required. Staff confirmed with Steve Pawlak on
7/30/01 in a telephone conversation that each of the eleven lots will be occupied by two
(2) detached dwelling units, and that HP's recommendations remained the same.
Section 9:12 states the following:
Page 5of14
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.
The CGS reiterates what was disclosed by the consultant: the soils could experience
large settlements if they become further wetted. It is essential that the geotechnical
consultant's recommendations are complied with, especially regarding drainage, water
management, and site-specific foundation excavation recommendations.
Staff finds that as long as HP's and the CGS' recommendations are carefully followed,
and each ISDS is designed by a Colorado licensed civil engineer, the proposal may be
found to be consistent with the subdivision regulations.
E. Road/Access: The proposed access to the subdivision is a road from CR 221terminating
in a cul-de-sac, labeled "Native Springs Drive". Native Springs Drive is 22' wide while
and about 1,200' long. The applicant claims the topography of the site prevents a
reasonable secondary access or "through road". The proposed cul-de-sac has an 60'
radius instead of the required minimum 50' radius in order to provide extra turning room
for emergency vehicles. High Country Engineering has determined the project will result
in 220 average daily trips (ADT) and that the site lies in Road Impact Study Area 4 (this
is incorrect, it actually lies in area 6).
The project appears to comply with the applicable road standards (Section 9:35 of the
GarCo Sub. Regs.) with the exception of the excessively long dead end road. Section
9:33 states the following:
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
(600) in length and have a turnaround radius of not less than forty-five feet (45) from
the center of the cul-de-sac to rad edge and fifty foot (50) 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
The application explains that each residence will be equipped with fire sprinkler systems.
30,000 gallons of water storage will be provided in buried tanks in the center of the cul-
de-sac. The covenants reference a wildland urban interface pamphlet (paragraph 41,
page 12) and require sprinklers (para. 40, pg. 12).
Neither the Fire District nor the Road and Bridge Department responded to a request for
comments on the Preliminary Plan (although R&B commented at sketch plan). However,
Page 6 of 14
the applicant has stated that the Fire District is satisfied with the extra precautions the
applicant has taken. Prior to approval, this statement must be supported in writing. The
Sheriff's Dept. has reiterated the following comments: 1)The cul-de-sac is over twice
the allowed length. Oversizing the road radius does not eliminate concerns about the
total length. 2) All roads shall be clearly marked with correct road numbers and names.
3) All street addresses shall be clearly marked and visible from the road.
Prior to approval of the preliminary plan staff emphasizes again that the applicant must
provide evidence of satisfaction of any concerns of the Fire District and the Sheriff's
Department, as well as an access permit from Road and Bridge. The regulations also
contain the following sections:
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 covenants do not specifically state that assessments may be made for road
maintenance, nor do they describe maintenance of the road at all. This oversight in the
covenants must be corrected prior to approval of the project.
One other issue regarding access is the historic agricultural access that lies along the
eastern boundary of the property. This access should be removed and reclaimed since the
agricultural use of the property will not be continued.
F. Fire Protection: The site is located in the Rifle Fire Protection District (RFPD), who did
not respond to a request for comments on the application. The sketch plan proposed
about 120,000 gallons of water be stored in a pond in the center of the cul-de-sac for fire
protection purposes. Staff and the Planning Commission discouraged storing water in a
pond stating that buried storage was a preferred solution due to health and safety issues.
The preliminary plan proposes 30,000 gallons of water storage to be buried in the center
of the cul-de-sac (in three 10,000 gallon tanks). During the irrigation season, the tanks
will be filled with irrigation water. Other times of year water would be purchased from
some entity and hauled by truck.
The sketch plan stated that water used to fill storage tanks for fire protection is exempt
from the water rights priority system. Staff noted at that time that the preliminary plan
must include evidence supporting this statement, such as a letter from the Division of
Water Resources. Although the State Engineer's Office has written a letter of "no
material injury", Staff has raised questions to the SEO that will be answered in a revised
letter yet to arrive. Purchasing water from an entity (such as the City of Rifle) can not be
considered a legal, adequate source of water without a perpetual contract in place. The
applicant must obtain adequate legal water rights to fill the storage tanks on a perpetual
year-round basis prior to approval of the application by the Board of County
Page 7of14
Commissioners.
G. Water: At the sketch plan phase, staff and the Planning Commission both strongly
discouraged individual wells on this property, and urged the applicant to install a central
water system. The preliminary plan application states three reasons for proposing
individual wellls: 1) the cost of construction of a community water system is prohibitive;
2) adequate fire protection can be provided with in house sprinklers; and 3) reverse
osmosis (r.o.) systems are dramatically more complex and expensive on central systems
than for individual wells (r.o. systems are not proposed, but the application notes that the
water is, "of such a quality that many residents may wish to install r.o. systems to
enhance the quality of water for personal consumption purposes").
Eleven (11) individual wells are proposed to supply domestic water to each residential
lot. Water rights to divert 9.39 acre feet have been purchased from the West Divide
Water Conservation District (WDWCD) for this purpose. High Country Engineering has
stated that each lot can be expected to demand approximately 720 gallons per day (g.p.d.)
based on 3.5 persons per residence and 2.5 persons per a.d.u.
The application also contains a water supply plan prepared by Zancanella and Associates.
This report assumes all 22 residences will be occupied by 3.5 people, and that up to 500
sq. ft. of lawn will be irrigated from the domestic system. Additional irrigation water
will be supplied from raw water sources. The subdivision will divert just less than 9 acre
feet annually, and will actually consume just under 2 acre feet. The Native Springs well
#2 was drilled in November of 2000 at a depth of 73 feet. Water was encountered at 46
feet with the static water level about 26 feet below the top of the well casing. There is
about 34 feet of available drawdown. The pump test was conducted at a rate of 15 g.p.m.
for a continuous 25 hour period. The maximum drawdown was 13.75 feet and the well
displayed normal recovery characteristics. The water was tested for nitrates and nitrites,
bacteria, and phase II and V inorganics. All levels were below those established by the
Dept. of Health and no coliform bacteria was detected. It should be noted that while the
water quality may meet the minimum standards, the water may have a poor taste or odor,
and may be quite hard and in need of treatment.
The Garfield County Public Health Nurse has requested each and every well be tested to
ensure an adequate physical water supply exists for the subdivision. While it appears that
a physical supply may be possible in the area, prior to approval of any final plat, all
eleven (11) wells shall be drilled, and then tested for the above stated parameters, as well
as dissolved solids, to prove an adequate supply of water. Staff further emphasizes the
need for a radiation test since the water in the area is known to have radiation problems.
If the water is in need of treatment, it shall be stated so in the covenants and on the plat.
If approved, the possibility exists that 22 individual ISDS and 11 individual wells will be
placed on the 66 acre property. Staff maintains the position that a central water system is
Page 8of14
a much better solution than individual wells given the fact that water table is known to be
shallow in the area, the water quality is known to be poor, that dealing with water
contamination will be simpler with a central system and HOA oversight, and that the
possibility of 22 ISDS exist. While staff realizes that other solutions may be engineered
to meet technical requirements, it does not change Staff's opinion that centralizing the
water system has a greater potential of ensuring public safety by reducing the chance of
well/ground water contamination. The applicant has failed to convince the Staff that a
central system is not feasible, and is not the best solution, given the site's inherent
constraints.
In addition to the domestic water available to water 500 sq. ft. of lawn or garden, the
application states that raw irrigation water will be distributed by underground pipes to
each lot. Each lot will need to add their own pumping system if they opt to sprinkler
their property from this system. The application does not contain any evidence of the
necessary legal irrigation water rights to accomplish this. Evidence of the ownership of
historic irrigation water rights must be submitted prior to project approval. Furthermore,
ownership must be transferred to the Homeowners' Association (HOA), who will be
responsible for the maintenance and distribution of the irrigation water.
Article V, Paragraph 20 of the covenants states that three (3) horse or cattle will be
allowed on each lot. While the well permits allow for the watering of domestic animals,
they do not allow for livestock watering. Staff has contacted the SEO for further
clarification on this issue, but a response has yet to arrive.
H. Wastewater: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) are proposed for each lot. Said
systems must be designed by an engineer, and will most likely be mounded systems,
unless typical ISDS are recommended by the engineer. The sketch plan staff report noted
that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has been
concerned about the number of ISDS being approved for the area without review and
analysis of the feasibility of wastewater treatment from a centralized facility. The
applicant was instructed that the preliminary plan must contain further analysis of
wastewater disposal options and costs.
The preliminary plan contains a letter from Mr. John Schenk has stated that the
Cottonwood Plant is fully committed and that capacity limits will not allow the inclusion
of any additional users. Apparently no other wastewater disposal options, such as ISTS
(individual sewage treatment systems) were analyzed.
Staff does have a concern about the use of ISDS, mounded or otherwise, given the
shallow water table in the area. However, neither the CDPHE nor the County Engineer
has submitted any comments on the application. Staff is at a disadvantage without the
benefit of their expertise, and thus unable to further support this position.
Page 9 of 14
Wildlife: The application contains a detailed wildlife report submitted by Beattie Natural
Resources Consulting, Inc. The report states that the development is expected to affect
birds, small mammals, prey base for certain species, and mule deer associated with
grass/hay lands. Although the quantity and distribution of wildlife may be reduced,
existing wildlife species is expected to maintain a presence in the subdivision. Neither
critical habitat nor migration corridors will be lost as a result of the development. The
report includes a number of specific recommendations about pet control, fences, trash,
hay storage, etc. which Beattie recommends be included in the covenants.
The DOW concurs with the Beattie wildlife report and emphasizes the above listed
-detailed recommendations it makes. The DOW notes that these recommendations are
pertinent and will be beneficial to wildlife.
I. Drainage: HP briefly addresses surface drainage on page 5 of the Geotechnical Report.
It notes that flood potential on the alluvial fans should be considered in any drainage
plan. It also notes that the potential for irrigation ditch blockage and overflow should be
included in hydrologic evaluations. The application also contains a Drainage Report
prepared by High Country Engineering on 4/27/00. This report states that two major
ditches currently occupy and will continue to occupy the site: The Lower Cactus Valley
Ditch and the Grand Valley River Ditch. Some of the lateral ditches will be re-routed.
The report states that peak on site flows will be derived primarily from rainfall. The
unconcentrated sheet flow and road runoff will be captured by roadside swales and
irrigation ditches. All buildings should have positive drainage. Detention will not be
necessary since an increase in runoff is not anticipated.
Staff does not have any particular concerns about the drainage plan as long as all
engineering recommendations are followed and as long as any approval includes the
condition that each lot owner shall obtain a site specific grading and drainage plan prior
to placement of any building improvements. The drainage plan may need revision to
include provisions for ditch blockage, and to specifically address flood potential on the
alluvial plans, prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
K. Vegetation / Noxious Weeds / Wetlands: The application contains a report prepared by
Beach Environmental, LLC, which states that wetlands were encountered on Lots 9 and
11, but not within any proposed building areas. The location of the wetlands was not
shown in the report, nor was it surveyed and placed on the plat. The report states that
since the wetlands will not be encroached upon, no further assessment of the property is
necessary. Paragraph 38 on page 11 of the covenants addresses weed and vegetation
control.
The Garfield County Vegetation Management office has stated that the weed
management plan is acceptable. GCVM office emphasizes the need to control outbreaks
of Russian Olive. While the covenants state that disturbed areas should be quickly
Page 10 of 14
revegetated with weed free grass seed, they do not assign who is responsible for
implementation of the plan (either the HOA, or another party). The covenants will have
to be amended accordingly to ensure implementation of the revegetation plan.
Staff notes that the location of the wetlands must be shown on the plat to ensure these
areas are not disturbed, with a plat note stating such. As shown, a 15' wide utility and
irrigation easement appears to possibly lie in the wetland area on lot 11. The lot, or
easement, or both, may need to be reconfigured. As long as the GCVM office's and
staff's recommendations are followed, staff does not have any particular concern
regarding these issues.
L Homeowners' Association / Covenants / Plat Notes: The sketch plan comments included
a number of issues (including lighting, dogs, open -hearths, ditches, right to farm, road
maintenance, no further division allowed, etc.) to be placed on the plat in the form of a
note, and to be addressed by the covenants. Both the covenants and plat notes address
these necessary issues. In addition to the other suggested changes throughout this report,
staff concerns are as follows (suggested changes stricken out and in italics):
1. Plat note #4: "That all expensed street maintenance and associated expenses
shall be furnished by the Native Springs Subdivision Property Owners
Association, Inc., not by the County of Garfield.".
2. Plat note #7: "The individual lot owners shall be responsible for control of
noxious weeds on their property. The Native Springs Subdivision Property
Owners Association, Inc., shall be responsible for control of noxious weeds on all
common areas."
3. Plat note #13 states ownership of the mineral rights lies with the Greens. This
note, and the covenants, should be expanded to disclose the future possibility of
mineral exploration and recovery on the property. This disclosure must also be
provided at the time of closing.
4. Land Use Summary on the plat: This summary includes suggested address
numbers. The Garfield County Building Department will assign address numbers
which may or may not differ from these sugggestions.
5. Article V, Paragraph 20 of the covenants states that initially the only livestock
allowed shall be horses or cattle, and they shall be limited to 3 animals per lot.
Staff is unclear if the plan is to allow more types of animals in the future and/or a
higher number per lot. If more types and numbers are proposed, this should be
clearly stated and approved as such. Otherwise, the approval will be limited to a
total of three (3) cattle and/or horses, and the word "initially" should be removed.
6. The covenants should clearly state that no more than 500 square feet of lawn or
garden shall be watered with the domestic well water. All additional landscape
irrigation must be achieved from legal sources.
7. A new paragraph should be added to the covenants that is consistent with the
Sheriff's Department recommendations concerning the clear posting of road
names and addresses.
Page 11 of 14
8. The covenants and the plat should disclose that site specific engineer studies shall
be conducted for individual lot development.
M. 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, or
approximately $2000.00). 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 (approximately $23,100.00), minus the appropriate discounts. In the event any
fees increase before the time of final plat, the increased fees shall be paid.
V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing
before the Planning Commission;
2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at that hearing;
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of
the citizens of Garfield County;
4. That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning
Resolution, as amended;
5. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations of 1984.
VL RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the
Native Springs Subdivision Preliminary Plan application to the Board of County
Commissioners, with the following conditions:
1. That all representations made by the applicant in the application, and at the public hearing
before the Planning Commission , shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered
by the Planning Commission.
(Access/Roads)
2. The recommendations of the Road & Bridge Department (including moving the fence and
obtaining an access permit), shall be followed. A copy of an approved access permit shall
Page 12 of 14
be submitted prior to approval of any final plat. The historic agricultural access along the
eastern boundary of the property shall be abandoned, removed, and restored.
3. All roads and addresses shall be clearly marked so that they are visible from the road.
The covenants shall also state this.
4. The covenants shall be amended to clearly state that the HOA may assess monies for road
maintenance, and the HOA shall conduct said maintenance. The following correction
shall be made to plat note #4: "That all expense or street maintenance and associated
expenses shall be furnished by the Native Springs Subdivision Property Owners
Association, Inc., not by the County of Garfield.".
(Revegetation/Wetlands)
5. Prior to approval of the preliminary plan by the Board of County Commissioners, the
section of covenants that addresses revegetation shall be amended so that a particular
party, such as the Homeowners' Association) shall be made responsible for
implementation of the revegetation plan. Plat note #7 shall be amended to state: "The
individual lot owners shall be responsible for control of noxious weeds on their property.
The Native Springs Subdivision Property Owners Association, Inc., shall be responsible
for control of noxious weeds on all common areas."
6. The location of all wetlands shall be surveyed and shown on the plat and construction
plans as necessary. A note shall be included which prohibits disturbance of the wetlands,
and protections shall be put in place to prevent disturbance during construction.
(Drainage)
7. Prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the drainage plan shall be
amended to include provisions for ditch blockage and to specifically address flood
potential on the alluvial fans.
8. Prior to building, each lot owner shall obtain a professionally prepared (by a licensed
engineer in the State of Colorado) grading and drainage plan which ensures positive
drainage away from built structures.
(Geotechnical)
9. All recommendations made by Hepworth-Pawlak shall be followed. Site specific studies
shall be conducted for individual lot development, and a plat note and the covenants shall
state such. The following shall be included on the plat, and in the covenants: "Site
specific studies for individual lot development shall be conducted by a registered
professional engineer within the State of Colorado. These studies shall include drainage
Page 13 of 14
and grading plans, Individual Sewage Disposal System design, foundation design, and
underdrain system design. The cost of these studies shall be borne by the individual
property owner."
(Fire/Emergency Access)
10. Prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners, written approval of the
proposed project shall be obtained from the Fire District. If the Fire District has
additional recommendations or suggested changes, they shall be followed.
(Wildlife/Animals/Covenants/Fees)
11. All recommendations made by the Division of Wildlife shall be followed.
12. No more than a total of 3 cattle and/or horses shall be kept on each lot. The covenants
shall clearly state this.
13. All applicable fees shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat.
14. The covenants/plat notes shall be amended as follows:
a.) Plat note #13 states ownership of the mineral rights lies with the Greens. This note,
and the covenants, should be expanded to disclose the future possibility of mineral
exploration and recovery on the property. This disclosure must also be provided at the
time of closing.
b.) The covenants should clearly state that no more than 500 square feet of lawn or
garden shall be watered with the domestic well water. All additional landscape irrigation
must be achieved from legal sources.
(Water)
15. Prior to approval of the preliminary plan by the Board of County Commissioners, the
applicant shall provide a letter from the State Engineer's Office of "no material injury" in
light of the questions raised in the staff report, and shall provide proof of adequate
irrigation water rights to support the proposal.
16. Individual wells will be prohibited. A central water system shall be provided which
meets the subdivision regulations (specifically section 9:50 and 4:91B). The design of
said system shall be submitted for review at least 2 weeks prior to the public hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners. Or, Each and every well shall be drilled,
pump tested, and water quality tested (for nitrates, nitrites, bacteria, phase II and V
inorganics, radiation, and dissolved solids). No final plat shall be approved until the
results meet the subdivision requirements and satisfaction of the Board of County
Commissioners.
Page 14 of 14
Page 15 of 14
STATE OF COLORADO
113E STATE ENGINEER
f Water Resources
nt of Natural Resources
erman Street, Room 818
, Colorado 80203
e: (303) 866-3581
(303) 866-3589
1/water.state.co.usidefault.htM
August 8, 2001
Kit Lyon, Senior Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Native Springs Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Sections 2 & 11, T6S, R93W, 6th RM.
W. Division 5, W. District 39
Brit Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. 5irnp ,n, P.E.
State Engineer
Dear Ms. Lyon:
This is in response to you request for further clarification of our comments dated July 6,
2001 regarding the above subdivision. The water report by Vernon D. Hope states that the
irrigation line would be used to fill three 10,000 -gallon fire protection tanks during the irrigation
season. This may not be performed under the irrigation water rights since this would be an
expansion of use. However, the tanks may be filled pursuant to an undecreed diversion if there
are no calls on the system. This new water right could be adjudicated in the water court
You have also stated that the covenants allow for three horses or cattle. Contrary to the
covenants, Table 1 in the Zancanella and Associates, Inc., report notes "0 units" of livestock.
Thus, such use has not been contemplated per the proposed water supply plan, and was not
included in our recommendation letter_
If you or the applicant have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact
Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWK/CMUNative Springs i.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer
James R, Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39
:"RESOURCE
MEM
■ st•■
■ E!E■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C.
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Department
144 '/2 East Third, Suite 208
Rifle CO 81650
RE: Native Springs Subdivision Preliminary Plan Review
Dear Kit:
August 29, 2001
RECEIVED
SEP 052001
At the request of Garfield County Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed
the preliminary plan submittal for the proposed Native Springs Subdivision near Rifle,
Colorado. RESOURCE was asked to look at technical issues for the proposed project,
especially those related to the use of individual wells for water supply and ISDS for
wastewater disposal. Our comments are presented below.
WATER SUPPLY
Based on the results of the well constructed on Lot 2 it appears that an adequate water
supply could be developed for each of the Tots in the proposed subdivision.
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
The geotechnical .indicates that there are suitable soils within the subdivision on each
lot for infiltration of wastewater effluent through leachfields. However, the
geotechnical investigation determined shallow ground water at depths of 10 to 15 feet
with seasonal high ground water potentially as shallow as 5 feet. As pointed out in the
HP Geotech report, engineered mound system leachfields would be required to obtain
the minimum separation between seasonal high ground water and the bottom of the
leachfield.
The depth to ground water in Well No. 2 (26 feet) is not consistent with the shallow
ground water found in the Geotechnical borings. This may indicate that there is a
sufficient clay layer which creates a shallow perched ground water that is not
connected to the deeper ground water in the well. There is certainly concern for
potential contamination of the ground water supply by the ISDS systems. Ground
water was encountered in the well at a depth at which the geotechnical boring
indicates a change from silt and clay to sand, gravel and cobbles. Properly designed
and constructed wells which draw water from this apparent lower aquifer source
should minimize the risk of contamination from ISDS system. Additionally, consistent
with other approvals in the County, engineered individual sewage treatment systems
(ISTS) should be required.
The proposed operation and maintenance plan for ISDS is inadequate and puts the
burden on the local health department (County). An operation and maintenance plan
which is the responsibility• of the homeowners association should be developed
consistent with other approvals in the County.
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
909 Colorado Avenue i Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 1 (970) 945-6777 i Fax (970) 945-1137
DRAINAGE
The proposed drainage plan does not satisfactorily support the conclusion that there
will not be an increase in 'runoff due to development at the project. Other small
developments in the area have included individual and or central detention facilities for
the project. This project should include detention facilities or in the alternative provide
for check dams in drainage swales and ditches, low lying grassed areas, etc. which
promote infiltration.
ROADS
The proposed dead end cul-de-sac exceeds the County criteria. Based on the layout
of the property and the size of Tots, it is unclear as to why a horse shoe loop road (or
a more creative design) could not be provided for this proposed subdivision.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE E GIN ERING, INC.
Michael J. Er , P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
MJE/mmm
885-1.0 kl native springs sub.885.wpd
i
RESOURCE
NGINEERING I N C.
P.O. Box 1908
005 Cooper Ave.
lenwood Springs,
CO 81602
/K\
RECEIVED 4497b) 94200
Z,Ir4C4NELL4 4t40 455OCi4TES, INC.
ENGINEERING CONSULT411T5
August 10, 2001
Ms. Kit Lyons
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Native Springs
Dear Kit:
(970) 945-1253 Fax
RECEIVED
AUG 1 5 2001
In follow up to Ken Knox' letter of August 8, 2001, we have spoken to Ken and have
agreed that the 30,000 gallon storage tanks for exclusive fire protection use can be filled
by an exempt fire protection well (see attached §37-92-602). A copy of the well permit
application is attached
In addition, the stock associated with the subdivision will obtain its water from the Green
Spring. The spring is a decreed stock right in decree W3914 (also attached). The Green
Spring can be part of the pipe irrigation system. We are sorry we did not include the
irrigation/stock decree in our original submittal.
If you have any questions, please call our office at (970) 945-5700.
Very truly yours,
Zancanella & Associates, Inc.
forma A 7 cwo,„"QAq
Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E.
Attachment
cc: Ken Knox
Ron Liston
Z:\20000\20722 Native Springs Sub\garco_fireprot.wpd
;termina-
1; Laws
ded that all
on of water
ntinue to be
tct provided
I under sub -
on and Ad"
list. No. 11,
.2d 311, 178
in lakes was
nant did not
Water Right
a Act, claim
ter Adjudica-
)rotest could
y to protect
o. 11, Water
1, 178 Colo.
I Detennina-
continuation
gs under Ad -
filing of new
active date of
:ould proper -
diction over
rior, ongoing
County of
iter Com'rs v.
n Dist., 1985,
on of water
well in Weld
rate to clothe
exclusive jur-
ing to water
deprive Mor-
trisdiction in
nmission and
tgainst use of
in Morgan County action that water involved
was designated ground water, jurisdiction over
which was given to Ground Water Commis-
sion, and that land and water was located in
Morgan County; but if petitioners could later
prove that water was not designated ground
water and that, with proper jurisdiction, Weld
County District Court had adjudicated it,
Ground Water Commission and State Engineer
would fail in their action. Larrick v. District
Court In and For Morgan County, 1972, 493
P.2d 647, 177 Colo. 237.
6. Reasonable diligence showing
Where owners of conditional water decree
inadvertently failed to file an application for
and obtain a finding of reasonable diligence in
1972, water court had jurisdiction to cancel the
.. •u g, a ou,
607 P.2d 1289, 199 Colo. 225.
Fact that 1889 conditional decree of water
rights was included in 1974 tabulation of water
rights priorities prepared by the division engi-
neer for the water division did not estop the
water court from cancelling that conditional
decree because of the failure of the owners to
obtain, in 1972, a finding of reasonable dil-
igence. Simineo v. Kelling, 1980, 607 P.2d
1289, 199 Colo. 225.
The owner or user of a conditional water
right must comply with the statutory mandate
that it obtain findings of reasonable diligence
every four years and the failure to do so results
in the loss of conditional water rights. Town
of De Beque v. Enewold, 1980, 606 P.2d 48, 199
Colo. 110.
§ 37-92-602. Exemptions—presumptions—legislative declaration
(1) The provisions of this article, except for sections 37-92-201 and
37-92-202, shall not be applicable to:
(a) Designated ground water basins as defined and established by article 90
of this title;
(b) Wells not exceeding fifteen gallons per minute of production and used
for ordinary household purposes, fire protection, the watering of poultry,
domestic animals, and livestock on farms and ranches, and the irrigation of
not over one acre of home gardens and lawns, but not used for more than
three single-family dwellings;
(c) Wells not exceeding fifteen gallons per minute of production and used
for drinking and sanitary facilities in individual commercial businesses;
(d) Wells to be used exclusively for fire -fighting purposes if said wells are
capped, locked, and available for use only in fighting fires; and
(e) Wells not exceeding fifty gallons per minute which are in production as
of May 22, 1971, and were and are used for ordinary household purposes for
not more than three single-family dwellings, fire protection, the watering of
poultry, domestic animals, and livestock on farms and ranches, and the
irrigation of not over one acre of gardens and lawns.
(2) With respect to applications filed prior to May 8, 1972, the state
engineer shall issue a permit for the construction of wells specified in
subsection (1) of this section without regard to the provisions of section
37-90-137(2) and (3) upon submission of an application which shall be
accompanied by a fee of five dollars. It is the legislative intent that the
exemption in subsection (1) of this section is for an applicant to obtain a
water supply for his own use.
(3)(a) Wells of the type described in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1)
of this section may be constructed only upon the issuance of a permit in
accordance with the provisions of this subsection (3). A person desiring to
use such a well shall submit an application for a permit accompanied by a fee
of twenty dollars for an application under paragraph (c) of this subsection (3)
1005
M-3914
The Referee Does therefore conclude that the above entitled application
should be granted and that 0.50 cubic foot of water per second of time is
hereby awarded to ths-70reen Spring, for irrigation and livestock water
uses,with appropriation date of the 31st day of December, 1964, absolutely
and unconditionally; subject, however, to all earlier priority rights of.
others and to the integration and tabulation by the Division Engineer of
such priorties and changes of rights in accordance with law.
It is accordingly ORDERED that this ruling shall be filed with the
Water Clerk and shall become effective upon such filing, subject to
Judicial review pursuant to Section 37-92-304 C.R.S. 1973.
it is further ORDERED that acopy of this ruling shall be filed with
the appropriate Division Engineer and the -State Engineer.
Done at the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, this d day of
jJ1/A41' ,197f •
BY THE REFEREE:
4o protest was filed in this matter. Wa feree
The foregoing ruling is confirmed W r Division No. 5
and approved, and Is mode the State of Colorado
Judgment and of this court.
Dated:
WATER JUDGE
)LORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
T.,.p,ARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
13 SHERMAN ST., RM. 818, DENVER CO 80203
one - info: (303) 866-3587 main: (303)866-3581
ENERAL PURPOSE Water Well Permit Application
ease note: other forms are available for specific uses including - residential, livestock, monitoring/observ., gravel pits, registration of old wells)
aview instructions prior to completing form Must be completed in black ink or typed
. APPLICANT INFORMATION 6. USE OF WELL (please attach detailed description)
ame of applicant
'aul B. Luginbuhl and Jim E. Luginbuhl
tailing Address
D. O. Box 950
❑ INDUSTRIAL E OTHER: Fire Protection
❑ COMMERCIAL
❑ MUNICIPAL
❑ IRRIGATION
❑ FEED LOT -- number of head:
:ity
Basalt
State Zip Code
CO
81621
7. WELL DATA
releprione number (include area code)
(970) 927-4585
Maximum pumping rate
15 qpm
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check appiicable box(es))
Total depth
100 ft.
Annual amount
1.0 AF
Aquifer
Colorado R. Alluvium/Wasatch
8. LAND ON WHICH GROUND WATER WILL BE USED
O Construct new well
❑ Replace existing well
❑ Change (source) Aquifer
❑ Other:
❑ Use existing well
❑ Change or Increase Use
O Reapplication (expired permit)
3. REFER TO (if applicable):
Water court case #
West Divide Contract # 355
Emergency Verbal #
-VE-
Permit #
Monitoring hole acknowledgment #
A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (may be provided as an attachment):
See attached.
(If used for crop irrigation, attach scaled map that shows irrigated area.)
Well name or # Monitoring hole acknowledgment #
Fire Well
B. # acres
65.96
C. Owner
Paul B. & Jim E. Lueinbuhl
D. List any other wells or water rights used on this land:
Each lot will have only one well. The fire well is to be
centrally located in the cul de sac
4. LOCATION OF WELL
County
Garfield
Section
11
Township N or S
6 ❑
Quarterlquarter
NW1/4
Range E or W
93❑IJ
Quarter
NE1/4
Principal Meridian
6th
Distance of well from section lines
130 ft from ElN❑ S 2165 ftfrom El E❑ w
9. PROPOSED WELL DRILLER (optional)
Name
Shelton Drilling Corporation
Well location address. if different from applicant address (if applicable)
County Road 221
License number
1095
10. SIGNATURE of applicant(s) or authorized a2
The making of false statements herein constitutes perjury
in the second degree, which is punishable as a class 1 mis-
demeanor pursuant to C.R.S. 24-4-104(13)(a). I have read
the statements herein, know the contents thereof, and state
that they are true to my knowledge.
For replacement wells only - distance and direction from old well to new well
feet direction
5. TRACT ON WHICH WELL WILL BE LOCATED
A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (may be provided as an attachment):
See attached.
Must be original signature
Title
• v l t\&A `42./ \f
1L_
OPTIONAL INFORMATION
8. STATE PARCEL
ID# (optional):
C. x acres in tract
65.96
D. Owner
Paul B. Luginbuhl and Jim E. Luginbuhl
USGS map name
E. Will this be the only well on this tract?
❑ YES NO (if other wells are on this tract, see instructions)
Date
84; 12001
DWR map no.
Surface elev.
Office Use Only
DIV
CO
WD
BA
USE(S) MD
Form GWS -45 (12/95)
SENT BY: RIFLE FIRE;
970 825 2083; SEP -10-01 8:31AM;
RIFLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
September 6, 2001
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
109 8t' Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Attention: Kit Lyons
Reference: Native Springs Subdivision
PAGE 212
RECEIVED SEP i �1
The Rifle Fire Protection District has reviewed the proposed Native Springs Subdivision
near Rifle. The District has approved the preliminary design of the Subdivision but will
require final approval of the individual fire sprinkler systems and final acceptance of the
30,000 gallon central water supply_
Feel free to contact me ifyou have any questions_
Sincerely,
Mike Morgan
District Chief
Cc: Ron Listen
Telephone (970) 625-1243 • Fax (970) 625-2963
1850 Railroad Avenue • P -O_ Box 1133 • Rifle, Colorado 81650
RECEIVE° AUG 1 7 2001
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
August 8, 2001
Kit Lyon, Senior Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Native Springs Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Secto s 2 a 11, TOG, R:r.JVV, e P.M.
W. Division 5, W. District 39
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Dear Ms. Lyon:
This is in response to you request for further clarification of our comments dated July 6,
2001 regarding the above subdivision. The water report by Vernon D. Hope states that the
irrigation line would be used to fill three 10,000 -gallon fire protection tanks during the irrigation
season. This may not be performed under the irrigation water rights since this would be an
expansion of use. However, the tanks may be filled pursuant to an undecreed diversion if there
are no calls on the system. This new water right could be adjudicated in the water court.
You have also stated that the covenants allow for three horses or cattle. Contrary to the
covenants, Table 1 in the Zancanella and Associates, Inc., report notes "0 units" of livestock.
Thus, such use has not been contemplated per the proposed water supply plan, and was not
included in our recommendation letter.
If you or the applicant have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact
Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWK/CML/Native Springs i.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer
James R. Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39
P.O. Box 1908
1005 Cooper Ave.
Glenwood Springs,
CO 81602
/`<\
RECEIVED Ati7b) s4Aibo
(970) 945-1253 Fax
Z4NC.dNELL4 4140 455OCIwTES, INC.
ENGINEERING CONSULT4NT5
August 10, 2001
Ms. Kit Lyons
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Native Springs
Dear Kit:
RECEIVED
AUG 1 5 2001
In follow up to Ken Knox' letter of August 8, 2001, we have spoken to Ken and have
agreed that the 30,000 gallon storage tanks for exclusive fire protection use can be filled
by an exempt fire protection well (see attached §37-92-602). A copy of the well permit
application is attached
In addition, the stock associated with the subdivision will obtain its water from the Green
Spring. The spring is a decreed stock right in decree W3914 (also attached). The Green
Spring can be part of the pipe irrigation system. We are sorry we did not include the
irrigation/stock decree in our original submittal.
If you have any questions, please call our office at (970) 945-5700.
Very truly yours,
Zancanella & Associates, Inc.
Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E.
Attachment
cc: Ken Knox
Ron Liston
Z:\20000\20722 Native Springs Sub\garco_fireprot.wpd
s in which the
final determina-
§ 1; Laws
ct provided that all
ljudication of water
will continue to be
cation Act provided
proceed under sub-
rmination and Ad -
Vater Dist. No. 11,
496 P.2d 311, 178
water in lakes was
,id claimant did not
,ed by Water Right
istration Act, claim
. of Water Adjudica-
n that protest could
ct only to protect
Dist. No. 11, Water
i'.2d 311, 178 Colo.
r Right Detennina-
ct for continuation
,ceedings under Ad-
,,rized filing of new
ter effective date of
court could proper-
- jurisdiction over
f its prior, ongoing
iy and County of
of Water Com'rs v.
.rvation Dist., 1985,
idication of water
round well in Weld
of operate to clothe
with exclusive jur-
relating to water
_ire to deprive Mor -
of jurisdiction in
Commission and
:tion against use of
well, assuming truth of allegation of complaint
in Morgan County action that water involved
was designated ground water, jurisdiction over
which was given to Ground Water Commis-
sion, and that land and water was located in
Morgan County; but if petitioners could later
prove that water was not designated ground
water and that, with proper jurisdiction, Weld
County District Court had adjudicated it,
Ground Water Commission and State Engineer
would fail in their action. Larrick v. District
Court In and For Morgan County, 1972, 493
P.2d 647, 177 Colo. 237.
6. Reasonable diligence showing
Where owners of conditional water decree
inadvertently failed to file an application for
and obtain a finding of reasonable diligence in
1972, water court had jurisdiction to cancel the
conditional decree. Simineo v. Kelling, 1980,
607 P.2d 1289, 199 Colo. 225.
Fact that 1889 conditional decree of water
rights was included in 1974 tabulation of water
rights priorities prepared by the division engi-
neer for the water division did not estop the
water court from cancelling that conditional
decree because of the failure of the owners to
obtain, in 1972, a finding of reasonable dil-
igence. Simineo v. Kelling, 1980, 607 P.2d
1289, 199 Colo. 225.
The owner or user of a conditional water
right must comply with the statutory mandate
that it obtain findings of reasonable diligence
every four years and the failure to do so results
in the loss of conditional water rights. Town
of De Beque v. Enewold, 1980, 606 P.2d 48, 199
Colo. 110.
§ 37-92-602. Exemptions—presumptions—legislative declaration
(1) The provisions of this article, except for sections 37-92-201 and
37-92-202, shall not be applicable to:
(a) Designated ground water basins as defined and established by article 90
of this title;
(b) Wells not exceeding fifteen gallons per minute of production and used
for ordinary household purposes, fire protection, the watering of poultry,
domestic animals, and livestock on farms and ranches, and the irrigation of
not over one acre of home gardens and lawns, but not used for more than
three single-family dwellings;
(c) Wells not exceeding fifteen gallons per minute of production and used
for drinking and sanitary facilities in individual commercial businesses;
(d) Wells to be used exclusively for fire -fighting purposes if said wells are
capped, locked, and available for use only in fighting fires; and
(e) Wells not exceeding fifty gallons per minute which are in production as
of May 22, 1971, and were and are used for ordinary household purposes for
not more than three single-family dwellings, fire protection, the watering of
poultry, domestic animals, and livestock on farms and ranches, and the
irrigation of not over one acre of gardens and lawns.
(2) With respect to applications filed prior to May 8, 1972, the state
engineer shall issue a permit for the construction of wells specified in
subsection (1) of this section without regard to the provisions of section
37-90-137(2) and (3) upon submission of an application which shall be
accompanied by a fee of five dollars. It is the legislative intent that the
exemption in subsection (1) of this section is for an applicant to obtain a
water supply for his own use.
(3)(a) Wells of the type described in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1)
of this section may be constructed only upon the issuance of a permit in
accordance with the provisions of this subsection (3). A person desiring to
use such a well shall submit an application for a permit accompanied by a fee
of twenty dollars for an application under paragraph (c) of this subsection (3)
1005
W-3914
The Referee Does therefore conclude that the above entitled application
should be granted and that 0.50 cubic foot of water per second of time is
hereby awarded to theGreen Spring, for irrigation and livestock water
uses,with appropriation date of the 31st day of December, 1964, absolutely
and unconditionally; subject, however, to all earlier priority rights of
others and to the integration and tabulation by the Division Engineer of
such priorties and changes of rights in accordance with law.
It is accordingly ORDERED that this ruling shall be filed with the
Water Clerk and shall become effective upon such filing, subject to
Judicial review pursuant to Section 37-92-304 C.R.S. 1973.
It is further ORDERED that acopy of this ruling shall be filed with
the appropriate Division Engineer and the State Engineer.
Done at the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, this Zit day of
da.trar
,1979.
1,4 i protest was filed in this matter.
The foregoing ruling is confirmed
and approved, aid is made the
Judgment and r : ee of this court.
Doted:
W • TER JUDGE
BY THE REFEREE:
Wa teree
W Division No. 5
State of Colorado
■.■■ RESOURCE
...■■
■ ■■■■
■ ■■■■ E N G I N E E R I N G INC.
.e•te •
Kit Lyon August 29, 2001
Garfield County Planning Department
144 'h East Third, Suite 208 RECEIVED
Rifle CO 81650
SEP 0 5 2001
RE: Native Springs Subdivision Preliminary Plan Review
Dear Kit:
At the request of Garfield County Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed
the preliminary plan submittal for the proposed Native Springs Subdivision near Rifle,
Colorado. RESOURCE was asked to look at technical issues for the proposed project,
especially those related to the use of individual wells for water supply and ISDS for
wastewater disposal. Our comments are presented below.
WATER SUPPLY
Based on the results of the well constructed on Lot 2 it appears that an adequate water
supply could be developed for each of the lots in the proposed subdivision.
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
The geotechnical indicates that there are suitable soils within the subdivision on each
lot for infiltration of wastewater effluent through leachfields. However, the
geotechnical investigation determined shallow ground water at depths of 10 to 15 feet
with seasonal high ground water potentially as shallow as 5 feet. As pointed out in the
HP Geotech report, engineered mound system leachfields would be required to obtain
the minimum separation between seasonal high ground water and the bottom of the
leachfield.
The depth to ground water in Well No. 2 (26 feet) is not consistent with the shallow
ground water found in the Geotechnical borings. This may indicate that there is a
sufficient clay layer which creates a shallow perched ground water that is not
connected to the deeper ground water in the well. There is certainly concern for
potential contamination of the ground water supply by the ISDS systems. Ground
water was encountered in the well at a depth at which the geotechnical boring
indicates a change from silt and clay to sand, gravel and cobbles. Properly designed
and constructed wells which draw water from this apparent lower aquifer source
should minimize the risk of contamination from ISDS system. Additionally, consistent
with other approvals in the County, engineered individual sewage treatment systems
(ISTS) should be required.
The proposed operation and maintenance plan for ISDS is inadequate and puts the
burden on the local health department (County). An operation and maintenance plan
which is the responsibility of the homeowners association should be developed
consistent with other approvals in the County.
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 • (970) 945-6777 IN Fax (970) 945-1137
DRAINAGE
The proposed drainage plan does not satisfactorily support the conclusion that there
will not be an increase in runoff due to development at the project. Other small
developments in the area have included individual and or central detention facilities for
the project. This project should include detention facilities or in the alternative provide
for check dams in drainage swales and ditches, low lying grassed areas, etc. which
promote infiltration.
ROADS
The proposed dead end cul-de-sac exceeds the County criteria. Based on the layout
of the property and the size of lots, it is unclear as to why a horse shoe loop road (or
a more creative design) could not be provided for this proposed subdivision.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE E GIN ERING, INC.
Michael J. ErierS, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
MJE/mmm
885-1.0 kl native springs sub.885.wpd
RESOURCE
ENGINEERING INC
: NATIVE SKIES PHONE NO.
Form No,
GWS -25
APPLICANT
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Bit trenkenaial eidg ,1; 15 Sherman Bk, Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 883.3581
PAUL B & JIM E LUGINBUWL
P 0 SOX 950
BASALT, CO 81621-
(970) 927-4885
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL
Sep. K021 08:43AM P1
RECEIVED SEP 1o 2001
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 235794
DIV. 5 WD 39 DES, BASIN MD
1095
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTY
NW 114 NE 1/4 Section 11
Township 8 8 Range 93 W Sixth P.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
130 Ft. from North Section Line
2165 Ft. from East See:lon Line
UTM WORQINATES
Northing: Easting:
ISSUANCE, CrF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER -Til. =IT
CONQITIQNS OF APPROVAL
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The Issuance of this permit
does not assure the applicant that no injury will ocour to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested
water right from seekIng relief In a civil court action.
2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 OCR 402-2, unless approval
of a variance has been granted by the State board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation
Contractors in accordance with Rule 18.
3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37.92.802(3)(b)(I) for the use as described In CRS 37.92-602(1)(d).
4) The use of groundwater from this well is limited to fire protection. This well shall be capped and locked, and be available
for use only in fighting fires.
5) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 15 GPM.
8) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 1 acre-foot.
7) The Division Engineer shell be notified within 72 hours whenever this well is pumped.
8) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the Ioc.ation specified on this permit 61/.t.V‘ t
APPROVED
JSG
Receipt No. 0480917
State Engineer - PA 1)�*
DATE ISSUED ip
2 9at3