HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 02.09.1994i
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
OWNER:
ENGINEER/PLANNER
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
-�1 I -/E,
E_XC- APP
E1- nSE___
E 2 s,3
c2-c‘-lS o f- < (45L(
PC 2/09/94
River Ridge PUD
J & S Enterprises (Walter Stowe)
High Country Engineering
A tract of land situated in Sections 1 and 2,
T7S, R89W, and Sections 35, 36 T6S, 89W
of the 6th P.M.; located between
Carbondale and Glenwood Springs along
the south bank of the Roaring Fork River,
adjacent to Westbank Subdivision.
8.03 Acres
Domestic well with water system
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
(1.S.D.S.)
Access from C.R. 109
PUD
A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in District B Subdivisions/Rural Service Areas, Minor
Environmental Constraints on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management
Districts Map.
IL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject property is directly adjacent to the Westbank
development, on terrace of the Roaring Fork River. The property is currently
undeveloped, with the exception of an existing single-family dwelling unit, two
duplexes and a mobile home on the south end of the proposed PUD.
1
• •
B. Project Description: The applicants are proposing to subdivide the 8.003 acre
parcel into eight tracts, all approximately 1.004 acres in size. It is proposed to
develop a central water system using a domestic well as the source. Each lot will
have an ISDS system.
C. Background: In 1979, the previous property owner was granted approval for a
50 unit PUD (Resolution 79-74). Subsequently, the final plat for the project was
approved for 48 dwelling units. As part of the approval process, a central sewer
system was to be developed to serve the River Ridge PUD and Westbank Filing
#4. No system was ever developed, and the River Ridge PUD was given a
number of extensions of approval to complete the subdivision improvements
originally proposed.
The PUD was amended in 1993 (Resolution 93-009, see pages , �/ ). These
amendments established the zone districts for the site applicable to the
subdivision request.
III. REVIEW AGENCzY COMMENTS
A. Division of Wildlife The site is located within currently napped as critical deer
winter range and elk winter range. Due to the level of adjacent development,
DOW recognizes that the area no longer meets critical habitat criteria. The
DOW does not object to the project, but suggests that the County consider
multiple -family housing to reduce the pressure of additional land development
on wildlife habitat (see letter on PUD submittal).
B. Colorado Department of Health. CDOH suggests that the applicant provide a
preliminary analysis of a tie-in to the proposed Aspen Glen Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility (see 12-17-93 letter from Dwain Watson on page
/4-- ).
Glenwood Springs Department of Emergency Services. Jack Jones, Assistant
Chief, reviewed the project and has made a number of recommendations
addressing fire flow requirements and road standards (see 1-27-94 letter on pages
/3 )11 ).
D. Colorado Office of the State Engineer. Judy Sappington, Water Resources
Engineer, reviewed the project and had the following comments (see letter on
pages /CIL /6 ):
•
Although two decrees exist on the site, the uses were not perfected by
October 15, 1977. Therefore, the uses are not grandfathered under Green
Mountain Reservoir's historic users pool;
• If the applicant intends on expanding the existing rights to serve the
proposed project, a change case before Water Court is necessary.
The applicant's attorney has disputed Ms. Sappington's interpretation of the
Green Mountain user's pool (John Schenk's January 24, 1994 letter on page,/
-/7- ).
No other agencies that received the application have commented at this time.
2
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: A review of the Comprehensive Plan
indicates that the proposal is generally consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Plan, including issues surrounding compatibility with adjacent
development. Staff notes that the proposal is generally the same as the adjacent
filings of the Westbank project.
B. Soils/Topography:
The geologic report, conducted by Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.d., is included in the
applicant's submittal package. Dr. Lampiris indicated that the only serious
constraint is in regards to the steep bank descending to the Roaring Fork River.
Dr. Lampiris suggested that a setback for foundations be at the least the amount
of vertical relief at each site to protect homesites from erosion. Staff supports
Dr. Lampiris's suggested setback.
C. Road Design: No specific roadway standards were approved within the PUD,
so Garfield County road standards apply to the subdivision. Section 9.35
require the project comply with the following standards:
Road Definition:
Design Capacity:
Minimum ROW:
Lane Width:
Shoulder Width:
Ditch Width:
Surface:
Minimum Radius:
Semi -Primitive
2-10 dwelling units
40'
8'
6'
6'
Gravel
50'
Road profiles submitted with the application indicate compliance with these
standards (see map sheet 2).
D. Water: As addressed earlier, there is some confusion regarding the Green
Mountain Reservoir User's Pool. The applicant's attorney has responded to the
interpretations of the State Engineer's Office. A water rights analysis was
conducted by Resource Engineering (see January 21, 1994 letter from Paul
Bussone, Water Resource Engineer, on pages /g- .2/ ). Mr. Bussone's
assessment contradicts Ms. Sappington's original analysis.
E.
Staff suggests that resolution (evidenced by a letter of approval by the State), be
a condition of approval.
Wastewater: Sewage disposal will be by ISDS, although the Department of
Health has suggested that a preliminary analysis to a tie-in to the Aspen Glen
Treatment Plant. No analysis has been submitted to date by the applicant's
Engineer addressing a central sewer option, although staff contacted High
Country Engineering on January 3rd, 1994 regarding this option.
Percolation tests have not been conducted on the property. SCS profiles indicate
only minor constraints to ISDS on the site. Staff notes that several system
failures have occurred in the general vicinity of the project. These failures have
3
Nit
F.
G.
H.
• 1
been attributed to inadequate maintenance during previous hearings regarding
Aspen Glen and the Westbank Filing #4 PUD. Staff suggests that the covenants
be amended to enforce compliance with standard maintenance practices by the
Homeowner's Association. This is consistent with Section 4.92(E), which reads
as follows:
"Ifindividual sewage disposal systems are to be utili4 a proposed management
plan for the operation and maintenance ofthe on-site systemssball beprovided. "
Fire Protection: Fire storage may need to be increased for fire protection
purposes. The Glenwood Springs Emergency Services have made specific
suggestions regarding storage needs on the site (60,000 gallons on-site storage,
6" lines, fire hydrants every 500 feet, 500 GPD at 20 PSI for 20 minutes). These
standards are directly from the adopted Uniform Fire Code. Staff notes that
Section 4.33 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that the Board of County
Commissioners shall makes its decision based, in part, on conformity with "other
applicable local, state and federal regulations..".
Glenwood Springs has identified a discrepancy between Garfield County
roadway standards and requirements contained in the Uniform Fire Code. Jack
Jones indicated in his 10-27-94 letter that the road and shoulders must be
capable of supporting 56,000 lbs. Staff suggests that the applicant's engineer
address this issue directly at the hearing.
Zoning: All of the proposed lots conform with the minimum parcel size and
development requirements of the Zoning Resolution.
Guest Houses: The covenants indicate that guest houses are permitted within
the subdivision, although it is unclear if existing water rights are adequate for
additional dwelling units. If sufficient water rights do not exist, this portion of
the covenants should be deleted.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the application, based on the following
conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant, either within the application or
stated at the public hearing with the Planning Commission, be considered
conditions of approval.
2. The applicants shall establish a Homeowners Association and shall be
incorporated in accordance with the requirements of Colorado Revised
Statutes. The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the all
water rights and infrastructure and for road maintenance and snow
removal. The articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants shall be
reviewed by County Staff prior to the approval of a Final Plat.
3. The applicants shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements
Agreement, addressing all improvements, prior to recording a final plat.
4. All utilities shall be placed underground.
4
• 1
5. All cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native
grasses using certified weed -free seed.
6. The applicants shall pay $200 per lot in school impact fees prior to
approval of the final plat.
7. All roadways shall be designed and constructed in conformance with
design standards set forth in the Subdivision Regulations and in place at
the time of final plat.
8. The covenants shall be amended to include a mechanism to ensure proper
maintenance of all ISDS for the PUD.
9. All requirements of\the Gleny oad Springs Ernerrene
applicable to the projt.
10. The Final Plat shall depict a supplemental setback, consistent with the
vertical distance to the Roaring Fork River, consistent with the
recommendations of the applicant's geology report.
11. No Final Plat approval will be granted by Garfield County without a
favorable recommendation from the State Engineer's Office regarding a
legal and adequate water supply for the project.
P
5
Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner.
-p
co 141)k7(.1
1SS
�`�f S t �'� V/ 11 V
c
I C� P ;,(;)
Nps � J"S ° Sei t3n '' MErR
\-) To
m
t4D -f6 oNt
n F- 44)
L���� -rte
_ t,a
CI t�
no 0114 c.-\
stA�r� \, 5
w H
(:),F. f) Ptzl�tL
to 3°Plz-D Imo` TlzoVaL-
•
tiAK
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
088 L::A/afr
A parcel of land situated in a portion of Lot 5, Section 1 and Lot 1, Section 2
of Township 7 South and in a portion of Lot 11 and 26, Section 35 and Lot 3,
Section 36, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian,
County of Garfield, State of Colorado; said parcel being more particularly
described as follows:
Co►mnencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 35; thence N.32°14'21"W.
189.20 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence N.42°04'00"E. 137.20 feet;
thence S.48°11'00"E. 324.47 feet to a point on the westerly line of Reception
No. 354946; thence the following six (6) courses along said westerly line
(bearings on said Reception No. 354946 have been rotated):
1.) S.07°15'i9"T. 53.40 feet;
2.) S.28°59'28"E. 639.26 feet;
3.) S.30°10'26"c. 79.41 feet;
4.) along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 395.19 feet
and a central angle of 45°38'45", a distance of 314.84 feet (chorea
bears S.08°23'91"E. 306.58 feet);
5.) 5.14°25'52"W. 78.63 feet;
6.) along the arc of a curve to the left having a radiu=s of 652.52 feet
and a central angle of 16°07'40", a distance of 103.67 feet (chord
bears 5.06°22'04"W. 183.07 feet); thence leaving said westerly line
S.40°32'00"W. 19.87 feet to a point on the easterly line of 1'estbank Ranch
Subdivision Filing No. 3; thence 5.70°37100"W. along said easterly line 26.20
feet: thence continuing along said easterly line N.25°28'00"W. 1529.00 feet to
the True Point of Beginnin2g; said parcel containing 8.003 Acres, more or less.
August 8. 1989
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF DEALT I1
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and
environment of the people of Colorado
Grand )unction Regional Office
222 S. 616 Street, Rrn. 232
Grand )unction, CO 81501-2768
FAX: (303) 248-7198
December 17, 1993
STATE OF COLCOIZADO
n r7-11
al
i DEC 2 1 1995 it
L. p N. _________ ,L
OAK' 3.1) GO.W4T-'r
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: Dave Michaelson
RE: River Ridge PUD Preliminary Plan.
is 4 -
Roy Romer
Governor
I'auicia A. Nolan, MD, MPI
Executive Director
Dear Dave:
We have the following comments regarding the subject proposal:
The Garfield County Commissioners have approved the Aspen Glen Golf
Club wastewater treatment facility as a regional facility. Aspen
Glen has identified, their proposed plant asas a re onto l fami it .
It would seem worth at least a preliminary
if
the regional facility could be utilized for this proposal
If you have any questions,
Seely, /17___il
,_-
7k4C.•;"v:;'-`-- i6-'..1 /2.t:14:/ :%-'9,c,,,
C..
Dwain P. Watson
West Slope District Technician
Water Quality Control Division
please contact me at 248-7150.
DPW/sp
CC: Mark Bean, Garfield County Sanitarian
File
Pr itir' t on Recycled Paper
AA I
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
January 27, 1994
Dave Michaelson
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING AND I'LANNING
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
EMS • FIRE • RESCUE
Dear Dave:
I have just completed the preliminary plan review submitted for the River Ridge P.U.D. The
following is a list of requirements that will need to be approved before approval from our
department and the Carbondale Fire District (This development is split between both fire
districts).
1. Access - The proposed road is shown to have a 16' roadway with 2' shoulders on each
side. The Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.204(a) requires a minimum of 20' for access
roadways. The proposed road would be acceptable to us as long as the road is an all
weather surface and be able to sustain the weight of fire apparatus (56,000 lbs.) The
shoulders of the road would have to meet the above specifications in order to give us a
20' fire access. The shoulders would also have to remain clear of all snow and parked
cars.
2. The road grade does not pose a problem and the proposed turn -a -round sleets the
requirements of dead end roadways as long as parking in the area is not allowed.
3. Nothing on the plan or submittals address water supply for fire fighting. The Uniform
Fire Code (Section 10.401) requires water supply to all buildings constructed (over two
dwellings). We will require that an engineered water system be developed which will
include the following:
A. Minimum of 60,000 gallons of on-site storage for fire fighting. Any domestic
water requirements will be above and beyond the required fire flow storage.
806 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945-2575 • FAX (303) 945-2597
L,.
{
7
Letter to Mr. Michaelson
January 27, 1994
Page Two
B. A minimum of 6" water line pipe is required to supply fire flows through fire
hydrants. The proposed 4" pipe is not acceptable.
C. Fire hydrants are required with the above pipe sizes and are to be spaced every
500' for residential developments (See our department for proper hydrant
locations).
D. Be advised that the engineered water system must be capable of supplying 500
gallons per minute at 20 PSI residual pressure minimum for 2 hours.
E. Plans for the engineered water system must be submitted to our office for
approval before any work is done. Specifications for acceptable piping is
available at our office.
Premises identification - Per Section 10.301(a) of the 1991 U.P.C., approved numbers
or addresses shall be placed on all new buildings to be plainly seen from the street
fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background.
I have discussed these requirements with Carbondale Fire Chief Ron Leach, and he concurs that
the above items will need to be addressed before our approval is granted.
If you have any questions about these requirements, please contact ine at City Hall, 945-2575
or 945-4942.
Sincerely,
411
Jack ones, Assistant Chief, Glenwood Springs
Department of Emergency Services
JJ:kng
cc: Ron Leach
File
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF TUE 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
December 28, 1993
n u 3 Vtia fE
•
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: River Ridge P.U.D Preliminary Plan
Sections 1 & 2, T7S and Sections 35 & 36, T6S, R89W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
JRoy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
-I 111 D. Simpson
State Engineer
Dear Dave:
Thank you for referral for the preliminary plan to subdivide 8.003 acres into eight single
family dwellings lots. The project is located along the Roaring Fork River northwest of Cattle
Creek. The proposed source of water for the development is from two existing, decreed wells
which, according to the applicant, are protected from calls in the priority system by releases from
Green Mountain Reservoir. In addition, the applicant has obtained a contract with West Divide
Conservancy District for 1.0 acre-feet for use at the Owens Domestic Well No. 1.
•
The proposed water supply is from two wells 1) Owens Domestic Well No. 1, decreed in
W-1299 and adjudicated for 0.022 cfs (9.9 gpm) for domestic purposes with a priority date of August
31, 1966 and 2) Owens Domestic and Irrigation Well stock watering with areed tn priority00 datetofadjudicated
September
for 0.1 cfs (50 gpm) for domestic, irrigation and
1966. The applicant has shown these two wells existing on the subject eight acres.
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(h)(1), C.R.S. 1973, the State Engineer's Office offers the
following opinion for your consideration regarding material injury to decreed water rights and the
adequacy of the proposed water supply:
Pursuant to the Operating Policy for Green Mountain Reservoir dated January 23,
1984, "...When the administration of water under the priority systeni...would result
in the curtailment ...of a water right for irrigation or domestic uses..., which was
perfected by use on or before October 15, 1977,...water will be released without
charge from Green Mountain Reservoir...to the extent necessary to permit diversion
to the full amount of said decrees...".
It is our belief that water at the proposed eight single fancily dwellings was not
perfected by use on or before October 15, 1977 under either decree. As such, these
new uses are not covered under W-1299 nor W-1300 nor are the new uses
grandfathered wider Green Mountain Reservoir's historic users pool.
Mr. Dave Michaelson
December 28, 1993
Page 2
Both Case W-1299 and W-1300 allow water supplies for the historic use of the wells
whose depletions may be covered by Green Mountain. If the applicant intends to
expand the use of these water rights, a change case before the Water Court in
Glenwood Springs is necessary. The existence of a West Divide contract does not
complete the applicant's water supply plan since the contract is for use at two single
family dwellings.
Should you have further questions or continents regarding the water supply for this project,
please contact me at the above address.
Sincerely,
y T. 1 pington
ter R ources Engineer
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
riverridge.sub
JOHN R. SCHENK
DAN KERS "I'
WILLIAM J. dcWINI'ER, 111
•
SCIIENK, KERS'!' & delVIN'I'ER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 310, 302 tumuli STREET
OLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2447
TL'LECOI'IER: (303) 945-2977
January 24, 1994
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: River Ridge P.U.D. Water Supply
Dear Dave:
.7.-;,17;c175 C., r 1
%.i
r •'1.1t+l', 2. 5 1994 1
L;Mi= I tt.0
On January 3, 1994, you wrote Tim Beck a letter on the question of a legal water supply
for the River Ridge PUD development. We also reviewed the letter addressed to you dated
December 28, 1993, from Judy Sappington, a water resource engineer with the State Engineer's
Department.
Mr. Stowe had previously engaged Paul S. Bussone of Resource Engineering, Inc. for
the purpose of analyzing the water supply for the project and assisting in obtaining the initial
West Divide Water Conservancy water contract. Based on an analysis of the water available to
this project, Mr. Bussone observed that there were six existing dwelling units on the property
and historic irrigation of five (5) acres. These uses had all been perfected prior to 1977 and
were therefore protected by the Green Mountain Historic Users Pool. Therefore, Mr. Stowe
obtained a legal supply for an additional two (2) dwelling units from West Divide Water
Conservancy District. Mr. Bussone's letter of January 21, 1994, is enclosed and provides an
analysis of these two (2) water rights.
The water rights for this project were decreed as absolute in December, 1972, for .022
cfs and .1 cfs respectively. Both allow domestic water uses. In addition, the larger water right
also provides for irrigation and stock watering. Therefore, we believe the issue of perfection
for protection by Green Mountain Reservoir has been demonstrated. If you need any additional
information on this natter, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience.
Very tr(f1y ygtrf
JRS/sn
Encl.
cc:
Walt Stowe
Judy Sappington
Paul Bussone
Tiin Beck
IIMIMITOWTAM101A11111.LTI,
JOHN R. SCEI
HUI R E
U NPIN
■ ■U11■ E N G I N E E R I N G
Iii --T.,7,1
f\�'. ' i ISN ' T2:51.1994
:
.COUN fY
Mr. John Schenk
Schenk, Karst and deWinter
302 Eighth Street, Suite 310
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Walter Stowe Wells
January 21, 1994
Dear John:
At your request Resource Engineering, Inc. conducted an investigation of the two wells
serving Mr. Stowe's property near Westbank subdivision. Our investigation included
a review of the court decrees, an on-site inspection of the structures and uses and
interviews with persons knowledgeable about the historic use of these water rights.
OWENS DOMESTIC WELL NO. 1
Owens Domestic Well No. 1 was decreed absolute for 0.022 cfs (10 gpm) for domestic
use in Case No. W-1299. A copy of the decree is attached. The adjudication date is
1972 and the appropriation date is August 31, 1966. The legal description given in
the decree is consistent with the actual location.
The well serves ono single family house, two duplexes (four dwelling units) and a
mobile home for a total of six dwelling units. The units are serviced by septic tank and
Ieachfield systems. There is no outside irrigation from the domestic well. The total
historic water use for the six units is estimated to be 2.15 acre feet annually with a
consumptive use of 0.32 acre feet.
OWENS DOMESTIC AND IRRIGATION WELL NO. 1
Owens Domestic and Irrigation Well No. 1 was decreed absolute for 0.10 cfs (45 gpm)
for domestic, irrigation and stockwater in Case No. W-1300. A copy of the decree is
attached. The adjudication date is 1972 and the appropriation date is September 30,
1966. The legal description given in the decree is inconsistent. The bearing and
distance portion of the legal description; "... at a point whence the southwest corner
of said Section 36 bears South 29° 04' West, 140.5 feet.", places the well in the
SW 14, SW'%, Section 36 instead of the NWA, NW%, Section 36 as stated in the first
part of the legal description. The well is actually located as described by the bearing
and distance.
The well provides irrigation water for approximately 5 acres of lawn, gardens and
open -space on the property.
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
802 Grarid Avenue, Suite 302 ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 s [303] 945-6777 1 Fax 945-1137
January 21, 1994
Mr. John Schenk
Page 2
w
s
The historic irrigation of five acres
and
t esein-house
uses are protectedsix
by the Greresidential
en Mountain
pperfected prior to 1977 and therefore
historic users pool.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
Paul S. Bussone, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
PSB/rnmm
399-1.0
dk2wsw.399
CC: Mr. Walter Stowe
1.1
RESOURCE
-- N G I tl I- F. t I N G INC
'81
IN THE DI ;TRICT COURT IN AND FOR
WATER DIVISION 1O. 5
STATE OF COLORADO
CASE No. w— 1299
IN THE MATTER OF THE • )
APPLICATION FOR )
WATER Riolrrs OF ROBERT J.' OWENS )
AND BILLIE L. OWENS
IN THE ROARING FORK
RIVER OR ITS TRIBUTARIES
TRIBUTARY INVOLVED:
IN GARFIELD coUUTY
IN WATER COURT
Division No. S
DECOG 1972
TE Or C��jOLO/RACC
.t<U..elc 41J.!t ?
waren enc.-•
•
RULING OF THE REFEREE
AB WI JITE DECREE FOR
UNDER GROUND WATER RIGWES
And the Referee having made the investigations required
by Article 21 of Chapter 148, C.R.S. 1963, as amended does hereby
make the following ruling, to wit:
This application wan referred to the Water Referee of
Water Division No. 5 on the 12th day of July , 197„x•
Robert J. Owens and Billie L. Owens
1. Name of Applicant
Address
Route 1, Box 160
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Owens Domestic Well•No. 1.
2. The name of the structure
is
3. The Legal description of the structure is :
in the NW1/4NW1/4 of Section 1, T. 7 S.,
P.M. at a point whence the Northwest
bears N. 43°36' W. 359.1.feet.
4. The depth of the well is 85 feet.
5. The date of initiation of appropriation is August 31, 1966.
6. The amount of water claimed is 0.022 cubic foot per
second of time.
7. The use of the water is domestic.
8. The State Engineer's.number is none.
9. The Priority date is August 31, 1966.
10. The date of the application was June 28, 1972.
It is the ruling of the Referee that the statements in the
application are true and that the above described water right in
.approved and granted the indicated priority; subject, however, to
all earlier priority rights of others.
It is accordingly ordered that thin ruling shall become
effective upon filing with the Water Clerk, subject to Judicial review
as provided by law.
Done �a the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado thin
day of ,1 415-4/ �x4--- , 1972z.
The well is located
R. 89 W. of the 6th
Corner of said Section 1
1:o protest -ns filnd in thin nnttor•
Ih., forcrniur, ruline. is confirmed
tir; roved, nud 1s irado the
Juc,jment and Docroe of this court.
noted:ZtA( /9/
19.73
L.,Kcntcr Referee
. Wnter Division. No. 5
State of Colorado
i
IN TIIE DI ;TIT 'R iN 1RD FOR
WATER D:
STATE OF COLORADO
CASE NO. W -JIM_
IN TIIE NATTER OF TIIE )
APPLICATION FOR )
ROBERT J . ` UWENS )
WATER RIGHTS OF
and BILLIE L. O?;ENS
IN THE ROARING FORK
RIVER OR ITS TRIBUTARIES
TRIBUTARY INVOLVED:
IN GARFIELDCOUNTY
•
FII_L0
% \\rn'L I
r lei
aiun
DEC 0 `7197?_
STATE OF COL.OWO"�
r/...... wh.1I.nc,,:.• }
RULING OF THE REFEREE
) ABSOLUTE DWREE FOR
)
)
UNDER GROUND WATER RIGHTS
And the Referee having made the investigations required
by Article 21 of Chapter 148, C.R.S. 1963, as amended does hereby
make the following ruling, to wit:
This application woo referred to the Water Referee of
Water Division No. 5 on the 12th day of July
Robert J. Owens and Billie L. Owens
Route 1, Box 160
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
2. The name of the structure is Owens Domestic and Irrigation Well No.l.
3. The Legal description of the structure is: The well is located
in the NW1:NWk of Section 36, T. 6 S., R. 89 t. of the 6th
P.M. at a point whence the Southwest Corner of said
Section 36 bears: S. 29° 04' W. 140.5 feet.
4. The depth of the well is 85 feet.
5. The date of initiation of appropriation ie September 1966.
1. Name of Applicant
Address
6. The
7. The use of the water in
8. The
amount of water claimed is
0.10 cubic foot per
second of time.
domestic, irrigation and
State Engineer's number is 11214.
stock water.
9. The Priority date in September 30, 1966.
10. The date of the application was June 28, 1972.
It is the ruling of the Referee that the statements in the
application are true and that the above described water right is
approved and granted the indicated priority; subject, however, to
all earlier priority rights of others.
It is accordingly ordered that thin ruling shall become
effective upon filing with the Water Clerk, subject to Judicial review
as provided by law.
Done at the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado this
day ofYel// 44, , 197
7 `—
•
I'n protent won filed 1.n thin mittn-
lh forcrcoine rulir^ In en',f irm 1
or r,rrrovcd, and is mnrlr± the
Ju..,,mont and Decree of this oourt.
Water Referee
Water Division No. 5
State of Colorado
it
1''
RECORDED 4. Za
REC I `�kU6,0
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield )
Ata regular
County, Colorado, held
Monday , the 1st
•
bow( 85J ra3E8'f?
FLuU;�1993
O'CLOCK.M•
MILDRED ALSDORF, COUNTY CLERK
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield
at the Garfield County Courthouse in Glenwood Springs on
day of February A.D. 19_9_3_, there were present:
Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney
Marian I. Smith
Arnold L. Mackley
Don DeFord
Mildred Alsdorf
Chuck Deschenes
, Commissioner Chairman
, Commissioner
, Commissioner
, County Attorney
, Clerk of the Board
, County Administrator
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-009
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITII TIIE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT OF
THE RIVER RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL OF ITS
PLAN.
WIIEREAS, Walter A. Stowe has filed an application with the Board of County
Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, for the amendment of the River Ridge Planned
Unit Development and approval of its plan for the parcel of land to be rezoned; and
• WI-IEREAS, the Board approved by Resolution No. 79-74 the I Iillview Planned Unit
Development, now known as the River Ridge P.U.D. on July 9, 1979; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by this Board on December 14, 1992;
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence, sworn testimony, exhibits, study of the
comprehensive plan for the unincorporated areas of Garfield County, continents from the
Garfield County Department of Development and the Garfield County Planning Commission,
and comments from all interested parties, this Board finds, based on substantial competent
evidence, as follows:
1. That proper publication and public notice was provided, as required by law, for the
hearing before the Board;
2. That the hearing before the Board was extensive and complete, that all pertinent
facts, matters and issues were submitted, and that all interested parties were heard at the
hearing;
3. That the Garfield County Planning Commission has recommended to this Board
that the requested zoning change be granted, provided that certain conditions be
imposed upon the applicant;
.11 K 5 rr4E 87
4. That the PUD amendment is consistent with the efficient development and
preservation of the entire PUD, does not affect, in a substantially adverse manner,
either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD, or the
public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person;
5. That the proposed zoning is in general compliance with the recommendations set
forth in the comprehensive plan for the unincorporated area of the County; provided
certain conditions are met in any subsequent land use permit applications;
6. That the requested Planned Unit Development amendment is in general compliance
with all requirements of the applicable Garfield County Zoning Resolution and, further,
that the request Planned Unit Development Amendment is suitable and appropriate for
the subject property, given the location, condition and circumstances of the property,
and it is generally compatible with existing land uses in the surrounding nearby area;
7. That for the above -stated and other reasons, the proposed Planned Unit
Development amendment and planned unit development plan is in the best interest of
health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County; and
WHEREAS, the Board must, for the purpose of analyzing the subject application, in
accordance with the provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, establish the
neighborhood which inay be affected by the possible approval of the zoning change and,
further, the Board has determined that, except as otherwise noted herein, such neighborhood
is in the area of Garfield County, Colorado, within a one and one half (1 1/2) axile radius of the
proposed development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Garfield County, Colorado, that the application for the Amendment of the River Ridge
Planned Unit Development be approved for the following described property in the
unincorporated area of Garfield County, as follows:
1. That all verbal and written representations of the applicant shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless expressly provided for in this Resolution.
2. That the applicant shall not claim any vested right to the PUD zoning unless
subdivision approval of the Preliminary Plan is given within one (1) year from the date
of approval of the PUD modification, per Section 4.09.01 of the Garfield County
Zoning Resolution.
3. That the zoning text of the Planned Unit Development plan for the River Ridge
Planned Unit Development is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by
reference as is fully set forth herein.
4. That the planned unit development map for the River Ridge Planned Unit
Development is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference as if
fully set forth herein.
5. That the legal description of the property which encompasses the River Ridge
Planned Unit Development is attached herein as Exhibit "C", incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
Dated this lst day of February , A.D. 93
ATTEST:
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS,
GARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
1. •.t�ia-�.r
Clerk of the Board ChairIllan
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the
following vote:
Marian I. Smith
Arnold L. Mackley
Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield )
, Aye
, Aye
, Aye
I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the
annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the
Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in niy office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said
County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of
A.D. 19 of the
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk
Board of County Commissioners.
'EYOoK 853IrAGE 9
EX/41611.
RESIDENTIAL/DISTRICT/SINGLE FAMILY
Uses, by right: Single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses, including buildings for
shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the lot for single-family
residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features. Two
family dwellings and mobile home existing as of the date of approval of the P.U.D. provided
that prior to conveyance of lots 2, 3 or 4 to another party, such uses shall be removed or
demolished.
Uses. conditional Day nursery and school, home occupation.
Uses, sl)eci ul: Studio for conduct of arts and crafts.
sILLot Area: Forty thousand (40,000) square feet. The roadway serving the P.U.D.
shall be included in the affected Lot and shall be an easement across such Lot.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Twenty-five percent (25A).
Minimum Setback:
(1) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet
from 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;
•
•
•
tYT
� q
(2
Af7,.
IV
(n1
0
Is
0
4
• 130@x 853 rtG.E8SO
st
alti
0
`1
�� �40 CI M
•e
0
V
r
r
.r
40 •
BOCC 6/20/94
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: River Ridge PUD
OWNER: J & S Enterprises (Walter Stowe)
ENGINEER/PLANNER High Country Engineering
LOCATION: A tract of land situated in Sections 1 and 2,
T7S, R89W, and Sections 35, 36 T6S, 89W
of the 6th P.M.; located between
Carbondale and Glenwood Springs along
the south bank of the Roaring Fork River,
adjacent to Westbank Subdivision.
SITE DATA: 8.03 Acres
WATER: Domestic well with water system
SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
(I.S.D.S.)
ACCESS: Access from C.R. 109
EXISTING ZONING: PUD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
I. ,RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in District B Subdivisions/Rural Service Areas, Minor
Environmental Constraints on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management
Districts Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject property is directly adjacent to the Westbank
development, on terrace of the Roaring Fork River. The property is currently
undeveloped, with the exception of an existing single-family dwelling unit, two
duplexes and a mobile home on the south end of the proposed PUD (see vicinity
map on enclosed blueline).
B. Project Description: The applicants are proposing to subdivide the 8.003 acre
parcel into eight tracts, all approximately 1.004 acres in size. It is proposed to
develop a central water system using a domestic well as the source. Each lot will
have an ISDS system.
.l0-
•
C. Background: In 1979, the previous property owner was granted approval for a
50 unit PUD (Resolution 79-74). Subsequently, the final plat for the project was
approved for 48 dwelling units. As part of the approval process, a central sewer
system was to be developed to serve the River Ridge PUD and Westbank Filing
#4. No system was ever developed, and the River Ridge PUD was given a
number of extensions of approval to complete the subdivision improvements
originally proposed.
The PUD was amended in 1993 (Resolution 93-009, see pages rc-il ). These
amendments established the zone districts for the site applicable to the
subdivision request.
III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Division of Wildlife The site is within currently mapped as critical deer winter
range and elk winter range. Due to the level of adjacent development, DOW
recognizes that the area no longer meets critical habitat criteria. The DOW does
not object to the project, but suggests that the County consider multiple -family
housing to reduce the pressure of additional land development on wildlife
habitat (see letter in PUD submittal).
B. Colorado Department of Health. CDOH suggests that the applicant provide a
preliminary analysis of a tie-in to the proposed Aspen Glen Regional
Wte ter Treatment Facility (see 12-17-93 letter from Dwain Watson on page
•fI•).
C. Glenwood Springs Department of Emergency Services. Jack Jones, Assistant
Chief, reviewed the project and has made a number of recommendations
aadd a siiing fire flow requirements and road standards (see 1-27-94 letter on pages
).
D. Colorado Office of the State Engineer. Judy Sappington, Water Resources
Engineer, reviey94 the project and had the following comments (see letter on
pages 3 r ):
• Although two decrees exist on the site, the uses were not perfected by
October 15, 1977. Therefore, the uses are not grandfathered under Green
Mountain Reservoir's historic users pool;
• If the applicant intends on expanding the existing rights to serve the
proposed project, a change case before Water Court is necessary.
The applicant's attorney has disputed Ms. Sappington's interpretation of the
•Gree : ountain user's pool (John Schenk's January 24, 1994 letter on page
�1 ).
E. Colorado Geologic Survey. The Colorado Geologic Survey has reviewed the
project, and suggested engineered foundations. In addition, CGS has concerns
regarding the feasibility of Individual Sewage Disposal System on each lot (see
2-3-94 letter on pageS J‘421). Staff suggests the following plat note be
a condition of approval:
• •
1. Engineered foundations will be required for all residential structures
within the PUD.
2. Soil conditions on the site MAY require an engineered ISDS. Site
specific percolation tests shall determine specific ISDS requirements on
each lot.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: A review of the Comprehensive Plan
indicates that the proposal is generally consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Plan, including issues surrounding compatibility with adjacent
development. Staff notes that the design and density of the proposal is generally
the same as the adjacent filings of the Westbank project.
B. Sols/Topography: The geologic report, conducted by Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.d.,
is included in the applicant's submittal package. Dr. Lampiris indicated that the
only serious constraint is in regards to the steep bank descending to the Roaring
Fork River. Dr. Lampiris suggested that a setback for foundations be at the
least the amount of vertical relief at each site to protect homesites from erosion.
Staff supports Dr. Lampiris's suggested setback.
C. Road Design: No specific roadway standards were approved within the PUD,
so Garfield County road standards apply to the subdivision. Section 9.35
require the project comply with the following standards:
Road Definition:
Design Capacity:
Minimum ROW:
Lane Width:
Shoulder Width:
Ditch Width:
Surface:
Minimum Radius:
Semi -Primitive
2-10 dwelling units
40'
8'
6'
6'
Gravel
50'
Road profiles submitted with the application indicate compliance with these
standards.
D. Water: As addressed earlier, there is some confusion regarding the Green
Mountain Reservoir User's Pool. The applicant's attorney has responded to the
interpretations of the State Engineer's Office. A water rights analysis was
conducted by Resource Engineering (see Januar/21, 1994 letter from Paul
Bussone, Water Resource Engineer, on pages 2 # 29 ). Mr. Bussone's
assessment contradicts Ms. Sappington's original analysis.
Staff suggests that resolution (evidenced by a letter of approval by the State), be
a condition of approval.
E. Wastewater: Sewage disposal will be by ISDS, although the Department of
Health has suggested that a preliminary analysis to a tie-in to the Aspen Glen
Treatment Plant. A "brief' analysis of this option is addressed by Tim Beck's 2-
9-94 letter on page 30 .3j.
•
Percolation tests have not been conducted on the property. SCS profiles indicate
only minor constraints to ISDS on the site. Staff notes that several system
failures have occurred in the general vicinity of the project. These failures have
been attributed to inadequate maintenance during previous hearings regarding
Aspen Glen and the Westbank Filing #4 PUD. Staff suggests that the covenants
be amended to enforce compliance with standard maintenance practices by the
Homeowner's Association. This is consistent with Section 4.92(E), which reads
as follows:
"Ifmdividual sewage disposal systems are to be utilize4 a proposed management
plan for the operation and maintenance oftheon-site systemsshal1beprovided."
F. Fire Protection: Fire storage may need to be increased for fire protection
purposes. The Glenwood Springs Emergency Services have made specific
suggestions regarding storage needs on the site (60,000 gallons on-site storage,
6" lines, fire hydrants every 500 feet, 500 GPD at 20 PSI for 20 minutes). These
standards are directly from the adopted Uniform Fire Code. Staff notes that
Section 4.33 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that the Board of County
Commissioners shall makes its decision based, in part, on conformity with "other
applicable local, state and federal regulations..".
Glenwood Springs has identified a discrepancy between Garfield County
roadway standards and requirements contained in the Uniform Fire Code. Jack
Jones indicated in his 10-27-94 letter that the road and shoulders must be
capable of supporting 56,000 lbs. Staff suggests that the applicant's engineer
address this issue directly at the hearing.
G. Zoning: All of the proposed lots conform with the minimum parcel size and
development requirements of the Zoning Resolution.
H. Guest Houses: The covenants indicate that guest houses are permitted within
the subdivision, although it is unclear if existing water rights are adequate for
additional dwelling units. If sufficient water rights do not exist, this portion of
the covenants should be deleted.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
On February 9, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Preliminary Plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant, either within the application or
stated at the public hearing with the Planning Commission, be considered
conditions of approval.
2. The applicants shall establish a Homeowners Association and shall be
incorporated in accordance with the requirements of Colorado Revised
Statutes. The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the all
water rights and infrastructure and for road maintenance and snow
removal. The articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants shall be
reviewed by County Staff prior to the approval of a Final Plat.
I 3•
• •
3. The applicants shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements
Agreement, addressing all improvements, prior to recording a final plat.
4. All utilities shall be placed underground.
5. All cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native
grasses using certified weed -free seed.
6. The applicants shall pay $200 per lot in school impact fees prior to
approval of the final plat.
7. All roadways shall be designed and constructed in conformance with
design standards set forth in the Subdivision Regulations and in place at
the time of final plat.
8. The covenants shall be amended to include a mechanism to ensure proper
maintenance of all ISDS for the PUD.
9. The Final Plat shall depict a supplemental setback, consistent with the
vertical distance to the Roaring Fork River, consistent with the
recommendations of the applicant's geology report.
10. No Final Plat approval will be granted by Garfield County without a
favorable recommendation from the State Engineer's Office regarding a
legal and adequate water supply for the project.
11. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner.
12. Fire places shall be restricted to the identical agreement reached with
Aspen Glen.
13. That the issue regarding the load capacity of the road and shoulders be
addressed by the applicant's engineer prior to Final Plat.
14. Prior to Board approval, Nick Lampiris shall submit revisions to the
setback requirements consistent with the Colorado Geologic Survey
recommendations, and that these setbacks be shown on the Final Plat.
16. The applicant shall pursue alternatives with the Glenwood Fire District
prior the Board approval.
17. The following plat notes shall appear on the Final Plat:
1. Engineered foundations will be required for all residential
structures within the PUD.
2. Soil conditions on the site MAY require an engineered ISDS. Site
specific percolation tests shall determine specific ISDS
requirements on each lot.
RECORDED C 3a3 2
REC n ' ka�
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield
•
b00K 853 PACED'( 0
o'cLocx-r�•
F
1:13 U 3193
MILDRED ALSDORF, COUNTY CLERK
1
At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield
County, Colorado, held at the Garfield County Courthouse in Glenwood Springs on
Monday , the 1 L day of February A.D. 19 93 , there were present:
Elmer (Bucket') 1lrbaney
Marian I. Smith
1lrno1d L. Mackley
Don DeFord
Mildred Alsdorf
Chuck Deschenes
, Commissioner Chairman
, Commissioner
, Commissioner
, County Attorney
, Clerk of the Board
, County Administrator
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NO, 93-009
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITIi TIM APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT OF
THE RIVER RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL OF ITS
PLAN.
WHEREAS, Walter A. Stowe has filed an application with the Board of County
Conunissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, for the amendment of the River Ridge Planned
Unit Development and approval of its plan for the parcel of land to be rezoned; and
WIIEREAS, the Board approved by Resolution No. 79-74 the Hillview Planned Unit
Development, now known as the River Ridge P.U.D. on July 9, 1979; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by this Board on December 14, 1992;
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence, sworn testimony, exhibits, study of the
comprehensive plan for the unincorporated areas of Garfield County, comments from the
Garfield County Department of Development and the Garfield County Planning Commission,
and continents from all interested parties, this Board finds, based on substantial competent
evidence, as follows:
1. That proper publication and public notice was provided, as required by law, for the
hearing before the Board;
2. That the hearing before the Board was extensive and complete, that all pertinent
facts, matters and issues were submitted, and that all interested parties were heard at the
hearing;
3. 'That the Garfield County Planning Commission has recommended to this Board
that the requested zoning change be granted, provided that certain conditions be
imposed upon the applicant;
POUK 3J T,ACE3 (,7
4. That the 1'UD amendment is consistent with the efficient development and
preservation of the entire PUD, does not affect, in a substantially adverse manner,
either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD, or the
public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person;
5. That the proposed zoning is in general compliance with the recommendations set
forth in the comprehensive plan for the unincorporated area of the County; provided
certain conditions are met in any subsequent land use permit applications;
6. That the requested Plarured Unit Development amendment is in general compliance
with all requirements of the applicable Garfield County Zoning Resolution and, further,
that the request Planned Unit Development Atucndincnt is suitable and appropriate for
the subject property, given the location, condition and circumstances of the property,
and it is generally compatible with existing laud uses in the surrounding nearby area;
7. That for the above -stated and other reasons, the proposed Planned Unit
Development amendment and planned unit development plan is in the best interest of
health, safely, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County; and
WHEREAS, the Board must, for the purpose of analyzing the subject. application, in
accordance with the provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, establish the
neighborhood which may be affected by the possible approval of the zoning change and,
further, the Board has determined that, except as otherwise noted herein, such neighborhood
• is in the area of Garfield County, Colorado, within a one and one half (1 1/2) mile radius of the
• proposed development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1'I' RESOLVED by the Board of County Conunissioncrs of
Garfield County, Colorado, that the application for the Amendment of the River Ridge
Plarred Unit Development be approved for the following described properly in the
unincorporated area of Garfield County, as follows:
1. That all verbal and written representations of the applicant shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless expressly provided for in this Resolution.
2. That the applicant shall not claim any vested right to the PUD zoning unless
subdivision approval of the Preliminary Plan is given within one (1) year from the date
of approval of the PUD modification, per Section 4.09.01 of the Garfield County
Zoning Resolution.
3. That the zoning text of the Planned Unit Development plan for the River Ridge
Planned Unit Development is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by
reference as is fully sel forth herein.
4. That the planned unit development map for the River Ridge Planned Unit
Development is attached hereto as Exhibit "13", incorporated herein by reference as if
fully set forth herein.
5. That the legal description of the property which encompasses the River Ridge
Planned Unit Development is attached herein as Exhibit "C", incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
Dated this 1st day of February ,A.D. 93
ATTEST:
11
,oueic 135'3 ;r i.87:S
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD
Or COMMISSIONERS,
GARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
Clerk of the Board Chair man
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the
following vote:
Marian I. Smith
Arnold L. Mackley
Elmer (fuckey) Arbaney
, Aye
, Aye
, Aye
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield )
1, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the
annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the
Board of County Conunissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office.
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said
County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 19 of the
County Clerk and ex-ollicio Clerk
Board of County Commissioners.
1110
'max 853 ►r.M Ec' 9
(xf1g, f 4
RESIDENTIAL/DISTRICT/SING LE FAMILY
Uses, bysigbi.: Single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses, including buildings for
shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the lot for single-family
residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features. Two
family dwellings and mobile home existing as of the date of approval of the P.U.D. provided
that prior to conveyance of lots 2, 3 or 4 to another party, such uses shall be removed or
demolished.
Uses, conditional; Day nursery and school, home occupation.
i Jses. special: Studio for conduct of arts and crafts.
Minimum Lot Area: Forty thousand (40,000) square feet. The roadway serving the P.U.D.
shall be included in the affected Lot and shall be an easement across such Lot.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Twenty-five percent. (25%).
Minimum Setback:
(1) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet
from lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feel 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;
•
•
•
l•
•.• ••••:.
, • • • .
...;
3
• ;
•
•
•
•
•
1;
t‘;
14.•4,"
1 •el:'
1:4°
71'. L0-
• ,„ti
ii
;•( i.
•••/ 1.1 Z/.
. ;I .../
ij• i
..t/;:1'
4•/________
11. '1•-:--t'i0,-,. Fr
?• - ------_____
'4r • •:7"------
. 11 I
•
•
r
.•
4
ins
•?
1'
1.
0
10
1.
0
--•••••„:„";
.*•`
C I O
i
t
r
•
. •
• .11,
• I,
A
•
. I:.
•
l
STATS OF COLORADO
57,7F, • : , s,,
t,
LLDEC'i
2 1 1993i J
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and
environment of the people of Colorado
Grand Junction Regional Office
222 S. 6th Street, Rm. 232
Grand )unction, CO 81501-2768
FAX: (303) 248-7198
December 17, 1993
Garfield County Building and
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: Dave Michaelson
Planning
CAt3FIEl. D CCONTY
RE: River Ridge PUD Preliminary Plan.
Dear Dave:
Roy Romer
Governor
Patricia A. Nolan, MD, MPI 1
Executive Director
We have the following comments regarding the subject proposal:
The Garfield County Commissioners have approved the Aspen Glen Golf
Club wastewater treatment facility as a regional facility. Aspen
Glen has identified, their proposed plant as a regional facility.
It would seem worth at least a preliminary analysis to determine if
the regional facility could be utilized for this proposal.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 248-7150.
Srely, , ,/ �f
f l ,(-- ---- `t.{ "_, --
Dwain P. Watson
West Slope District Technician
Water Quality Control Division
DPW/sp
CC: Mark Bean, Garfield County Sanitarian
File
® Printed on Recycled Paper
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
EMS • FIRE • RESCUE
January 27, 1994.
Dave Michaelson
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING AND PLANNING
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Dave:
ivi2L'; 4
1 have just completed the preliminary plan review submitted for the River Ridge P.U.D. The
following is a list of requirements that will need to he, approved before approval from our
department and the Carbondale Fire District (This development is split between both fire
districts). .
1. Access - The proposed road is shown to have a 16' roadway with 2' shoulders on each
side. The Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.204(a) requires a minimum of 20' for access
roadways. The proposed road would be acceptable to us as long as the road is an all
weather surface and be able to sustain the weight of fire apparatus (56,000 lbs.) The
shoulders of the road would have to meet the above specifications in order to give us a
20' fire access. The shoulders would also have to remain clear of all snow and parked
cars.
2. The road grade does not pose a problem and the proposed turn -a -round meets the
requirements of dead end roadways as long as parking in the area is not allowed.
3. Nothing on the plan or submittals address water supply for fire fighting. The Uniform
Fire Code (Section 10.401) requires water supply to all buildings constructed (over two
dwellings). We will require that an engineered water system be developed which will
include the following:
A. Minimum of 60,000 gallons of on-site storage for fire fighting. Any domestic
water requirements will be above and beyond the required fire flow storage.
806 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945-2575 • FAX (303) 945-2597
Letter to Mr. Michaelson
January 27, 1994
Page Two
B. A minimum of 6" water line pipe is required to supply fire flows through fire
hydrants. The proposed 4" pipe is not acceptable.
C. Fire hydrants are required with the above pipe sizes and are to be spaced every
500' for residential developments (See our department for proper hydrant
locations).
D. Be advised that the engineered water system must be capable of supplying 500
gallons per minute at 20 PSI residual pressure minimum for 2 hours.
E. Plans for the engineered water system must be submitted to our office for
approval before any work is done. Specifications for acceptable piping is
available at our office.
4. Premises identification - Per Section 10.301(a) of the 1991 U.F.C., approved numbers
or addresses shall be placed on all new buildings to be plainly seen from the street
fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background.
I have discussed these requirements with Carbondale Fire Chief Ron Leach, and he concurs that
the above items will need to be addressed before our approval is granted.
If you have any questions about these requirements, please contact me at City Hall, 945-2575
or 945-4942.
Sincerely,
41.
Jack ones, Assistant Chief, Glenwood Springs
Department of Emergency Services
JJ:kng
cc: Ron Leach
File
•
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) 866-35111
FAX (303) 866-3589
December 28, 1993
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
" ,=;r`F1
1J
tt.-.. 0. 1� �...0.....
U1ar:r t tat_u COUN 1-Y
RE: River Ridge P.U.D Preliminary Plan
Sections 1 & 2, T7S and Sections 35 & 36, T6S, R89W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Dave:
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
- t -t 1 D. Simpson
State Engineer
Thank you for referral for the preliminary plan to subdivide 8.003 acres into eight single
fancily dwellings lots. The project is located along the Roaring Fork River northwest of Cattle
Creek. The proposed source of water for the development is from two existing, decreed wells
which, according to the applicant, are protected from calls in the priority system by releases from
Green Mountain Reservoir. In addition, the applicant has obtained a contract with West Divide
Conservancy District for 1.0 acre-feet for use at the Owens Domestic Well No. 1.
The proposed water supply is from two wells 1) Owens Domestic Well No. 1, decreed in
W-1299 and adjudicated for 0.022 cfs (9.9 gpm) for domestic purposes with a priority date of August
31, 1966 and 2) Owens Domestic and Irrigation Well No. 1, decreed in W-1300 and adjudicated
for 0.1 cfs (50 gpm) for domestic, irrigation and stock watering with a priority date of September
1966. The applicant has shown these two wells existing on the subject eight acres.
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(h)(I), C.R.S. 1973, the State Engineer's Office offers the
following opinion for your consideration regarding material injury to decreed water rights and the
adequacy of the proposed water supply:
Pursuant to the Operating Policy for Green Mountain Reservoir dated January 23,
1984, "...When the administration of water under the priority system...would result
in the curtailment ...of a water right for irrigation or domestic uses..., which was
perfected by use on or before October 15, 1977,...water will be released without
charge from Green Mountain Reservoir...to the extent necessary to permit diversion
to the full amount of said decrees...".
It is our belief that water at the proposed eight single family dwellings was not
perfected by use on or before October 15, 1977 under either decree. As such, these
new uses are not covered under W-1299 nor W-1300 nor are the new uses
grandfathered under Green Mountain Reservoir's historic users pool.
1"11:5;
Mr. Dave Michaelson
December 28, 1993
Page 2
Both Case W-1299 and W-1300 allow water supplies for the historic use of the wells
whose depletions may be covered by Green Mountain. If the applicant intends to
expand the use of these water rights, a change case before the Water Court in
Glenwood Springs is necessary. The existence of a West Divide contract does not
complete the applicant's water supply plan since the contract is for use at two single
family dwellings.
Should you have further questions or comments regarding the water supply for this project,
please contact nye at the above address.
Sincerely,
y T. 1 pington
ter R ources Engineer
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
riverridge.sub
JOHN R. SCHENK
DAN KERST
WILLIAM J. deWINTER, III
•
SCIIENK, KERST & deWINTER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 310, 302 EIGHTH STREET
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2447
TELECOI'IER: (303) 945-2977
January 24, 1994
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: River Ridge P.U.D. Water Supply
Dear Dave:
1,11\11 2. 5 1994
1'd W
C;: —1,i:1LL.0 Cum
tari
On January 3, 1994, you wrote Tim Beck a letter on the question of a legal water supply
for the River Ridge PUD development. We also reviewed the letter addressed to you dated
December 28, 1993, from Judy Sappington, a water resource engineer with the State Engineer's
Department.
Mr. Stowe had previously engaged Paul S. Bussone of Resource Engineering, Inc. for
the purpose of analyzing the water supply for the project and assisting in obtaining the initial
West Divide Water Conservancy water contract. Based on an analysis of the water available to
this project, Mr. Bussone observed that there were six existing dwelling units on the property
and historic irrigation of five (5) acres. These uses had all been perfected prior to 1977 and
were therefore protected by the Green Mountain Historic Users Pool. Therefore, Mr. Stowe
obtained a legal supply for an additional two (2) dwelling units from West Divide Water
Conservancy District. Mr. Bussone's letter of January 21, 1994, is enclosed and provides an
analysis of these two (2) water rights.
The water rights for this project were decreed as absolute in December, 1972, for .022
cfs and .1 cfs respectively. Both allow domestic water uses. In addition, the larger water right
also provides for irrigation and stock watering. Therefore, we believe the issue of perfection
for protection by Green Mountain Reservoir has been demonstrated. If you need any additional
information on this matter, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience.
JRS/sn
Encl.
cc:
Walt Stowe
Judy Sappington
Paul Bussone
Tim Beck
NA fJTOWBlMIGURU.LT11
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-2611
FAX (303) 866-2461
1i:F-Tirl
n „C ,7('f rl
I, i .:`.1
i' } i
FEDI 1 094
GAFF= I ELD COUNTY
February 3, 1994 GA -94-0008
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Proposed River Ridge PUD Preliminary Plan
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35 (1972), we have reviewed the materials
submitted for and made a field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision
referenced above. The following comments summarize our findings.
Generally we have no geology -related objection to your approval of this proposal. However,
there are some precautions that we think that the developer should follow as follows:
(1) The existing buildings and other improvements that are to be removed should be
removed completely. This removal should include buried pipes, building foundations,
underground tanks, if any, and all other such materials on the site. In no case should any
demolition refuse be used in fills or otherwise left on the site. The proponent should have
an environmental audit of the site done prior to lot sales and the he should disclose the
results of this audit to lot purchasers prior to sales closings.
(2) It is likely that percolation rates will be too rapid on some or all of the lots for
conventional septic systems. As soon as central sewer service is available to the subdivision,
it should be required to connect to it.
(3) We concur with the recommendation made in the Lampiris report that the steep slope
above C.R. 109 at the rear of the lots should not be disturbed such that a rockfall hazard
is created.
1-7
Mr. Dave Michaelson
February 3, 1994
Page 2
(4) Each building site should have an individual, site-specific soils
by a qualified soils and foundation engineer. Although the site is
terrace gravels of the ancestral Roaring Fork River, which ususlly
stability characteristics, local inhomogenities in the materials
problemns for some kinds of concentrated ground loadings.
Sincerely,
Wt • d'171. --L.
Jmes M. Soule
ngincering Geologist
and foundation prepared
underlain by older river -
exhibit good foundation -
could result in stability
1IIRES±iURCE:;als
ENGINEERING E R I N G I N C.
Mr. John Schenk
Schenk, Kerst and deWinter
302 Eighth Street, Suite 310
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Walter Stowe Wells
Dear John:
' i ti'Vr\V
,;' , . '2'5'1994
1; .9 AN
:.;L)UN.: f Y
January 21, 1994
At your request Resource Engineering, Inc. conducted an investigation of the two wells
serving Mr. Stowe's property near Westbank subdivision. Our investigation included
a review of the court decrees, an on-site inspection of the structures and uses and
interviews with persons knowledgeable about the historic use of these water rights.
OWENS DOMESTIC WELL NO. 1
Owens Domestic Well No. 1 was decreed absolute for 0.022 cfs (10 gpm) for domestic
use in Case No. W-1299. A copy of the decree is attached. The adjudication date is
1972 and the appropriation date is August 31, 1966. The legal description given in
the decree is consistent with the actual location.
The well serves one single family house, two duplexes (four dwelling units) and a
mobile home for a total of six dwelling units. The units are serviced by septic tank and
Ieachfield systems. There is no outside irrigation from the domestic well. The total
historic water use for the six units is estimated to be 2.15 acre feet annually with a
consumptive use of 0.32 acre feet.
OWENS DOMESTIC AND IRRIGATION WELL NO. 1
Owens Domestic and Irrigation Well No. 1 was decreed absolute for 0.10 cfs (45 gpm)
for domestic, irrigation and stockwater in Case No. W-1300. A copy of the decree is
attached. The adjudication date is 1972 and the appropriation date is September 30,
1966. The legal description given in the decree is inconsistent. The bearing and
distance portion of the legal description; "... at a point whence the southwest corner
of said Section 36 bears South 29° 04' West, 140.5 feet.", places the well in the
SW %4, SW Y4, Section 36 instead of the NWA, NW %4, Section 36 as stated in the first
part of the legal description. The well is actually located as described by the bearing
and distance.
The well provides irrigation water for approximately 5 acres of lawn, gardens and
open -space on the property.
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
902 Gravid Avenue, Suite 302 ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 91601 1 [303] 945-6777 ■ Fax 945-1137
Mr. John Schenk
Page 2
January 21, 1994
The historic irrigation of five acres and the in-house uses for six residential units was
perfected prior to 1977 and therefore these uses are protected by the Green Mountain
historic users pool.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
Paul S. Bussone, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
PSB/mmm
399-1.0 dk2w.w.399
CC: Mr. Walter Stowe
RESOURCE
J G INEERING INC
/GH
OUNTRY
NG/NEER/NG
February 9, 1994
Mr. David Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: River Ridge P.U.D. Sanitary Sewer
HCE File Number 93082
Dear Dave:
This letter constitutes a brief report on the feasibility of connecting the River Ridge P.U.D. to
the proposed regional wastewater treatment plant at Aspen Glen.
Under current conditions the applicant would need to construct a force main from the River
Ridge project all the way to the proposed treatment plant. The reality of this is that the regional
plant does not yet exist, and likely will not for at least a few years. Therefore, if lots are built
on before that, a septic system would need to be constructed.
The attached calculations show a preliminary estimate of the construction cost related to the
construction of a force main, and related lift stations. No costs are included for the on-site
improvements that would be necessary. We estimate a cost of approximately $400,000 for the
force main construction, assuming no right-of-way acquisition, no pavement replacement, and
minimal traffic constraints. This would amount to an additional cost of $50,000 per lot, spread
over the eight lots.
923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone: 303-945-8676 • FAX: 303-945-2555
Garfield County
February 9, 1994
Page 2
In summary, we do not believe that a connection, at the current time, is reasonable. However,
at some point in the future, if a district is formed to further spread out the costs, connection may
become a more viable option.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
Ti lothy P. Beck, P.E.
Pri cipal Engineer
TPB/soe
encl.
Job Titic��/ ! 1 / �Gj, Job No 9,5o
by
date
Subject
'-"E-14.1672----
F/21_4' L
ck'd by
date
page / of
AL.
5/3
Ste/APT
L'� '7
•
kV
eun-
•
771.T.1.QJ.s
u [47
u IRE
/t -1AI
Ai
go
_1
0
/4)
.1.-
E
00
w
W
l
/LE's
/.sf}-05..T /16 5
Rom
5o
A/o
11111-10
Cv-iu5. T,-uGT/ot
cc)/f
'I
►'E
U
oAJL
fir''Ylip'L.
1 5o0LT* 42co
Aia
V .
AR Fri .c.._.
L. F.
000
u
0
S
U�
0)0o0
5 4.76.
/.!Z!. PR:,YCh2. Exi75
Ccs
. l
NE'r\-12..
cm) coo.
J.
yv
E1R
923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone: 303-945-8676 • 303-920-3669 • FAX: 303-945-2555
ti
r
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and
environment of the people of Colorado
Grand Junction Regional Office
222 S. 6th Street, Rm. 232
Grand Junction, CO 81501-2768
FAX: (303) 248-7198
December 17, 1993
1-7,7677--1r-7171- t -'1
° t
DEC ? E 1993
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: Dave Michaelson
O RFIa.iCOUNTY'
RE: River Ridge PUD Preliminary Plan.
Dear Dave:
Roy Romer
Governor
Patricia A. Nolan, MD, MPH
Executive Director
We have the following comments regarding the subject proposal:
The Garfield County Commissioners have approved the Aspen Glen Golf
Club wastewater treatment facility as a regional facility. Aspen
Glen has identified their proposed plant as a regional facility.
It would seem worth at least a preliminary analysis to determine if
the regional facility could be utilized for this proposal.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 248-7150.
S r'e1 /1
w`
Li.) 1 1 ,'".' I ° ,7 j ,
Dwain P. Watson
West Slope District Technician
Water Quality Control Division
DPW/sp
CC: Mark Bean, Garfield County Sanitarian
File
ri
Printed an Recycled Paper
•
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
December 28, 1993
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
0 3 1,7M
RE: River Ridge P.U.D Preliminary Plan
Sections 1 & 2, T7S and Sections 35 & 36, T6S, R89W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Dave:
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
-F-1 D. Simpson
State Engineer
Thank you for referral for the preliminary plan to subdivide 8.003 acres into eight single
family dwellings lots. The project is located along the Roaring Fork River northwest of Cattle
Creek. The proposed source of water for the development is from two existing, decreed wells
which, according to the applicant, are protected from calls in the priority system by releases from
Green Mountain Reservoir. In addition, the applicant has obtained a contract with West Divide
Conservancy District for 1.0 acre-feet for use at the Owens Domestic Well No. 1.
The proposed water supply is from two wells 1) Owens Domestic Well No. 1, decreed in
W-1299 and adjudicated for 0.022 cfs (9.9 gpm) for domestic purposes with a priority date of August
31, 1966 and 2) Owens Domestic and Irrigation Well No. 1, decreed in W-1300 and adjudicated
for 0.1 cfs (50 gpm) for domestic, irrigation and stock watering with a priority date of September
1966. The applicant has shown these two wells existing on the subject eight acres.
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(h)(I), C.R.S. 1973, the State Engineer's Office offers the
following opinion for your consideration regarding material injury to decreed water rights and the
adequacy of the proposed water supply:
Pursuant to the Operating Policy for Green Mountain Reservoir dated January 23,
1984, "...When the administration of water under the priority system...would result
in the curtailment ...of a water right for irrigation or domestic uses..., which was
perfected by use on or before October 15, 1977,...water will be released without
charge from Green Mountain Reservoir...to the extent necessary to permit diversion
to the full amount of said decrees...".
It is our belief that water at the proposed eight single family dwellings was not
perfected by use on or before October 15, 1977 under either decree. As such, these
new uses are not covered under W-1299 nor W-1300 nor are the new uses
grandfathered under Green Mountain Reservoir's historic users pool.
• •
Mr. Dave Michaelson Page 2
December 28, 1993
Both Case W-1299 and W-1300 allow water supplies for the historic use of the wells
whose depletions may be covered by Green Mountain. If the applicant intends to
expand the use of these water rights, a change case before the Water Court in
Glenwood Springs is necessary. The existence of a West Divide contract does not
complete the applicant's water supply plan since the contract is for use at two single
family dwellings.
Should you have further questions or comments regarding the water supply for this project,
please contact me at the above address.
Sincerely,
y T. pington
ter R ources Engineer
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
riverridge.sub
...eeRES-LURCE�
■ 11111■®
N IMBI ENGINEER IN G
Mr. John Schenk
Schenk, Kerst and deWinter
302 Eighth Street, Suite 310
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Walter Stowe Wells
Dear John:
I N C .
;IAN 2'5 1994
January 21, 1994
At your request Resource Engineering, inc. conducted an investigation of the two wens
serving Mr. Stowe's property near Westbank subdivision. Our investigation included
a review of the court decrees, an on-site inspection of the structures and uses and
interviews with persons knowledgeable about the historic use of these water rights.
OWENS DOMESTIC WELL NO. 1
Owens Domestic Well No. 1 was decreed absolute for 0.022 cfs (10 gpm) for domestic
use in Case No. W-1299. A copy of the decree is attached. The adjudication date is
1972 and the appropriation date is August 31, 1966. The legal description given in
the decree is consistent with the actual location.
The well serves one single family house, two duplexes (four dwelling units) and a
mobile home for a total of six dwelling units. The units are serviced by septic tank and
leachfield systems. There is no outside irrigation from the domestic well. The total
historic water use for the six units is estimated to be 2.15 acre feet annually with a
consumptive use of 0.32 acre feet.
OWENS DOMESTIC AND IRRIGATION WELL NO. 1
Owens Domestic and Irrigation Well No. 1 was decreed absolute for 0.10 cfs (45 gpm)
for domestic, irrigation and stockwater in Case No. W-1300. A copy of the decree is
attached. The adjudication date is 1972 and the appropriation date is September 30,
1966. The legal description given in the decree is inconsistent. The bearing and
distance portion of the legal description; "... at a point whence the southwest corner
of said Section 36 bears South 29° 04' West, 140.5 feet.", places the well in the
SW A , SW A , Section 36 instead of the NW %A , NWA , Section 36 as stated in the first
part of the legal description. The well is actually located as described by the bearing
and distance.
The well provides irrigation water for approximately 5 acres of lawn, gardens and
open -space on the property.
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
802 Grand Avenue, Suite 302 i Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 2 (3031 945-8777 3 Fax 945-1137
• 1
Mr. John Schenk
Page 2
January 21, 1994
The historic irrigation of five acres and the in-house uses for six residential units was
perfected prior to 1977 and therefore these uses are protected by the Green Mountain
historic users pool.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
Paul S. Bussone, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
PSB/mmm
399-1.0 dk2wsw.399
CC: Mr. Walter Stowe
RESOURCE
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-261 1
FAX (303) 866-2461
FEB I r i994
GARFi•Ew COUNTY
Y
February 3, 1994 GA -94-0008
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Proposed River Ridge PUD Preliminary Plan
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35 (1972), we have reviewed the materials
submitted for and made a field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision
referenced above. The following comments summarize our findings.
Generally we have no geology -related objection to your approval of this proposal. However,
there are some precautions that we think that the developer should follow as follows:
(1) The existing buildings and other improvements that are to be removed should be
removed completely. This removal should include buried pipes, building foundations,
underground tanks, if any, and all other such materials on the site. In no case should any
demolition refuse be used in fills or otherwise left on the site. The proponent should have
an environmental audit of the site done prior to lot sales and the he should disclose the
results of this audit to lot purchasers prior to sales closings.
(2) It is likely that percolation rates will be too rapid on some or all of the lots for
conventional septic systems. As soon as central sewer service is available to the subdivision,
it should be required to connect to it.
(3) We concur with the recommendation made in the Lampiris report that the steep slope
above C.R. 109 at the rear of the lots should not be disturbed such that a rockfall hazard
is created.
• •
Mr. Dave Michaelson
February 3, 1994
Page 2
(4) Each building site should have an individual, site-specific soils
by a qualified soils and foundation engineer. Although the site is
terrace gravels of the ancestral Roaring Fork River, which ususlly
stability characteristics, local inhomogenities in the materials
problemns for some kinds of concentrated ground loadings.
Sincerely,
-1,44._ . J=U-1A...1'
3 mes M. Soule
i:ngincering Geologist
and foundation prepared
underlain by older river -
exhibit good foundation -
could result in stability