HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 07.14.1999BOCC 7/14/99
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: An exemption from the definition of
subdivision.
APPLICANT: Daren E. Olson
LOCATION:
A tract of land located in the NE 1/4 NW '/4 of
Section 23, Township 3 South, Range 87 West
of the 6th P.M. The site is located about 8
miles up Sweetwater Road (CR 150).
SITE DATA: 6.1 acres
WATER: Ruling of Referee
SEWER: One (1) existing and one (1) proposed ISDS
ACCESS: CR 150 (Sweetwater Road)
EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
This staff report reflects review of information submitted to the Planning Staff up to July 12,
1999, a full ten (10) days after the July 2 deadline given to the applicant and only one (1) week
prior to the BOCC meeting. Any information submitted after July 12 could not be incorporated
into this report or reviewed by staff due to time constraints and work load. (5ep.,1 S 5-1
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This area is not covered by any Garfield County Comprehensive plan.
H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: This site is very constrained due to topography and natural features
and thus requires more information than a typical exemption request. The property
is an oddly shaped, elongated parcel which CR 150 crosses (pj i-f2The area
north of CR 150 has an existing log house and pond located on it. e pond is fed
by Hack Creek.
1
The area south of the road is very steep with 40-60% slopes covering the majority
of the property. It is bisected by Hack Creek. Sweetwater Creek runs along the
southern boundary. As you may recall, the previous submittal reflected a building
location to the east of Hack Creek. The new submittal reflects a building envelope
to the west/north of the confluence of Hack & Sweetwater Creeks. The driveway
runs parallel to the county road and has a grade of roughly 14%. It appears that
earthwork has resulted, at least in part, of the creation of a 2,500 sq.ft. building
envelope.
Surrounding land use is primarily residential and agriculture. Vegetation varies
across the site. Pinyon, shrub oak, and sage dominate the hillsides while cottonwood
and spruce are located along the creeks.
B. Project Description: The applicant states in his petition for exemption that the
"parcel is split along the Garfield County right of way... creating two parcels of land
of approximately 2.3 and 3.7 acres".
The applicant is requesting the County Road be part of Lot 1 while simultaneously
claiming the County Road divides his property. Since the property is already in
beneficial use as a single family home site, a "taking" can not be demonstrated.
During a pre -application conference in May with the applicant's attorney, Fran
Cadez, staff discouraged the submittal of this application based on the fact that the
minimum lot size could not be met. Once a detailed review of the application was
done, other significant issues came to light.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Subdivision Regulations: (Staff emphasis in bold) Section 8.52 A of the Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations states that:
"No more than a total of four (4) lots, parcels, interests or dwelling units will
be created from any parcel, as that parcel was described in the records of the
Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office on January 1, 1973, and is not
a part of a recorded subdivision; however, any parcel to be divided by
exemption that is split by a public right-of-way (State or Federal highway,
County road or railroad) or natural feature, preventing joint use of the
proposed tracts, and the division occurs along the public right-of-way or
natural feature, such parcels' thereby created may, in the discretion of the
Board, not be considered to have been created by exemption with regard to
the four (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise
applicable;"
The Board has no obligation to approve of this request. Section 8:52 B of the
Subdivision Regulations states that:
2
"All Garfield County Zoning Requirements shall be met."
B. Zoning: A County Road can not simultaneously divide a lot and also be a part of it.
The argument presented by the applicant contradicts itself. Section 2.02.34 states
the definition of a front lot line:
2.02.34 Lot Line: The external boundary of a lot:
(1) Lot line, front: the boundary of a lot dividing it from the adjacent
street;
The definition of a street ("road" is not defined), Section 2.02.50, is:
2.02.50 Street: A right-of-way reserved for public use (other than an
alley) which also provides primary vehicular and pedestrian access to
adjacent properties; it may also be used for utility access to adjacent
properties.
Lot 1, minus the County Road, is only 1.6 acres, which does not meet the two (2) acre
minimum lot size as required by the A/R/RD zone district (Section 3.02.04). Approval of
this exemption would result in the creation of a nonconforming lot. Minimum lot sizes are
determined, in part, in the interest of public health.
If this division is approved it sets a dangerous precedent which could result in higher
densities than the Zoning Resolution allows for. In this case the lot in question is about 25%
too small. In another case the road may take up an acre of the property in question and the
resulting lot would be 50% smaller than the minimum standard. This precedent could result
in a significant increase in density over that required by Zoning. Again, staff emphasizes
that this is a discretionary decision that the Board is not obligated to approve. However, the
Board is directed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public and approval of this
request would set a precedent that jeopardizes that welfare. Again, staff emphasizes that the
property is already being used to the benefit of the owner and no "takings" can be
demonstrated.
Furthermore, Section 5.04.02 (2), the Supplementary Lot Area Regulations states:
"(2) Lot Size 1 Acre or Greater: Such lots shall have a minimum
building envelope of 1 acre in an area that has less than forty
percent (40%) slopes; however, a smaller building envelope may be
approved by the Board after review of the following which shall be
submitted by the applicant:
(A) A soil land foundation investigation prepared by a registered,
professional engineer.
(B) A topographic survey with contour intervals of not more than two
(2) feet.
3
(C) A site grading and drainage plan prepared by a register,
professional engineer.
(D) A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts, and fills in excess of
five (5) feet.
(E) A detailed revegetation plan.
All of the above shall show the minimum building envelope size for each lot
and shall provide evidence that all structures and facilities can be built
within such building envelope area so as not to disturb any forty percent
(40%) slope area. The following shall be conditions of any approval:
(A) Foundations shall be designed by and bear the seal of a
registered, professional engineer.
(B) All final plans required Ito be submitted by a professional
engineer shall be approved in their final form and shall bear the seal
of such registered, professional engineer."
The applicant has not provided (C), (D), & (E) above. The forty (40%) per cent slope area
appears to have already been disturbed. Without the required engineering information, the
Board lacks crucial information about slope hazards and possible failures. The code does
not authorize the Board to aprove of a building envelope of lesstan one (1) acre without
the requested information. �`3ee' 4--1 '"bk(3 . �.Y1uie -)
Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated that this is a build -able lot. The Board and
Staff have requested to see evidence that the building envelope can contain all the needed
improvements. No well location has been shown. No building footprint has been shown.
No parking or turn -around area has been designated, although it is assumed this occurs east
of Hack Creek within the live stream setback. No bridge has been shown. No fifty foot
setback from the creeks for the ISDS has been shown. The building envelope must be able
to contain a building that is twenty feet long and/or twenty feet wide (Section 2.02.07(2) of
the Garfield County Zoning Code). It must also be able to contain an ISDS outside the 50'
setbacks and still be at least 100' away from the well location. Don Owens, the Chief
Building Inspector, has determined, based on the percolation test provided, that a typical 3
bedroom modular house would need a leach field roughly 627 sq.ft in size.
Section 5.05.02 of the Zoning Resolution states:
Live Streams: A setback of thirty (30) feet measured horizontally from and
perpendicular to the high water mark on each side of any live stream shall
be protected as greenbelt and maintained in conformance with the
definition thereof, with the exception of diversion facilities as an accessory
to the approved use of the lot.
The setback information on the north/west side of the confluence of the creeks has been
shown on the plan but, the setback to the east of Hack Creek has not been shown. This area
has been graded to remove the toe of the 40+% slope. The definition of a greenbelt is as
follows (Section 2.02.28):
4
Greenbelt: Land retained in an open or unimproved condition, except for
agriculture, for the placement of landscape materials, including trees, shrubs
and grasses and structures limitedto foot paths, bridges, irrigation
structures, erosion protection devices and underground utilities, or improved
for park use as dened herein; ownership of such land may be private with
an easement or reservation for greenbelt use by deed restriction, or it may
be dedicated to the public. Designation of greenbelt does not imply
provision for access by the public.
The placement of a bridge over Hack Creek and a footpath within the thirty (30') foot live
stream setback is permitted by the code (see Section F of this report regarding the bridge &
Army Corps of Engineers). However, no building improvements are to be located within the
live stream setback.
C. Access:. At the last meeting several access issues remained unresolved. The applicant has
provided a copy of a corrected driveway access permit (see page '°)). The revised plan
submitted indicates that the driveway access lies on land owned by the applicant. Section
5.04.02(3) of the Zoning Resolution, Supplementary Lot Area Regulations, states:
(3)
For all lots: Driveways, access ways and access easements
within the development and on the property of developer
shall have a maximum grade offourteen percent (14%). (A.
94-046)
The applicant has provided evidence that the grade of the driveway is roughly 14%.
D. Water: The applicant has provided a signed ruling of the referee for an application for water
storage rights, underground water rights, and approval of a plan for augmentation. Olson
Pond, fed by Hack Creek, is the storage structure. Olson Well #1 and #2 will serve the
existing house and the new lot. It states in the ruling that "A conservative assumption is that
the Olson water rights could potentially be subject to a downstream call in all months except
the peak runoff season. During this non -call runoff period, the Olson pond can be filled.
During the remainder of the year, releases can be made from the pond to augment the
depletions. The Olson pond has sufficient capacity to make releases to offset the full
amount of depletions." The Referee granted the application with three (3) conditions, the
first of which is that prior to implementing the plan for augmentation, pursuant to C.R.S. 37-
90-137(2), permits for construction and operation of Olson Well No. 1 and No. 2 must be
obtained.
The applicant has supplied a letter from Orlyn Bell of the Division of Water Resources,
dated 7/6/99, stating that they will act on Mr. Olson's permit applications within 45 days.
Additionally, the following conditions will apply to the individual well (pursuant to Section
8:42 D of the Zoning Resolution):
1) That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used
5
prior to summer irrigation activity in the area;
2) A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the
characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level;
3) The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate
in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and
recharge;
4) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well
should be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots;
5) An assumption of an average or no less than 3.5 people per dwelling
unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day;
6) If the well is to be shared, a legal well sharing agreement which
discusses all easements and costs associated with the operation and
maintenance of the system and who will be responsible for paying
these costs and how assessments will be made for these costs will be
filed with the exemption plat.
7) The water quality be tested by an approved testing laboratory and
meet State guidelines concerning bacteria, nitrates and suspended
solids.
E. Sewer: Site specific soils investigation and engineering may be required to safely place any
system. The physical separation requirements in the Colorado State Board of Health
Standards, revised 1994, must be met (see pages -24. The setback from the creeks is fifty
feet (50'). This setback has not been shown on the plan. One hundred (100') feet must
separate the ISDS from the wel . The ISDS location and well location have not been shown
on the plan. (3e- er_41
In addition, pursuant to the ISDS standards, the applicant has not obtained a test hole
evaluation showing that the groundwater is at least four (4') feet below the bottom of the test
hole in the wettest months
The applicant has not provided evidence that an ISDS can safely be placed on Lot 3, has not
demonstrated that the setbacks can be met, and has not shown that the building envelope has
sufficient area to contain all improvements.
F. Floodplain: This area is not mapped by FEMA. According to the Soil Conservation Service
study (SCS) the soil of Lot 3 is primarily composed of Fluvaquents, which are poorly suited
to home site development due to the limitations of flooding and a seasonal high water table
(see SCS study, page/l-*
The applicant has provided an opinion from Paul Bussone of Resource Engineering that
states "... our initial opinion is that the flood plain will be less restrictive than the 30'
setbacks" (see page 0 ). Staff visited the site on 7/3/99 with Mr. Bussone to further discuss
the items contained in his letter. Based on his written opinion and the site visit, Staff is not
concerned in regards to the floodplain. However, if the applicant plans to culvert or bridge
6
Hack Creek, a 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers may be needed. Receipt of
written confirmation from the Corps was requested from the applicant but has not been
received.
G. Fire Protection: The applicant has submitted a letter from the Gypsum Fire Protection
District dated 5/13/99 (see page). Dave Vroman, Fire Chief, states that this property is
not within the Gypsum Fire Protection District but that the Gypsum district will provide
emergency service on a fee basis if a structure is on fire. The duty officer will determine
response level in all other cases. In order to ensure the safety of residents, a plat note should
reflect the fire protection status in said letter, if this application is approved.
H. Boundary Line Adjustment: There appears to have been an illegal property split. The
quitclaim deeds recorded on B1124, P660 & 661 (see pages do not indicate that any
properties were merged and no boundary line affidavit appears to have been recorded in the
chain of title. If the exemption is approved, the apparent illegal split could be rectified on
the exemption plat. If the exemption is denied, the legal descriptions should be clarified and
a boundary line affidavit merging the properties should be recorded.
I. Easements. If this application is approved, any required easements (drainage, ditch, access,
utilities, etc.) shall be shown on the exemption plat. See section C, above.
J. School Impact Fees: If this application is approved, the applicant will be required to pay the
$200.00 school site acquisition fee for each newly created lot prior to the approval of the
final plat.
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting
before the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption is not 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 not in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, as amended, and Section 8:00 of the Subdivision Regulations.
7
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff reiterates that pursuant to Section 8:52A, this is a discretionary decision that the Board
is in no way obligated to approve. Furthermore, since this land is already successfully used
to the benefit of it's owner, a "taking" can not be demonstrated. Staff recommends
DENIAL for the following reasons:
1. Section 8:52 B of the Subdivision Regulations of 1984 states all zoning requirements
must be met. The lots that would result from this division of land have not been
proven to meet the minimum requirements set forth in the Zoning Resolution of
1978, as amended.
2. This division does not meet the definition of a lot as specified in the Zoning
Resolution nor does it meet the minimum lot size as specified in Section 3.02.04.
Approval would set a dangerous precedent which could result in significantly higher
densities than currently allowed by the Zoning Resolution. This request and
precedent poses a significant risk to the health, safety, and welfare of Garfield
County residents.
3. Sections 5.04.02 (2) of the Zoning Resolution state the Supplementary Lot Area
regulations. The information required by code to approve of the creation of a lot
which contains a build -able area of less than one (1) acre has not been supplied.
Extensive grading of 40+% slopes has resulted, at least in part, in a building
envelope of 2,500 sq.ft. No professional grading or drainage plan has been
submitted (5.04.02 2C). No detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts and fills in
excess of five (5) feet has been provided (5.04.02 2D). No revegetation plan has
been provided (5.04.02 2E). The toe and the hillside of the 40+% slopes have
already been removed to create what little building envelope there is. This is in
violation of Section 5.04.02 (2) which states that the 40+% slopes are not to be
disturbed. The applicant has not demonstrated that this is a build -able lot under
Garfield County regulations.
4. Section 5.05.02 of the Zoning Resolution states that a stream setback of thirty (30')
shall be "protected as a greenbelt and maintained in conformance with the definition
thereof". The setback to the east of Hack creek has not been shown on the plan.
Section 2.02.28 states that a greenbelt is land retained in an open or unimproved
condition. No evidence has been provided that demonstrates improvements can be
located so as not to violate these setbacks.
5. Section 8:52E of the 1984 Garfield County Subdivision Regulations requires that
state and local health regulations be met. Without well, septic/leach, building, and
parking locations designated on the plan, it can not be determined if these items can
be contained within the building envelope and meet the required setbacks. Pursuant
8
to the Colorado Board of Health standards, revised 1994, a test hole evaluation
showing that the groundwater is at least four (4') feet below the bottom of the test
hole in the wettest months has not been provided.
6. Pursuant to section 6.09.01 of the Zoning Resolution, no permanent structures are
to be constructed in the floodway. No written confirmation from the Army Corps of
Engineers permitting a culvert or bridge has been provided.
. CE D7 -EB S
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION
Pursuant to C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-101 (10) (a) - (d) as amended, and the
Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado, adopted April 23, 1984, the undersigned,
Daren Olson, respectfully petitions the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County,
Colorado, to exempt by Resolution the division of an approximate 6.10 acre tract of land into
two tracts of approximately 2.3 acres and 3.713 acres, more or less, from the definitions of
"subdivision" and "subdivided land" as the terms are used and defined in C.R.S. (1973) Section
30-28-101 (10)(a) - (d) and the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations for the reasons stated
below:
Petitioner is the fee owner of a parcel of land situated in the NE 1/4 NW 1/4 and the SE 1/4 NW
1/4 of Section 23, Township 3 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of
Garfield, State of Colorado, as described in Book 1040, Page 820 of the Garfield County
Records. Petitioner's parcel is split along the Garfield County right of way upon which lies
Garfield County Road 150, creating two parcels of land of approximately 2.3 acres and 3.7 acres
and preventing joint use of the proposed tracts. Petitioner therefore asserts the four lot parcel,
interest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable in determining whether a parcel qualifies
for an exemption under these rules, need not apply in the discretion of the Board of County
Commissioners of Garfield County.
As a result of the placement of Garfield County Road 150, Petitioner's property is naturally
divided or split into two lots, prohibiting the combined use of the proposed tracts. A decision by
the Board of County Commissioners to grant Petitioner an exemption to the subdivision
regulations and approve the subdivision of Petitioner's parcel at the point where it is split by the
county road, will recognize and affirm the intrinsic parcel split already in existence.
Petitioner represents an oral agreement has been reached with adjacent property owner, Mr. Jerry
Wing, regarding the provision of mutual easements for utility access. Mr. Wing will receive an
easement from Petitioner to allow a utility easement on the utility pole located on the 2.3 acre
tract of Petitioner's property. In return, Petitioner will secure an easement from Mr. Wing to
allow a utility easement from the utility pole located on Mr. Wing's property to provide utilities
to the 3.7 acre tract of Petitioner's property.
1
Olson Exemption Application 2/99
61(0.(66
Petitioner represents an application for water rights was filed with the Water Clerk of Water
Division 5, State of Colorado, during the month of November, 1998 to secure adjudicated water
rights for both tracts of the parcel proposed to be split. The period for objection to Petitioner's
application passed with no objections recorded. It is Petitioner's understanding the water rights
application is now being considered and a final decision is pending.
Petitioner's title insurance policy represents the rights to minerals in the subject property are
reserved in United States patent recorded July 14, 1896, in Book 12 at Page 426.
2
Olson Exemption Application 2/99
2.
Petitioner submits the following required documents, attached to this petition and incorporated
herein by reference, to support the petition for subdivision exemption:
1. Sketch map at a scale of 1 inch = 60 feet.
2. Vicinity map at a scale of 1 inch = 2000 feet.
3. Warranty Deed executed by Bill Martin conveying the subject property to Daren E. Olson
and Susanne V. Olson on August 15, 1997.
4. Quit Claim Deed executed by Susanne V. Olson to Daren E. Olson conveying all right, title
and interest in the subject property.
5. Names and addresses of owners of record of land immediately adjoining and within 200 feet
of the proposed exemption and tenants of any structure proposed for conversion.
6. Application for water rights adjudication for non-exempt domestic wells on both proposed
parcels and a pond and augmentation plan.
7. Permit #002-99 D issued by Garfield County for construction of a driveway on the 3.7 acre
tract to create access to Garfield County Road 150.
8. Two photographs of the 3.7 acre parcel. Photograph #1 shows driveway construction
accessing County Road 150. Photograph #2 shows the proposed building site.
9. Title insurance issued for the subject property by Land Title Guarantee Company indicating
mineral reservation in United States patent recorded July 14, 1896, in Book 12 at Page 426.
3
Olson Exemption Application 2/99
Respectfully Submitted,
Daren Olson, Petitioner
P.O.Box 3398
Eagle, CO 81631
(970) 390-9290
O-
f
•
Fran adez
Cadez Law Office
P.O. Box 3240
Eagle, CO 81631-3240
GARFIELD COUNTY
wilding and Planning Department
Re: Olson Subdivision Exemption
Dear Fran,
This letter follows up the Board of County Commissioners request for information satisfying the
following requirements:
Section 8:52 B states that:
"All Garfield County Zoning Requirements shall be met."
Section 5.04.02 (2), the Supplementary Lot Area Regulations, need to be demonstrated to
be compliant:
"(2) Lot Size 1 Acre or Greater: Such lots shall have a minimum building
envelope of 1 acre in an area that has less than forty percent (40%) slopes;
however, a smaller building envelope may be approved by the Board after
review of the following which shall be submitted by the applicant:
(A) A soil land foundation investigation prepared by a registered,
professional engineer.
(B) A topographic survey with contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet.
(C) A site grading and drainage plan prepared by a register, professional
engineer.
(D) A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts, and fills in excess of five (5)
feet.
(E) A detailed revegetation plan.
All of the above shall show the minimum building envelope size for each lot and
shall provide evidence that all structures and facilities can be built within such
building envelope area so as not to disturb any forty percent (40%) slope area. The
following shallbeconditions of any approval:
1
5
(A) Foundations shall be designed by and bear the seal of a registered,
professional engineer.
(B) All final plans required Ito be submitted by a professional engineer shall
be approved in their final form and shall hear the seal of such registered,
pro essional engineer."
The live stream setback must be shown on the plan. Section 5.05.02 of the Zoning
Resolution states:
Live Streams: A setback of thirty (30) feet measured horizontally from and
perpendicular to the high water mark on each side ofany live stream shall be
protected as greenbelt and maintained in conformance with the definition
thereof with the exception of diversion facilities as an accessory to the
approved use of the lot.
The applicant will need to obtain a corrected driveway access permit for the new driveway
that has been constructed on Lot 3. The applicant also needs to provide proof of legal access
to Lot 3. Pursuant to Section 8:41A the access easements should be shown on the sketch
plan. It appears from the site plan that the new driveway partially lies on land not owned
by the applicant.
In addition, Section 5.04.02(3) of the Zoning Resolution, Supplementary Lot Area
Regulations, states:
(3)
For all lots: Driveways, access ways and access easements within
the development and on the property of developer shall have a
maximum grade of fourteen percent (14%). (A. 94-046)
The applicant needs to provide evidence that the maximum grade of the driveway does not
exceed 14%.
The applicant has provided a signed ruling of the referee for an application for water storage
rights, underground water rights, and approval of a plan for augmentation. The Referee
granted the application with three (3) conditions, the first of which is that prior to
implementing the plan for augmentation, pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90-137(2), permits for
construction and operation of Olson Well No. 1 and No. 2 must be obtained. The applicant
needs to supply a copy of an approved permit for Olson Well No. 2 and a copy of the
augmentation plan
The physical separation requirements in the Colorado State Board of Health Standards,
revised 1994, must be met. The setback from the creeks is fifty feet (50'). In addition,
pursuant to the ISDS standards, the applicant must obtain a test hole evaluation showing that
the groundwater is at least four (4') feet below the bottom of the test hole in the wettest
months. The applicant needs to provide evidence that an ISDS can safely be placed on Lot
3 and evidence that the adjacent land owners' well will not be contaminated by any proposed
ISDS.
2
�O
t" r
If this area is determined to be a floodplain, a special use permit may be required to place
building improvements on Lot 3 (pursuant to Section 6.00 of the Zoning Resolution). A
determination of the floodplain needs to be done by a licensed engineer.
The Board continued this matter until July 19th, 1999. All information referenced in this letter
must be submitted to this department no later than Friday, July 2, 1999 5:00 p.m., in order to
move forward on the 19th(in this case the staff report is due on July 7th at 3:00 p.m. so this will
only leave 1-1/2 days to complete the report due to the Holiday). I would greatly appreciate if
you would submit information as soon as it becomes available. I look forward to working with
you to resolve these issues. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kit Lyon, Planner
Cc: Daren E. Olson
Phone: 945-8212 / Fax: 945-7785 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
3
July 2 , 1999
• s
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building and Planning Department
Daren E. Olson
P.O. Box 3398
Eagle, CO 81631
Re: Olson Subdivision Exemption
Dear Daren:
This letter follows up our phone conversation on 7/2/99 in which we discussed most of these
items. The June 14 Board of County Commissioners hearing was continued so that specific
information could be submitted. It is imperative that the requested information be submitted so
that Staff and the Board can move forward on your proposal. Bold items indicate the missing
information.
• Section 5.04.02 (2), the Supplementary Lot Area Regulations, need to be demonstrated to be
compliant:
"(2) Lot Size 1 Acre or Greater: Such lots shall have a minimum building
envelope of 1 acre in an area that has less than forty percent (40%) slopes;
however, a smaller building envelope may be approved by the Board after
review of the following which shall be submitted by the applicant:
(A) A soil land foundation investigation prepared by a registered,
professional engineer.
(B) A topographic survey with contour intervals of not more than two (2)
feet.
(C) A site grading and drainage plan prepared by a register, professional
engineer.
(D) A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts, and fills in excess of five (5)
feet.
(E) A detailed revegetation plan.
All of the above shall show the minimum building envelope size for each lot and
shall provide evidence that all structures and facilities can be built within such
building envelope area so as not to disturb any forty percent (40%) slope area.
The following shall be conditions of any approval:
(A) Foundations shall be designed by and bear the seal of a registered,
professional engineer.
(B) All final plans required to be submitted by a professional engineer shall
be approved in their final form and shall bear the seal of such registered,
professional engineer."
1
8
• •
It is unfortunate that extensive grading of the site has already taken place but it does not negate the
need for this information, which is required by code.
• The building envelope shown includes some areas of 40%-60% slope. Please exclude this area
from the envelope and provide the resulting square footage.
• Please provide a corrected driveway access permit for the driveway that has been constructed
on Lot 3.
• You have provided a signed ruling of the referee for an application for water storage rights,
underground water rights, and approval of a plan for augmentation. The Referee granted the
application with three (3) conditions, the first of which is that prior to implementing the plan for
augmentation, pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90-137(2), permits for construction and operation of Olson
Well No. 1 and No. 2 must be obtained. Please supply a copy of an approved permit for Olson
Well No. 2 and a copy of the augmentation plan
• The physical separation requirements in the Colorado State Board of Health Standards, revised
1994, must be met. The setback from the creeks is fifty feet (50'). This setback has not been
shown on the plan. The well and ISDS locations have not been shown on the plans.
• Pursuant to the Colorado Board of Health Standards, please provide a test hole evaluation
showing that the groundwater is at least four (4') feet below the bottom of the test hole in the
wettest months.
• Please provide evidence that the adjacent land owners' well will not be contaminated by any
proposed ISDS.
• A determination of the floodplain needs to be done by a licensed engineer. The Board requested
this study be furnished to them. Furthermore, please be aware that if you are planning to bridge
or culvert Hack Creek you may need a 404 permit or nationwide permit to do that. Written
verification from the Army Corps of Engineers is needed.
I look forward to working with you to resolve these issues. If you have any questions please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Si rely j
Kit Lyon, ' 1. er
Cc: Paul Bussone
Fran Cadez
Phone: 945-8212 / Fax: 945-7785 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
2
•1U •LJRECEIVED JUL 2 1999
C
E
■...■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C.
Mr. Darren Olson
PO Box 3398
Eagle CO 81631
RE: Sweetwater Creek Property
100 Year Flood Plain and Drainage Plan
Dear Darren:
June 30, 1999
We have received and reviewed the contour map of the building site on Parcel 3 of your
proposed lot split. The proposed building site lies on the north bank of Sweetwater
Creek immediately upstream of the confluence with Hack Creek. The drawing shows
the 30' set -back line for Sweetwater Creek but not for Hack Creek. When the 30'set-
back for Hack Creek is added, the potential building envelope is reduced to an area of
about 2500 square feet. See attached map( J>41 '-t l'
We have not had time to complete a flood flow analysis to determine the 100 year
flood plain restrictions, however, it is our initial opinion that the flood plain will be less
restrictive than the 30' set backs. The building site (elevation 7294 - 7300) is about
16' above the mean high water line of Sweetwater Creek and is upstream from and
about 4'higher in elevation than Hack Creek.
The drainage plan for the building site will depend upon the specific structure layout
and elevations. However, given the very small off-site drainage area and the available
change in elevation across the building site, any drainage plan should be quite simple.
Essentially, the water from the hillside to the north must be carried to the east in a
ditch to Hack Creek. All on-site run-off will flow naturally to Sweetwater Creek. Any
"generated" run-off can be controlled to the historic amount using a small detention
pond.
Resource Engineering, Inc. can have the 100 year flood plain delineation by July 15,
1999 at an estimated cost of $1,500.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
a I S. Bussone, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
PSB/dlh do fp drainplan.713.wpd
713-1.0
Attachment
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
to
909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 ■ (970) 945-6777 ■ Fax (970) 94571.137.
Gech
June 30, 1999
Daren Olson
P.O. Box 3398
Eagle, Colorado 81631
RECElvED JUL 2 1999
Hepwor ui-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
Job No. 199 486
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed
Residence, Lot 2, Parcel 3, Olson Lot Split, Eagle County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Olson:
As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and
percolation test for foundation and septic disposal designs at the subject site. The study
was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services
to you dated June 17, 1999. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the
proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this
report. Evaluation of potential geologic hazard impacts on the site are beyond the scope
of this study.
Proposed Construction: At the time of our study, design plans for the residence had
not been developed. We understand the proposed residence is planned to be a single
story modular structure over a basement level. Basement floor will be slab -on -grade.
Cut depths are expected to range between about 3 to 4 feet. Foundation loadings for
this type of construction are assumed to be relatively light and typical of the proposed
type of construction. The septic disposal system is proposed to be located to the
southeast of the property.
If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those
described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in
this report.
Site Conditions: The site was vacant at the time of our field work. The ground
surface in the proposed building area is relatively flat. A very steep slope is located to
the north with an upward grade of about 65%. There is about 4 feet of elevation
difference in the building area. Vegetation has been removed from the building area
and the northern slope. Sweetwater Creek is located about 30 feet to the south and
about 15 feet below the building site. Hack Creek is located to the east of the building
area. Vegetation on the surrounding areas consist of oak brush and aspen trees with an
understory of grass and weeds.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating an exploratory pit in the building area at the approximate location shown on
Fig. 1. The log of the pit is presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below
about 2' feet of topsoil, consist of relatively dense gravel, cobbles and boulders in a
11
Daren Olson
June 30, 1999
Page 2
silty sand matrix. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of the gravel
(minus 5 inch fraction) obtained from the site are presented on Fig. 3. No free water
was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist to
moist.
Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the
exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread
footings placed on the undisturbed natural gravel soils designed for an allowable soil
bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. Footings should be
a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Topsoil
and loose disturbed soils encountered at the foundation bearing level within the
excavation should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the
undisturbed natural gravels. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate cover
above their bearing elevations for frost protection. Placement of footings at least 36
inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this area. Continuous foundation
walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming
an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining
structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent
fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for the on-site gravels, excluding oversized rock, as
backfill.
Floor Slabs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential
movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with
expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints
should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint
spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on
experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free -draining gravel
should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material
should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve
and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill
can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
Underdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration,
it has been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater can
develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during
spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade
construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from
H -P GEOTECH 1
Daren Olson
June 30, 1999
Page 3
wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain
should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent
finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining
granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the
No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of
2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1' feet deep.
Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at Least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement
and walkway areas. A swale will be needed uphill to direct surface
runoff around the residence.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on June 24, 1999 to evaluate the
feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. A pit and three
percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The test holes (nominal 12
inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits
and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the
percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the pit shown on Fig. 2 and consist of
about 2' feet of topsoil overlying relatively dense gravel, cobbles and boulders in a
silty sand matrix. The percolation test results are presented in Table I. The percolation
test results indicate an infiltration rate between 8 and 40 minutes per inch. The slower
rate determined from percolation test P-3 was conducted in the overlying topsoils. The
system should be based in the gravels beneath the topsoil and based on an average
percolation rate of 11 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions
encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a
conventional infiltration septic disposal system. Due to the proximity of the two creeks,
H -P GEOTECH
Daren Olson
June 30, 1999
Page 4
Garfield County may require that a civil engineer be engaged to design the system.
Limitations: This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pit excavated at the
location indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the
area. Our findings include extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the
exploratory pit and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until
excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different
from those described in this report, we should be notified at once so re-evaluation of the
recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes.
We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As
the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations
presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation
bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr
Reviewed By:
`0 297 7 ? '
/99
0 '•.
niel E. Hardin, P.E.
JZA/ksm
attachments
H -P GEOTECH
/'F
7290
\
7310
•
••
•
•
\
\
•
\
•
•
•
\
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PARCEL 3
•
\
•
•
•
•
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1"=40'
\
•
\
\
\
\
\
\
•
•
•
•
\ \ \\ \
\ \• \
•
\ \ \
\ \
1 1 _
\
\ 7300 �--
\ \
\ P 2
\\ \\\ PIT 1 A \
\\ \` • A A `
\\ P 1 P 3
•
•
•
\
•
•
<c>
\ \
F�-
""'
c�jr---30' STREAM
��� \ `` SETBACK LINE
\
\\ •\
\
\ •
•
\
'\
7290
•
199 486
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PIT
AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
Fig. 1
s
0
0
5
PIT 1
ELEV. = 7298'
n/
oQ
Oo`
P
J
+4=74
—200=5
0
5
10 10..
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; slightly clayey silty sand with gravel and cobbles, organics, medium dense, dark brown.
NOTES:
GRAVEL, COBBLES, AND BOULDERS(GP—GM); in a silty sand matrix, medium dense to dense,
grayish brown, boulders up to about 3 feet in size, subangular to subrounded rock.
Disturbed bulk, sample.
1. The exploratory pit was excavated on June 22, 1999 with a backhoe.
2. Location of the exploratory pit was measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the
site plan provided.
3. Elevation of the exploratory pit was obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided.
Log is drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory pit location and elevation should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit log represent the approximate
boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the pit at the time of excavating.
Fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
+4 = Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve
—200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
199 486
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY PIT
Fig. 2
/6
24 HR. 7 HR
45 MIN
100
90
70
80
50
40
30
20
10
0
15 MIN
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS
60 MIN 19 MIN. 4 MN. 1 MIN.
/200
POO
U.S. STANDARD SERIES
#50 #30 #16 /8
SIEVE ANALYSIS
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
•4 3/81/2'3/4' 1 1/2-
3"
5'6'
miommImoinmm
M -
N=UNIMI =
WNW=--- --
I IN
NINNIIINNIIIIINMINNIONITumNMI NM
������
MEW/MEOW MI NI
WIINIINN/Of MN IN
IIIIIIIIIIII W= MEM M
NENNWIENIN M --NEN I
NI
•MEMINMOMMII•11111111111__ ��—_•
��M�������WMNIIIII11_ -- MI
--r
111, OS
AMMNII �_ N• IN
IN
IIIINII•M_ •iI
1i III NiMA NIwouNraim =Is=ismow=moliamiwAmmi NuO.
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600
CLAY TO SILT
1.18 2.38
4.75
9.512.5 19.0
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
SAND
FINE MEDIUM !COARSE
37.5
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE
1IlIl1M111
8-
10
20
30
40
76.2 152 203
127
COBBLES
GRAVEL 74
LIQUID LIMIT
0
SAND 21
SILT AND CLAY 5
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel FROM: Pit 1 at 3 thru 5 Feet
with Cobbles
50
60
70
80
90
100
199 486
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 3
1�
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
ION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 199 486
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER
DEPTH AT
END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P-1
75
5
water added
10
6 1/2
3 1/2
13
6 1/2
5
1 1/2
5
4
1
4
3
1
10 1/4
8 1/4
2
8 1/4
7 3/4
1/2
7 3/4
7 1/4
1;2
7 1/4
6 3/4
1/2
6 3/4
6 1!2
1/4
6 1/2
6
1/2
P-2
48
5
water added
9 1/2
8
1 1/2
8
8
7 1/4
3/4
7 1/4
6 1/2
3/4
6 1/2
6
1/2
6
5 1/4
3/4
g
8 1/2
1/2
8 1/2
7 3/4
3/4
7 3/4
7
3/4
7
6 1/2
1/2
6 1/2
5 3/4
3/4
P-3
46
5
8 1/2
8
1/2
4C
8
7 1/4
3/4
7 1/4
7 1/4
0
7 1/4
7
3/4
7
7
0
7
6 3/4
1/4
6 3/4
6 3/4
0
6 3/4
6 1/2
1/4
6 1/2
6 1/2
0
61/2
61/4
1/4
NOTE: Percolation test holes were dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on June 22, 1999. The test holes were resoaked on June
23, 1999. The percolation tests were conducted on June 24, 1999. The average percolation rate was based on the last two readings
of each test. There was topsoil to 44" deep in P-3.
/8
FEET BETWEEN COMPONEN'T'S OF A SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
INSTALLED AFTER NOVEMBER 15, 1973, AND PERTINENT PHYSICAL FEATURES
NOTE: The minimum distances shown above shall be maintained between the system components and the physical features described. Where
soil, geological or other conditions warrant, greater distances may be required by the local board of health or by the Water Quality
Control Commission pursuant to C.R.S. 25-8-206 in accordance with the authority prescribed by law and rules and regulations
implemental of said section. Components which are not water tight should not extend into areas of the root system of nearby trees.
For repair or upgrading of existing systems where the size of lot precludes adherence to these distances, repaired facility shall
not be closer to water supply components than the existing facilities.
(1) Distance shown shall not apply to treatment plants or effluent lines where recycling is permitted.
(2) Crossings or encroachments may be permitted at the points as noted above provided that the water conveyance pipe is encased for
a minimum distance of ten (10) feet on each side of the crossing. A length of pipe shall be used with a minimum Schedule 40 rating
of sufficient diameter to easily slide over and completely encase the water conveyance. Ridged` end caps of at least Schedule 40
rating must be glued or secured in a watertight fashion to the ends of the encasement pipe. A hole of sufficient size to accommodate
the pipe shall be drilled in the lowermost section of the ridged cap so that the conveyance pipe rests on the bottom of the encasement
pipe. The area in which the pipe passes through the endcaps shall be sealed with an approved underground sealant compatible with
the piping used.
Add 8 feet additional distance for each 100 gallons per day of design flow over 1000 gallons per day as specified in the table.
(3)
(4) Encroachments may be permitted provided the water or wastewater conveyance pipe is encased as in (2) above, specified in the
able.
23
Property
Lines,
Piped or
Lined
Irrigation
Ditch
Subsoil
Drains,
Intermittent
Irrigation
Lateral
Lake, Water
Course,
Irrigation
Ditch or
Stream
Dry
Gulches
Sep
T,
Spring,
Wells,
Suction
Lines
Potable
Water
Supply
Line
Potable
Water
Supply
Cistern
Dwellin
Occupieu
Building
Dispersal System
Utilizing Aerosol
Methods
(3)
100
(4)(2)
10
50
125
10
0
(3)
25
(3)
10
10
Seepage Pit or Slit
(3)
100
(4)(2)
50
25
20
25
10
(3)
50
(3)
25
6
Trench
absorption Trench,
Seepage Bed, Sand
Filter, Sub -surface
Dispersal System, or
Drywell
(3)
100
(4)(2)
25
25
20
10
10
(3)
50
(3)
25._
6
'
Unlined Sand Filter in
Soil With a Percolation
(tate Slower than 60
Minutes per Inch
100
(4)(2)
25
25
15
10
10
25
15
10
25
15
10
10
25
15
10
Unlined or Partially
Lined Evapotranspiration
System Wastewater Pond,
or Surface Disposal
System Other than
100
(4)(2)
25
Aerosol
Lined Sand Filter
25
15
10
10
25
10
60
(4)10(2)
Lined Evapotranspiration
Field or Lined
Wastewater Pond
60
(4)10(2)
25
15
10
10
25
10
5
(4)10(2)
25
15
10
10
25
10
--
Pit Privy or Vault Privy
50
25
(1)
5
10
10
50
10
Septic Tanks, Treatment
(2)
50
(4)(2)
10
Plants, Dosing Tanks,
Vaults
Building Sewer or
Effluent Lines
(2)(4)
50
(4)(2)
10
(4)
25
0
(2)(4)
10
(4)
10
(2)(4)
50
(2)(4)
10
--
NOTE: The minimum distances shown above shall be maintained between the system components and the physical features described. Where
soil, geological or other conditions warrant, greater distances may be required by the local board of health or by the Water Quality
Control Commission pursuant to C.R.S. 25-8-206 in accordance with the authority prescribed by law and rules and regulations
implemental of said section. Components which are not water tight should not extend into areas of the root system of nearby trees.
For repair or upgrading of existing systems where the size of lot precludes adherence to these distances, repaired facility shall
not be closer to water supply components than the existing facilities.
(1) Distance shown shall not apply to treatment plants or effluent lines where recycling is permitted.
(2) Crossings or encroachments may be permitted at the points as noted above provided that the water conveyance pipe is encased for
a minimum distance of ten (10) feet on each side of the crossing. A length of pipe shall be used with a minimum Schedule 40 rating
of sufficient diameter to easily slide over and completely encase the water conveyance. Ridged` end caps of at least Schedule 40
rating must be glued or secured in a watertight fashion to the ends of the encasement pipe. A hole of sufficient size to accommodate
the pipe shall be drilled in the lowermost section of the ridged cap so that the conveyance pipe rests on the bottom of the encasement
pipe. The area in which the pipe passes through the endcaps shall be sealed with an approved underground sealant compatible with
the piping used.
Add 8 feet additional distance for each 100 gallons per day of design flow over 1000 gallons per day as specified in the table.
(3)
(4) Encroachments may be permitted provided the water or wastewater conveyance pipe is encased as in (2) above, specified in the
able.
23
•
co Sem ?)FA -1 -1 -1711 -17 -/-
health
FA91-I
health department unless the tests were previously
performed by a registered professional engineer and
the results thereof submitted with the application
for a permit.
2. If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the local board of health that the system is not
dependent upon soil absorption, the requirement for
percolation tests may be waived.
F. Alternate Percolation Test:
Alternate percolation test or other soil test procedures
may be approved by the local health officer or his/her
designated representative providing the test results of
'alternate procedures meet or exceed those determined
using the test procedure detailed in this section.
G. Soil Profile:
One soil profile hole shall be drilled or dug to provide
observation of the soil profile of the area of the soil
absorption system. The hole shall be prepared at least
eight (8) feet deep. The hole may be terminated when
groundwater or bedrock is encountered. The hole shall he
prepared in such a way as to provide identification of
the soil profile four (4) feet below the bottom of the
soil absorption system.
H. Water Table:
In the absence of more restrictive regulations of the
local board of health, a test hole evaluation showing a
dry condition estimated or measured to be at least four
feet below .- ••ttom of a proposed soil absorption
sys em during the wettest mon hs ma be const a -• • 1131a
racie e - a e maximum seasonal groundwater
table will be sufficiently below -the bottom of—the
proposed absorption system.
VIII.Component Design Criteria
A. Design Features (General)
1. Reliability: Individual sewage disposal systems
shall be designed and constructed such that each
component shall function, when installed and
operated, in a manner not adversely affected by the
25
,z4
en -Gypsum Area, Colorado
Suitable management practices include proper
azing use and a planned grazing system. The
itability of this soil for range seeding is poor. The
in limitation is the slope. The slope limits access by
estock. The limited accessibility results in overgrazing
t.the less sloping areas.
This unit is poorly suited to homesite development.
e main limitation is the slope.
This map unit is in capability subclass Vile,
nirrigated. It is in the Deep Loam range site.
41—Evanston loam, 45 to 65 percent slopes. This
ep, well drained soil is on alluvial fans, terraces, and
ley sides. It formed in mixed alluvium. Elevation is
0 to 8,000 feet. The average annual precipitation is
3 to 15 inches, the average annual air temperature is
to 46 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is
to 90 days.
;Typically, the surface layer is brown loam about 12
hes thick. The subsoil is clay loam about 13 inches
The substratum to a depth of 60 inches or more is
m.
Included in this unit are small areas of Tridell soils,
pas of Evanston soils that have slopes of less than 45
rcent, and small areas of Rock outcrop. Included
Sas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage.
Permeability is moderate in this Evanston soil.
Mailable water capacity is high. The effective rooting
th is 60 inches or more. Runoff is rapid, and the
and of water erosion is moderate or severe on the
eper slopes.
This unit is used mainly as rangeland. It also is used
wildlife habitat.
L The potential plant community on this unit is mainly
ebunch wheatgrass, western wheatgrass,
ttongrass, Douglas rabbitbrush, and mountain big
ebrush. Utah serviceberry, mountain snowberry,
irie junegrass, and Ross sedge commonly are also
uded. The average annual production of air-dry
etation is about 1,500 pounds per acre. 1f the range
ndition deteriorates, mountain big sagebrush,
glas rabbitbrush, cheatgrass, and annual weeds
ease in abundance.
Suitable management practices include proper
azing use and a planned grazing system. The
liability of this soil for range seeding is poor. The
n limitation is the slope. The slope limits access by
estock. The limited accessibility results in overgrazing
the less sloping areas.
This unit is poorly suited to homesite development.
e main limitation is the slope.
This map unit is in capability subclass Vile,
nirrigated. It is in the Deep Loam range site.
39
G-C1T
42 Fluvaquents, 0 to 10 percent siope:s. This
broadly defined unit consists of deep, somewhat poorly
drained, nearly level soils on flood plains and alluvial
valley floors. These soils formed in alluvium.
Fluvaquents are stratified and vary widely in texture
and in depth to sand, gravel, and cobbles. Typically, the
surface layer ranges from loamy sand to fine sandy
loam or from silt loam to clay loam. The underlying
layers are generally sandy loam or loam stratified with
sand, gravel, and cobbles. In some areas gravel and
cobbles are on or near the surface.
The water table fluctuates between depths of 0.5 foot
and 2.0 feet during spring and summer. These soils are
occasionally flooded for brief periods in late spring and
early summer.
Included in this unit are small, isolated areas of
Redrob soils. Also included are small, isolated areas
where water stands at or near the surface all year.
These water areas are identified by a special symbol on
the soil maps. Included areas make up about 15
percent of the total acreage.
These soils are used for wildlife habitat, recreational
development, or grazing. The native vegetation is
mainly cottonwood, willow, water -tolerant grasses,
sedges, and rushes. Mule deer, cottontail rabbit, coyote,
and bobcat and ducks, geese, and other native birds
find food and shelter on these soils. Where feasible,
planting small grain, trees, and shrubs improves the
habitat for upland wildlife.
This unit is poorly suited to homesite development.
The main limitations are the flooding and the seasonal
high water table.
This map unit is in capability subclass Vlw,
nonirrigated. It generally is in the Riverbottom range
site. At the higher elevations, however, it is in the
Mountain Meadow range site.
43—Forelle-Brownsto complex, 6 to 12 percent
slopes. This map unit is on mountains and benches.
Elevation is 6,500 to 7,500 feet. The average annual
precipitation is 12 to 14 inches, the average annual air
temperature is 40 to 44 degrees F, and the average
frost -free period is 85 to 105 days.
This unit is about 55 percent Forelle soil and 30
percent Brownsto soil.
Included in this unit are small areas of Tridell soils on
knolls, Mussel and Morval soils in swales, and basalt
Rock outcrop. Also included are small areas of soils
that are similar to the Forelle and Brownsto soils but
have soft bedrock below a depth of 40 inches. Included
areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage.
The Forelle soil is deep and well drained. It formed in
mixed alluvium derived dominantly from sedimentary
1700
sa
sBquaJJod
A71%
TO6L 87.0 OL6 Y\'d Sb•Zi� 66%6T%SO
40
RECEIVED MAY 1 1999
rocks. Typically, the surface layer is brown loam about
6 inches thick. The subsoil is clay loam about 24 inches
thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is loam.
Permeability is moderate in the Forelle soil_ Available
water capacity is high. The effective rooting depth is 60
inches or more. Runoff is medium. The hazard of water
erosion generally is moderate, but it is severe in areas
that contain volcanic ash.
The Brownsto soil is deep and well drained. It formed
in alluvium derived dominantly from coarse textured,
calcareous sandstone and basalt. Typically, the upper
part of the surface layer is light brownish gray gravelly
sandy loam about 4 inches thick. The lower part is light
brownish gray gravelly loam about 7 inches thick. The
upper 19 inches of the substratum is very gravelly
sandy loam. The next 12 inches is very gravelly loamy
sand. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches is gravelly
sandy loam. A thin layer of partially decomposed
needles, twigs, and leaves is on the surface in many
places.
Permeability is moderate in the Brownsto soil.
Available water capacity is low. The effective rooting
depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is medium, and the
hazard of water erosion is moderate.
This unit is used as rangeland or as wildlife habitat.
The potential plant community on the Forelle soil is
mainly western wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass,
Indian ricegrass, Douglas rabbitbrush, and Wyoming big
sagebrush. Muttongrass, streambank wheatgrass, and
winterfat commonly are also included. The average
annual production of air-dry vegetation is about 800
pounds per acre. If the range condition deteriorates,
Wyoming big sagebrush, Douglas rabbitbrush,
cheatgrass, and annual weeds increase in abundance.
The potential plant community on the Brownsto soil is
mainly needleandthread, Indian ricegrass, western
wheatgrass, and Wyoming big sagebrush. Bluebunch
wheatgrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, and scattered Utah
juniper and pinyon pine also are included. The average
annual production of air-dry vegetation is about 600
pounds per acre. If the range condition deteriorates,
Wyoming big sagebrush, Douglas rabbitbrush,
cheatgrass, and annual weeds increase in abundance.
Suitable management practices include proper
grazing use and a planned grazing system. If the quality
of range vegetation has seriously deteriorated, seeding
is needed. The suitability of this urit for range seeding
is good in areas of the Forelle soil and poor in areas of
the Brownsto soil. The main limitation is the cobbles
and stones on the Brownsto soil. For successful
seeding, a seedbed should be prepared and the seed
drilled. In areas of the Forelle soil, brush management
improves deteriorated areas of range that are producing
Soo
Jasauqua J;Tod
Soli Survey
more woody shrubs than were present in the potential
plant community.
This unit is suited to homesite development. The
main limitations are the slope in the steeper areas and
small stones in the Brownsto soil.
This map unit is in capability subclass IVe,
nonirrigated. The Forelle soil is in the Rolling Loam
range site, and the Brownsto soil is in the Stony
Foothills range site.
44 Forelle-Brownsto complex, 12 to 25 percent
slopes. This map unit is on mountain side slopes.
Elevation is 6,500 to 7,500 feet. The average annual
precipitation is 12 to 14 inches, the average annual air
temperature is 40 to 44 degrees F, and the average
frost -free period is 85 to 105 days.
This unit is about 50 percent Forelle soil and 35
percent Brownsto soil.
Included in this unit are small areas of Tridell soils
and basalt Rock outcrop on knolls. Also included are
small areas of Mussel and Morval soils in the more
gently sloping areas. Included areas make up about 15
percent of the total acreage.
The Forelle soil is deep and well drained. It formed in
mixed alluvium derived dominantly from sedimentary
rocks. Typically, the surface layer is brown loam about
6 inches thick. The subsoil is clay loam about 24 inches
thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is loam.
Permeability is moderate in the Forelle soil. Available
water capacity is high. The effective rooting depth is 60
inches or more. Runoff is rapid. The hazard of water
erosion generally is moderate, but it is severe in areas
that contain volcanic ash.
The Brownsto soil is deep and well drained. It formed
in alluvium derived dominantly from coarse textured,
calcareous sandstone and basalt. Typically, the upper
part of the surface layer is light brownish gray gravelly
sandy loam about 4 inches thick. The lower part is light
brownish gray gravelly loam about 7 inches thick. The
upper 19 inches of the substratum is very gravelly
sandy loam. The next 12 inches is very grave"y loamy
sand. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches is gravelly
sandy loam. A thin layer of partially decomposed
needles, twigs, and leaves is on the surface in many
places.
Permeability is moderate in the Brownsto soil.
Available water capacity is low. The effective rooting
depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is rapid, and the
hazard of water erosion is moderate.
This unit is used as rangeland or as wildlife habitat.
The potential plant community on the Forelle soil is
mainly western wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass,
Indian ricegrass, Douglas rabbitbrush, and VVyoming big
3
T06L 8ZE OL6 XVd S6:ZT 66/tTign
t•�
s
J
big
900
RECEIVED M;'( 1 4 1999
Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado
sagebrush. Muttongrass, streambank wheatgrass, and
winterfat also are included. The average annual
production of air-dry vegetation is about 800 pounds per
acre. If the range condition deteriorates, Wyoming big
sagebrush, Douglas rabbitbrush, and cheatgrass
increase in abundance.
The potential plant community on the Brownsto soil is
mainly needleandthread, Indian ricegrass, western
wheatgrass, and Wyoming big sagebrush. Bluebunch
wheatgrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, and scattered Utah
juniper and pinyon pine also are included. The averag`.
annual production of air-dry vegetation is about 600
pounds per acre. If the range condition deteriorates,
Wyoming big sagebrush, Douglas rabbitbrush,
cheatgrass, and annual weeds increase in abundance.
Suitable management practices include proper
grazing use arid a planned grazing system. If the quality
of range vegetation has seriously deteriorated, seeding
is needed. The main limitation is stoniness in areas of
the Brownsto soil. For successful seeding, a seedbed
should be prepared and the seed drilled. In areas of the
Forelle soil, brush management improves deteriorated
areas of range that are producing more woody shrubs
than were present in the potential plant community. The
slope limits access by livestock. The limited accessibility
results in overgrazing of the less sloping areas.
If this unit is used for homesite development, the
main limitation is the slope.
This map unit is in capability subclass Vie,
nonirrigated. The Forelle soil is in the Rolling Loam
range site, and the Brownsto soil is in the Stony
Foothills range site.
45—Forsey cobbly loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes.
This deep, well drained soil is on alluvial fans,
mountainsides, and ridges. It formed in alluvium,
colluvium, and residuum derived from material of mixed
mineralogy. Elevation is 7,500 to 9,500 feet. The
average annual precipitation is 17 to 19 inches, the
average annual air temperature is 38 to 42 degrees F,
and the average frost -free period is 75 to 85 days.
About 25 to 30 percent of the surface is covered with
cobbles (fig. 4). Typically, the surface layer is dark
grayish brown cobbly loam about 10 inches thick. The
subsoil is very cobbly clay loam about 12 inches thick.
The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is very cobbly
sandy clay loam. The soil is noncalcareous and mildly
alkaline to a depth of 22 inches and calcareous and
moderately alkaline below that depth.
Included in this unit are small areas of Rock outcrop.
included areas make up about 5 percent of the total
acreage.
Permeability is moderate in the Forsey soil. Available
JoSasgaaJ,lod
water capacity also is moderate. The effective rooting
depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is slow, and the
hazard of water erosion is slight.
This unit is used as rangeland or for pasture. The
potential plant community is mainly bluebunch
wheatgrass, muttongrass, prairie junegrass, mountain
big sagebrush, and Saskatoon serviceberry. Other
plants that characterize this site are Columbia
needlegrass, needleandthread, mountain snowberry,
and antelope bitterbrush. The average annual
production of air-dry vegetation is about 1,200 pounds
per acre. If the range condition deteriorates, mountain
big sagebrush, Kentucky bluegrass, cheatgrass, and
annual weeds increase in abundance.
The suitability of this unit for range seeding is poor.
The main limitation is the surface stoniness.
Controlled flooding is the best method of irrigation c
this soil because of the stony surface. In order to avoi
overirrigating and prevent the leaching of plant
nutrients, applications of irrigation water should be
adjusted to the available water capacity, the water
intake rate, and the needs of the crop.
This unit is suited to homesite development. Becau
of the stones, however, excavating is difficult.
This map unit is in capability subclass Vle, irrigates
and nonirrigated. It is in the Stony Loam range site.
46—Forsey cobbly loam, 12 to 25 percent slopes
This deep, well drained soil is on alluvial fans,
mountainsides, and ridges. It formed in alluvium,
colluvium; and residuum derived from material of mixE
mineralogy. Elevation is 7,500 to 9,500 feet. The
average annual precipitation is 17 to 19 inches, the
average annual air temperature is 38 to 42 degrees F
and the average frost -free period is 75 to 85 days.
About 25 to 30 percent of the surface is covered w
cobbles. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish
brown cobbly loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil
very cobbly clay loam about 12 inches thick. The
substratum to a depth of 60 inches is very cobbly san
clay loam. The soil is noncalcareous and mildly alkalir
to a depth of 22 inches and calcareous and moderate
alkaline below that depth.
Included in this unit are small areas of sandstone
outcrops. Included areas make up about 5 percent of
the total acreage.
Permeability is moderate in the Forsey soil. Availat
water capacity also is moderate. The effective rooting
depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is medium, and the
hazard of water erosion is moderate.
This unit is used as rangeland. The potential plant
community is mainly bluebunch wheatgrass,
muttongrass, prairie junegrass, mountain big sagebru:
a�+
TO6L 8Z£ OL6 XV3 56:ZT 66/t7T/S0
Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado
Grasses and legumes grow well if adequate fertilizer is
used. Limiting tillage for seedbed preparation and
controlling weeds help to control runoff and erosion. If
properly managed, the unit can produce 3 tons of
irrigated grass hay or 60 bushels of barley per acre
annually.
The potential plant community on the Showalter soil
is mainly bluebunch wheatgrass, western wheatgrass,
prairie junegrass, Indian ricegrass, true
mountainmahogany, antelope bitterbrush, Saskatoon
serviceberry. and big sagebrush. The average annual
production of air-dry vegetation is about 900 pounds per
acre.
The potential plant community on the Morval soil is
mainly needleandthread, western wheatgrass,
lnuttongrass, prairie junegrass, and big sagebrush. The
average annual production of air-dry vegetation is about
1,500 pounds per acre.
The main limitation for range seeding or mechanical
treatment is the surface stoniness in areas of the
Showalter soil. Range seeding generally ie restricted to
broadcasting because of this limitation.
This unit is poorly suited to homesite development.
The main limitations are the shrink -swell potential and
the stones throughout the profile.
This map unit is in capability subclass Vie, irrigated
and nonirrigated. The Showalter soil is in the Loamy
Slopes range site, and the Morval soil is in the Deep
Loam range site. Lam-
9Showalter-Morval complex, 15 to 25 percent
slopes. This map unit is on alluvial fans, high terraces,
and valley sides (fig. 7). Elevation is 7,000 to 8.500
feet. The average annual precipitation is 14 to 16
inches, the average annual air temperature is 42 to 44
degrees F, and the average frost -free period is 80 to 90
days.
This unit is about 45 percent Showalter very stony
loam and 35 percent Morval loam. The Showalter soil is
in convex areas, and the Morval soil is in the more
concave areas.
Included in this unit are small areas of soils that are
similar to the Morval soil but have 30 to 50 percent
cobbles in the substratum. Included areas make up
about 20 percent of the total acreage.
The Showalter soil is deep and well drained. It
formed in alluvium derived dominantly from basalt.
About 10 to 15 percent of the surface is covered with
stones, 5 percent with cobbles, and 5 percent with
gravel. Typically, the surface layer is brown very stony
loam about 8 inches thick. The upper 3 inches of the
subsoil is very cobbly clay loam. The lower 28 inches is
very cobbly clay. The substratum to a depth of 60
inches or more is very cobbly clay loam.
LOO
aasssqua3Jo,
65
Permeability is slow in the Showalter soil. Available
water capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth
is 60 inches or more. Runoff is medium, and the hazard
of water erosion is moderate.
The Morval soil is deep and well drained. It formed in
alluvium derived dominantly from basalt. Typically, the
surface layer is brown loam about 7 inches thick. The
upper 12 inches of the subsoil is clay loam. The lower 4
inches is loam. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches
is loam. The soil is noncalcareous to a depth of 19
inches and calcareous below that depth.
Permeability is moderate in the Morval soil. Available
water capacity also is moderate. The effective rooting
depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is medium, and the
hazard of water erosion is slight.
This unit is used as rangeland or hayland or for
homesite development.
The potential plant community on the Showalter soil
is mainly bluebunch wheatgrass, western wheatgrass,
prairie junegrass, Indian ricegrass, true
mountainmahogany, antelope bitterbrush, Saskatoon
serviceberry, and big sagebrush. The average annual
production of air-dry vegetation is about 900 pounds per
acre.
The potential plant community on the Morval soil is
mainly needleandthread, western wheatgrass,
muttongrass, prairie junegrass, and big sagebrush. The
average annual production of air-dry vegetation is about
1,500 pounds per acre.
The main limitation for range seeding or mechanical
treatment is the surface stoniness in areas of the
Showalter soil. Suitable management practices include
proper range use, deferred grazing, and rotation
grazing. Aerial spraying is suitable for brush
management.
If this unit is used for hay and pasture, the main
limitations are the surface stoniness, the slope, and the
slow permeability in the Showalter soil. Grasses and
legumes grow well if adequate fertilizer is used.
This unit is very poorly suited to homesite
development. The main limitations are the slope, the
shrink -swell potential, and the stones throughout the
profile.
This map unit is in capability subclass Vle,
nonirrigated. The Showalter soil is in the Loamy Slopes
range site, and the Morval soil is in the Deep Loam
range site.
95—Southace cobbly sandy loam, 11 to 6 percent
slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on upland
terraces, mountainsides, and alluvial fans. It formed in
alluvium derived dominantly from redbed sandstone and
shale intermixed with gypsiferous material. Elevation is
6,000 to 7,000 feet. The average annual precipitation is
4.5
TO6L SZt OL6 XVi S6:ZT 66/VT/50
Eooi1
Mf .A
—Li...i
GYPSUM FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
POST OFFICE Box 243 51 1 SECOND STREET
THURSDAY, MAY 1 3, 1 999
ERIC MCCAFFERTY
SENIOR PLANNER
GARFIELD COUNTY
1 09 EIGHTH STREET, SUITE 303
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO B1 601
fi
. •r c,: i
DEAR MR. ERIC MCCAFFERTY,
1 HAVE DISCUSSED WITH MR. OLSON ON 1 1 21 SWEETWATER ROAD, LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 7.8 MILES FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE COLORADO RIVER ROAD FIRE
PROTECTION FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THIS PROPERTY AND GENERAL AREA 15 NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE GYPSUM FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT. HOWEVER, THE DISTRICT PROVIDES SERVICE TO THIS AREA ON A FEE
BASIS THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY. TO THIS AREA, WE WILL RESPOND WITH TANKER AND
AN ENGINE TO A STRUCTURE FIRE REPORT. ON OTHER FIRE REPORTS, THE DUTY OFFICER
WILL DETERMINE RESPONSE LEVEL.
PLEASE TELEPHONE U8 IF YOU MAY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
SINCEIRELY,
DAVE VROMAN
CHIEF
GYPSUM FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Phone 970-524-7101 Fax 970-524-9880
aaeaequajjod T06L RZE OL6 Xdd S6:ZT 66/6T/11O
•
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
WATER DIVISION FIVE
Office of the State Engineer
Department of Natural Resources
50633 U.S. Hwy. 6 & 24
P.O. Box 396
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Phone: (970) 945-5665
FAX: (970) 945-8741 (call first)
http://water.state.co.us/default.htm
Ms. Kit Lyon, Planner
Garfield County Planning Dept.
Garfield County Courthouse
109 8th St
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
July 6, 1999
Re: Daren E. Olson Augmentation Plan and Well Permits - 98CW188
Dear Ms. Lyon:
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Orlyn J.Bell
Division Engineer
Mr. Olson's well permits are being applied for (Olson Well Nos. 1 & 2) pursuant to the
decreed augmentation plan in 98CW188 and C.R.S. 37-90-137(2). The Division of Water Resources
will act on these permit applications within 45 days of receiving completed applications. Enclosed is
a copy of the decreed augmentation plan.
Enc.
If you need further information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Orlyn J. Bell
RECEIVED JUL 8 1999
0 leg
VU/ VV/ JJ
vv. ov ran .71 U JL8 r uul rul leuud ger
•
•
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 5, COLORADO
Application No. 98CW188
RULING OF REFEREE
IN THE MAI. I'ER OF THE APPLICATION FOR WATER STORAGE RIGHTS,
UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS, AND APPROVAL OF A PLAN FOR
AUGMENTATION OF: DAREN E. OLSON, IN GARFIELD COUNTY.
The above entitled Application was filed on November 20, 1998, and was referred to the
undersigned as Water Referee for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado, by the Water Judge
of said Court in accordance with Article 92 of Chapter 37, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973,
known as The Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969.
And the undersigned Referee having made such investigations as are necessary to
determine whether or not the statements in the Application are true and having become fully
advised with respect to the subject matter of the Application does hereby make the following
determination of Ruling as the Referee in this matter, to wit:
1. The statements in the Application are true.
2. The name and address of the Applicant:
Daren E. Olson
1121 Sweetwater Road
P.O. Box 3398
Eagle, CO 81631
(970) 524-0230 (home)
(970) 390-9290 (business)
3. a. The name of the structure is the Olson Pond, an on -channel storage structure.
b. The source of the water for Olson Pond is from Hack Creek tributary to Sweetwater
Creek tributary to the Colorado River.
c. The place of storage is located at a point in the NE1/4 NW1/4, Section 23,
Township 3 South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M., at a point 800 feet from the North line and 1,800
feet from the West line of said Section 23.
1
d. The use is irrigation, aesthetic, piscatorial, fire protection and augmentation for
domestic uses.
e. The date of initiation of appropriation is August 28, 1997.
f. The amount of water claimed is 2.0 acre feet, absolute.
g. The surface area is 0.15 acres.
4. a. The name of the structure is Olson Well No. 1.
b. The source of the water is the alluvial acquifer Hack Creek tributary to Sweetwater
Creek tributary to the Colorado River.
c. The point of diversion is located at NE 1/4 NW1/4, Section 23, Township 3 South,
Range 87 West, 6th P.M. at a point 650 feet from the North line and 1,650 feet from the West
line of said Section 23.
d. The date of initiation of appropriation is August 26, 1997.
e. The use is domestic, including 5,000 square feet of lawn and landscape irrigation.
f. The amount of water claimed is 0.65 acre feet per year for domestic use and for
5,000 square feet of Iawn and landscape irrigation. In house use of 15gpm is absolute. Lawn
and landscape irrigation is conditional.
5. a. The name of the structure is Olson Well No. 2
b. The source of the water is the alluvial aquifer Hack Creek tributary to Sweetwater
Creek tributary to the Colorado River.
c. The point of diversion is located at NE 1/4 NW 1/4, Section 23, Township 3 South,
Range 87 West, 6th P.M. at a point 1,310 feet from the North line and 1,950 feet from the West
line of said Section 23.
d. The date of appropriation is March 1, 1998.
e. The use is domestic, including 5,000 square feet of lawn and landscape irrigation.
f. The amount of water claimed is 0.65 acre feet per year for domestic use and for
5,000 square feet of lawn and Landscape irrigation. In house use of 15gpm and lawn and
landscape irrigation is conditional.
6. a. An augmentation plan to augment the structures described as Olson Pond, Olson
Well No. 1 and Olson Well No. 2.
2
• •
The Olson Wells No. 1 and No. 2 and the Olson Pond will be out -of -priority much of the
time. Depletions to the stream system resulting from diversions from the wells and evaporation
from the pond must be augmented during these periods. A conservative assumption is that the
Olson water rights could potentially be subject to a downstream call in all months except the
peak runoff season. During this non -call runoff period, the Olson Pond can be filled. During the
remainder of the year, releases can be made from the pond to augment the depletions. The Olson
Pond has sufficient capacity to make releases to offset the full amount of depletions. Both Olson
Well No.1 and No.2 are or will be completed in alluvial formations within 100 feet of Hack
Creek. No delayed streamflow impact is anticipated, therefore, augmentation releases can be
made at the time of call. However, pursuant to C.R.S. 37-92-305(8), the state engineer shall
curtail all out -of -priority diversions, the depletions from which are not so replaced as to prevent
injury to vested water rights.
The Referee does therefore conclude the above entitled Application should be granted. It
is further ORDERED that,
1. Prior to implementing the plan for augmentation, pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90-137(2),
permits for the construction and operation of Olson Well No. 1 and No. 2 must be obtained.
2. The applicant shall install measuring devices, provide accounting, and supply
calculations regarding the timing of depletions as required by the Division Engineer for the
operation of this plan. The applicant shall also file an annual report with the Division Engineer
by November 15th of each year summarizing diversions and replacements made under this plan.
3. Once the augmentation plan has become operational, the court shall retain jurisdiction
for a period of five years to assure thabadequate protection is‘provided to other vested water
rights or other conditional water rights.
It is accordingly ORDERED that this Ruling shall be filed with the Water Clerk subject
to Judicial review.
3
It is further ORDERED that a copy of this Ruling shall be filed with the appropriate
Division Engineer and the State Engineer.
Dated APRIL 30, 1999
BY REFEREE
Water Referee
Water Division No. 5
State of Colorado
j'npv othe fntrvnine ailpi
to .ii f i'nle ni m
Water Refers D —
Stele E Date r.
Qepaty Clerk Water Div No 3
VZ
No protest was filed in this matter. The foregoing Ruling is confirmed and approved, and
is made the Judgment and Decree of this Court.
Dated
j'nnr of the (nmeninv mailed
jp�allreeMW
Water Referee Div Eng_
Slate Eng Date
Deputy Clerk, Wiley Dei No S
4
Water Judge
3/
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO.5, COLORADO
Case No. 98CW188
AMENDMENT TO
APPLICATION FOR WATER STORAGE RIGHTS, APPLICATION FOR UNDERGROUND
WATER RIGHTS, AND APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN FOR
AUGMENTATION
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF:
DAREN E. OLSON,
in Garfield County, Colorado
\.n' .1111 .11 - • ••• .1
Daren E. Olson
1226 Sweetwater Road
P.O. Box 3398
Eagle, CO 81631
(970) 524-0230 (home)
(970) 390-9290 (business)
c/o Fran Cadez
Attorney at Law
407-1 Broadway
P.O. Box 3240
Eagle, CO 81631
(970) 328-7900
FIRST CLAIM
APPLICATION FOR WATER STORAGE RIGYTS
1. Name of Structure: Olson Pond
A. Legal description: A pond located in the NE1/4 NW1/4, Section 23, Township 3
South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M., at a point 800 feet from the North line and 1,800 feet
from the West line of said Section 23.
B. Source: The pond is an on -channel storage structure filled from Hack Creek tributary
to Sweetwater Creek tributary to the Colorado River.
• •
C. (i) Date of Appropriation: August 28, 1997
(ii) How appropriation was initiated: By Notice of Intent to Construct a
Non jurisdictional Water Impoundment Structure, Dam No. 97987 and by
construction of Olson's Dam.
(iii) Date water applied to beneficial use: September 1, 1997
D. Amount Claimed: 2.0 acre feet, absolute.
E. Surface Area: 0.15 acres
F. Use: Irrigation, aesthetic, piscatorial, fire protection and augmentation for domestic
uses.
G. If irrigation:
(i) Number of square feet historically irrigated: 0
(ii) Total number of acres proposed to be irrigated: Up to 3 acres of land on
Parcel 3 Martin Lot Line Change, Garfield County.
(iii) Legal description of acreage irrigated or to be irrigated: Parcel 3 Martin
Lot Line Change, Garfield County
H. If non -irrigation, describe purpose fully: Aesthetic, piscatorial, fire protection and
augmentation for domestic uses.
I. Name and address of owner of land on which pond is located: Applicant.
SECOND CLAIM
APPLICATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS
2. Name of Structure: Olson Well No. 1
A. Legal description of well: A well located NE 1/4 NW 1/4, Section 23, Township 3
South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M. at a point 650 feet from the North line and 1,650 feet
from the West line of said Section 23.
B. Source: Alluvial aquifer Hack Creek tributary to Sweetwater Creek tributary to the
Colorado River.
C. Depth: 80 feet
Daren E Olson
Application for water rights
February 26, 1999
2
D. (i) Date of Appropriation: August 26, 1997
(ii) How appropriation was initiated: By acquisition of well permit no. 204415.
(iii) Date applied to beneficial use: February 1, 1998
E. Amount claimed: 15gpm, absolute.
F. Use: Domestic, including 5,000 sq. ft. of lawn and landscape irrigation.
G. If irrigation:
(i) Number of acres historically irrigated: 0
(ii) Total number of square feet proposed to be irrigated: 5,000 sq. ft.
(iii) Legal description of acreage irrigated or to be irrigated: Lawn and
landscape irrigation within the Olson property located in the NE 1/4 NW
1/4, Section 23, Township 3 South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M.
H. If non -irrigation, describe purpose fully: Domestic.
I. Name and address of the owner of land on which well is located: Applicant.
J. Remarks: The Olson Well No. 1 is currently permitted as Colorado Division of Water
Resources Well Permit No. 204415 and serves an existing single family dwelling. Use is
limited by permit to ordinary, inside household uses. Applicant now applies for Olson
Well No.1 as a non-exempt well to allow for multiple uses of the well, including
domestic use and lawn and landscape irrigation.
THIRD CLAIM
APPLICATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS
3. Name of Structure: Olson Well No. 2
A. Legal description of well: A well located NE 1/4 NW 1/4, Section 23, Township 3
South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M. at a point 1,310 feet from the North line and 1,950 feet
from the West line of said Section 23.
B. Source: Alluvial aquifer Hack Creek tributary to Sweetwater Creek tributary to the
Colorado River.
C. Depth: Estimated to be 80 feet
D. (i) Date of Appropriation: March 1, 1998.
Daren E Olson
Application for water rights
Febtvary 26, 1999
3
(ii) How appropriation was initiated: By field investigations by the Applicant
and intent to subdivide property, drill a well and appropriate water.
(iii) Date applied to beneficial use: N/A
E. Amount claimed: 15gpm, conditional.
F. Use: Domestic, including 5,000 sq. ft. of lawn and landscape irrigation.
G. If irrigation:
(i) Number of acres historically irrigated: 0
(ii) Total number of square feet proposed to be irrigated: 5,000 sq. ft.
(iii) Legal description of acreage irrigated or to be irrigated: Lawn and landscape
irrigation within the Olson property located in the NE 1/4 NW 1/4, Section 23,
Township 3 South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M.
H. If non -irrigation, describe purpose fully: Domestic.
I. Name and address of the owner of land on which well is located: Applicant.
J. Remarks: Applicant owns a 6.1 acre parcel of land at the confluence of Hack Creek
and Sweetwater Creek in Water Division 5, District 52, Garfield County, Colorado. A
single family dwelling is currently served by Olson Well No. 1, an exempt household use
only well. Applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two parcels, currently
separated by the county road. The newly created parcel will accommodate another single
family dwelling to be served by Olson Well No. 2.
FOURTH CLAIM
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION
4. Name of structures to be augmented: Olson Well No. 1 and Olson Well No. 2, more fully
described in the Second and Third Claims listed above, and evaporation from Olson Pond.
A. Statement of plan for augmentation:
The Olson Wells No. 1 and No. 2 and the Olson Pond will be out -of -priority much of the time.
Depletions to the stream system resulting from diversions from the wells and evaporation from
the pond must be augmented during these periods. A conservative assumption is that the Olson
water rights could potentially be subject to a downstream call in all months except the peak
runoff season. During this non -call runoff period, the Olson Pond can be filled. During the
remainder of the year, releases can be made from the pond to augment the depletions. Total
Daren E. Olson
Application for water rights
February 26. 1999
4
6? -5
annual depletions, including pond evaporation, equals 0.88 acre feet as shown in Exhibit A and
B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Olson pond has sufficient capacity
to make releases to offset the full amount of depletions. Both Olson Well No. 1 and No. 2 are or
will be completed in alluvial formations within 100 feet of Hack Creek. No delayed streamflow
impact is anticipated, therefore, augmentation releases can be made at the time of call.
B. Name and address of the owner of land on which structures are located: Applicant
WHEREFORE, Applicant prays for a decree granting and confirming water rights in and
to the above-described Olson Pond, Olson Well No. 1, Olson Well No.2 and Applicant's plan for
augmentation.
Dated this day of November, 1998.
Name and address of Applicant:
Daren E. Olson
1226 Sweetwater Road
P.O. Box 3398
Eagle, CO 81631
Daren E Olson
Application for water rights
February 26, 1999
By
5
FRAN CADEZ
Attorney for Applicant
407-1 Broadway
P.O. Box 3240
Eagle, CO 81632
(970) 328-7900
Attorney Registration No. 021250
��o
VERIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD )
I, Paul Bussone, a professional engineer for Resource Engineering, Inc., being first duly
sworn, upon oath, depose and say that I have read the foregoing, know the contents thereof, and
that the same are true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief.
Paul Bussone, P.E.
Subscribed under oath before me on this day of November, 1998.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Daren E Olson
Application for water rights
February 26, 1999
6
3/*
RECEIVED JUL - 8 1999
DN1D4L
•
District: I
Road: 150
Permit #: 002-99 C
GAR F I E L D COUNTY
APPLICATION F O R DRIVEWAY PERMIT
Application Date 07-06-1999
I,
OLSON, DARN (herein called "Applicant"), hereby requests
permission and authority frothemthe rightBofrwayd fofCounty
fielod Countyers RoadoNu'm�'e='�-`�0 a
driveway approach(es) side of the road, a
adjacent to Applicant's property located on the SOUTH for the purposerof
distance of 0.0 MI mile(s) from 1121 CO RD 150
obtaining access to PRIVATE RESIDENCE
Applicant submits herewith for the consideration and approval
of the Board of County Commissioners, a sketch of the proposed instal-
lation showing all necessary specification detail including (1) front-
age of lot along road, (2) distance from centerline 4}fwroaddth to
pro -
property line, (3) number of driveways requested,
of
posed driveway(s) and angle of approach, (5) distance from driveway
to road intersection, if any, (6) size and shape of area separating
driveways if more than one approach, and (7) setback distance of
building(s) and other structures or improvements.
GENERAL P R O V I S I O N S
FIRST: The Applicant represents all parties in interest, and affirms
that the driveway approach(es) is to be constructed by him for the
bona fide purpose of securing access to his property and not for the
purpose of doing business or servicing vehicles on the road right-of-way.
SECOND: The Applicant shall furnish all labor and materials, perform
all work, and pay all costs in connection with the construction of the
driveway(s) and its appurtenances on the right-of-way. All work shall
be completed within 30 days of the Permit date.
THIRD: The type ot construction shall be as designated and/or approved
by the Board of County Commissioners or their representative, and all
materials used shall be of satisfactory quality and subject to inspec-
tion and approval of the Board ot County Commissioners or their
representative.
FOURTH: The traveling public shall be protected during the instal-
lation with proper warning signs and signals and the Board of County
Commissioners and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be
held harmless against any action for personal injury or property
damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the Permit.
36
TM MS, nib dis diy of Mesa Dim L
_ ald Swims V. Oboe, gvessosts), Dams S. dm otos hod
toZ971:001.30 rithre Offmn, 0, Miele 81017 P.O. s•ter3110
ftT
101111PRIC
11117411111111, The ine gamods), Ayr aid --
$l0,00 mei oilier pool sad reliable omilimmiok secsipi ell
of stick is Wet" aciaowissised, Milne senshied. seiessed, soM.
aid QUITC1AIMED. al by dm mem doss ionise Mese
convey and QUITCLAIM esmi lie palmed. Whir bens. sincessor
1111114111,d risk. dde, claim desend *midi
grasmor(s) beefline asei so de reel poperty, sumer say, ems. lynig sod bee;
County of and State of Calmed°. described as follows:
la Tam* 3 Soak Paws 87 Wee
All diet pen of the 931/4NW1/4 Secdon 23 lying Nonierfy red Bentely of lie max Is le f lossemus
Creek
(THIS IS A CORRECTION Di313D - NO DOC 11313 ItBQUIRED)
10 HAV IC AND TO 110U) die me, ocisedier Min an and -Liddie appaloosas. mid privileges
awned tbesessio beim* or ha serrise ineemo apperseinisg. sodsfl der mu, dein. die. MOM sal
claim wimsooever, i ie Fusions), eider law or mity, so the My peeper me. Medi MI Moot of lie
gramed, histlier beirs sod snips Somer.
, The grameor(s) beelbrei enemed deed es die Ms sit AIM
_54.1Le".12
gesme V. Oben
Stared Coloodo
Conley of 14/4/e_
The foregoiss was acknowledge/ be me flihr24 day elMAini,A,
sad Senme V. Olm primes).
My commission expires:0Z40
Wiesen say hod and seal
'-001.,04140h1Pr
.-so‘r,i43103
$
651
Hoary
4_1p ;Af Abot.k. 'Eve 1/e.—
rime awl Aftess at Perm Cwolig Natty Corred L Dasealpin (peasets., CJUL)
SIUIIUUUIUII
1143000 04/14/1000 03:2/P 01124 P001 11 moor
1 0 1 R 0.011 0 0.00 smorzoLo calm co
• ClimidsdAppirmIL
111141Mis 01111111140.1101100111,*1-
51c— f
,.. ,
, "!•',',,„ • --• t'..., , -:. :t`,..:1# 'v.
4: .7'• t. . . 7 .. " :"
44"
•
•
s
TIM BMW RR* MB Pm Wein MI
Pauli flapteeeneld.e d it 6 M�tdar laR.�I;'p�
lerin
Ora" and a . 0.0.60.1 r aa. lam., in witywissyweadd,
Dam B. 011e. *Ws kWadi s h;
12.0.11, tieur and,
Saw etutl w lo, pow*
CabalsMI Bigis. 1
wrimerne, That is Oehl. db► aid r ooaaliuyw
s10.00 aril alba good and r.l.MJr cavildissdoe. die matt
d which is hereby acknowledged, Wine remind. telwaeta. sold.
sad QUITCLAIMED. r by flew proems dose debar. Maw tart
ref and QUITCLAIM um tib graaree(el. Iidker heba, aweiso,r
property, ttrge hover, efl the right, with is title. hu chili . anti bawhich ie griate„ a th
ons) tea„in aid e olid
Cdawb. demand as follows: any, sitrarte, lying r beteg i. the Conley d r Rhee d
i� ?'�rwaaiie 3 Rosi, Barr g7 Net d it 6• p M
AU that pat of the SEI/4NW1/4 of %Wo. 23
Creek lying Northerly ear Bawrlr of the comer >r.e of RtwetwMw
(THIS ISA CORRECTION TION DEED - NO DOC IEEE REQUIRED)
TO NAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all aid copier ie
all 6e aPO ea and privilegesached tbeones° biding* or in anywise theraaao appertainiag, and rig,nnetdclaim
l.i law ar bowd ietraaees), his/her heirs aid assigns ,u
y
proper use, hew& and
~TIT4E98 . The graaoa(s) ba/he.e eitecaaed its deed on the date set forth Am.
Gra ; . u Mania
the Esfaee of Jain W. Genoa, and as an Mi or / rATA1 . Jan a1
spouse din MajpJttie
State of Colorado
County of �� )
tar OtJtel
The foregoing was acknowledged before .rQrs�
Personal Reprexm i e of the Estate Goon, of John W. Gan, and as am Wh�i�' 1995 by: 131(0 Mr
and as spouse of Bill Mama, ga+or(s). Mame. as IN iii.yuei
My coaai.ion expires: ! D • c7.3. o o 0l
Witness ray bud mad officio! meal.
Wary l'ab&
New ail Mime at the... Creak. Nom* Coad Law Drawtph a cos- rae3, e.R.S.►
SO11111111111111111111111111
W Sat/14/1M0 Oar 17' 111126 PON N R4h.-
1of1RI.MOO.SOORRfIdO COUNTY CO
Qt fItUnN DMD
oropeorisid Lepil Pan. be. P.O. Dm 3111124 Omar CO MITI
Cesseeleollamboosit
oast Mom* no Ne non sonnet
4
___.--------- ------->3, -_--j7. _,- \
- /\ } \ AA�\
-- 310 '�/ \ \ \ ~\
4• / \ / \ \ ���v
► 88'30'00" \ \
--fir'_, 7N1 � � A �V \w,�
FLOOR E \\\
• 00 � ��\\° \\
Buil Area --2500 SF_ \
1;'-' N' <--.e 37: N NN '\: -
S/..
arnwN a
\� SFT e,gc,„
19•
\ \ 1983.
cP
N62'51'59"
14.58'
E N 8738.
14.84'
N 24'25'27'
14.32'
26'22'
s a3°441"
W
66.20
INV. OU T ,it
67.5' -.V. OUT
71:
.®
I'9fr1 M,L5.0L005
a
z
U
tg
601
"")(.1 irr s< �s
h
1
1 <� 1
J
ax
v
z
f,W
r
1E/
N
O or
J o
H1d0% P 42.
SE1/4 NW1/4