HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report BOCC 05.10.200A. Site Description: The property is
of 14
BOCC 5/10t00
A request for review of the Ukele Acres Preliminary
Plan for a nine (9) lot (with eleven (11) dwelling
units) subdivision on approx. twenty-five (25) acres.
(Ukele pronounced'!oo-kel-ee").
Ronald W. & Jean M. Smith
John L. Taufer & Associates, Inc.
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Hepworth-Pawlak, &
Resource Engineering
Parcel lies about %mile west of Silt along CR229
and Highway 6124. Section4 & 9, Township 6
SouttU Range 92 West
Central water system served by an individual well
Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS)
County Road,229 (Ukele Ln.) and Hwy 6/24
A/RiRD-AgriculturallResidential/Rural Density
A/R/RD to the east, north, & west
A/I to the south
located south of the Cactus Valley DitctU at the
I
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REOUEST:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
ENGINEER:
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
II.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPRE}IENSIVE PLAN
According to the Garfield County Comp Plan of 1984, this site lies in "District A: Urban
Area of Influence". Urban areas of influence are described as having the best ability to
absorb growth. Only areas with minor or moderate environmental constraints to
development, which surround a municipality, ore included in this district. The
recommended density is no greater than seven (7) dwelling units per acre, or a density
which is compatible with the surroundings.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Page
\
m.
intersection of Ukele Lane and Highway 6124. There is very little topographic
change across the site. It generally drains from the north to the southwest. It is
currently used to graze livestock and is also occupied by two (2) existing dwelling
units and an outbuilding. The existmg residences are served via a paved driveway
from Hwy 6124. Yegetation consists of grass and a few cottonwood trees.
B. Development Proposal: The plan is to divide the roughly twenty-five (25) acres
into nine (9) residential lots with eleven (11) dwelling units (a guest house and an
accessory dwelling unit are proposed on lots 4 and 6). All building will occur
within building envelopes, which range in size fuomll2to l-ll3 acres. The
proposed density is 1 dwelling unit per 2-ll4 aqes.
C. Adjacent Land Uses: Agricultural and residential land uses are adjacent to the site.
REVIEW AGENCY A]T{D OTIIER COMMENTS:
Refenals were sent to the following:
A. Town of Silt: See memo dated 3l3}l00,page6-A Silt requests the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners to consider 6 conditions of
approval as discussed in section IV C of this report.
Burning Mountain Fire District: No comment.
RE-2 School District: No comment.
Public Service Company: Notes that in addition to the utility easements shown on
the plat, Public Service requests a ten (10) foot utility easement on all front lot
lines along Esther Court.
U.S. West Communications: See letter dated 3l7l0O, page /q . Carson Bell notes
the need for a ffieen (15)
L,2,3,7,8,&9 of Esther Ct.
foot easement along the front lot line of Lots
F. Garfield County Road & Bridge:See memos dated 2llll}O and3l9l00,pug"tzg
&Ll.
Bookcliff So il Conservation District : No comment.
CO Geological Survey: See letter dated 3127l00,page?}. Celia Greenman
states the site can be successfully developed if close attention is paid to surface
drainage, which is critical to managing problem soils. Her specific
recommendations can be found in section IV E of this staffreport.
CO Division of Wildlife: See letter dated 3ll3l00,page Z3 . Don Crane states he
is quite familiar with the site and is satisfied that his stated concerns have been
sufficiently addressed in the covenants, which should be enforced to be made
effective.
CO Dept. ofHealth: No comment.
CO Div. Of Water Resources: See letter dated 3l2Il0O, pae&!:!7fhe State
Engineer finds the proposed water supply will not cause material i"jury and is
adequate.
B.
C.
D.
E.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Page of14
L.
,14
Garfield County Veget?tion Management: In a memo dated 3122100, pug"fill
Steve Anthony states that the submitted revegetation plan is acceptable. He
requests the covenants be amended to reflect the CO Noxious Weed Act and weed
maintenance responsibilities, as discussed in section IV L of this leport.
Garfield County Sheriffs Dept.: See memo dated 317100, pug" 10 . Jim Sears
notes the need to ensure tllr;t ail, accesses provide the ability for emergency
equipment to turn around. All roads and street addresses must be clearly marked.
CO Deot. of Transportation: No comment.
STAFF COMMENTS
A. Subdivision: Single family dwellings are a use by right in the A/RIRD zone district.
The lot design generally meets the standards set forth in the Subdivision
Regulations. Pursuant to section 3.02.01of the Zonng Resolution, an accessory
dwelling unit may be approved as part of a subdivision. However, a guest house
may only be approved as a special use under the special use permitting process,
and can not be approved as part of this subdivision application process.
B. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan: The application appears to be in general
conformance with the comp plan.
C. Town of Silt Comprehensive Plan/Comments: See memo dated 313100. The
Town has requested the following conditions be placed on any approval of the
application:
residential units to provide a buffer from adjoining areas.
allowed and a requirement for use of kennels.
surrounding agricultural uses and minimization of conflicts.
the traffic impacts on the I-70 Silt interchange through coordination with the
town and other developers.
D. ADU/Guest House: As discussed previously, the regulations do not allow a guest
house to be approved by a subdivision process. The applicant must acquire guest
house approval via a special use permit process. The proposed accessory dwelling
unit on lot 6 must meet the following standards (5.03.2I of the Zonng Res.):
(1) The minimum lot size shqll be four (4) aues containing a building site with
slopes
less than 40% at least two (2) aues in size.
aJ
M.
N.
IV.
Page of14
E.
Q. fne gross floor argafor residentia.l use occupancy shalt not exceed t 500 sq. ft.(3) Approval from the subdivision homeowners aisociation and/or allowei'by
c ov e nant if applic ab I e.
(!, Ploof 9f a legall,l adequate source o/waterfor an additional dwelling unit.(5) corypliance with the county individual trwig, disposal system rrgufiiio,r, o,f!!ofo[a legal ability to connect to an approved"centrlal ,e,urage treattentfacility.(0) ]yty leasehold interests in the dweltiig units is ailowed.(7) That all construction complies with thi appropriote County building code
requirements. (A. 9 5 -07 6)
The building envelope shown on Lot 6 is approximat ely l-ll3 acres. It will need
to be increased on the final plat to 2 acres. The proposed covenants (sect. 3.1)
currently prohibit more than one (1) single family dwelling and will need to be
amended. The covenants should also reflect that the u..rrory dwelling unit may
not exceed 1,500 sq. ft. and may not be sold as a separate interest.
Geotechnical/Radiation Information: In a letter dated ll3ll}},Hepworth-pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc. notes that the site is not in a geologic setting that would
indicate high concentrations of radioactive materialr i, th. natural soils and
underlying rock formation. There is the potential presence of radon gas and
testing could be done when the residences have been completed. Hp ( ob#199731llllll99) states that it should be feasible to develop the iroperty as proposed on
the site, provided good engineering principles and piactices are used in the design.
HP notes the importance of providing consultation during design and construcion
to monitor the implementation of their geotechnical recommendations. Site
specffic studies should be conducted for individual lot development. The geologic
conditions which should be considered as planning and design proceeds ari:
Foundation Conditions: Some areas may have collapr. o. ritti.ment potential.
Typical mitigation includes control of landscape irrigation, reinforced foundation
walls, and low footing bearing pressures. Basements may need to be limited or
avoided due to shallow groundwater conditions
Floodinq & Surface Drainage: Due to the natural slopes, some flooding potential
should be expected. The irrigation ditch to the north may need to be lined.
Earthquake considerations: Residences should be designed to withstand
moderately strong ground shaking as the area is in seismic Risk Zone l.
celia Greenman, of the colorado Georogical Survey, states the site can be
sucgeslfullv developed if close attention is paid to surface drainage, which is
critical to managing problem soirs. Structures should have positive drainage,
downspouts should discharge at least 6' from the houses, xeriscape (water-
conserving) landscape concepts should be used, and each lot should have an
identified backup site for a leach field (leach fields should not be used as animal
containment areas or for auxillary building sites). These recommendations should
be followed and staffsuggests the covenants be amended to reflect the use of
4Page of14
xeriscaping methods.
Wright Water Engineers (WWE) notes that due to the potential for settlement,
differential movement, and groundwater conditions on the project, site-specific
geotechnical studies should be conducted for proper foundation design. This
should be reflected in Section 22 of the covenants and on the plat.
F. Access/Traffic/Road Maintenance: Esther Court, the new proposed access, will
provide access to six (6) of the lots (lots I ,2,3 ,7 ,8,&9) from County Fioad 229
(Ukele Ln.). The proposed fifty (50) foot wide right of way will terminate in a
fifty (50) foot cul-de-sac, with a total length of about six hundred (600) feet.
Access to the remaining three (3) lots (or five dwelling units) is from the existing
access drive from Highway 6124. The application proposes a forty (40) foot wide,
four hundred fifty (450) foot long right-of-way (note: the plat shows an easement,
the written application mentions a r-o-w, it must be a r-o-w ) consisting of a
sixteen (16) foot wide paved surface. A twenty-five (25) foot wide emergency
access easement, containing a twelve (12) foot wide gravel road, connects the two
dead ends. The applicant has attempted to eliminate a shortcut toHv'ry.6l24by
not providing a'through road". All roads within the subdivisioq except the
emergency, tank, and well access, will be chip sealed. The roadways will be
dedicated to the public but will be privately maintained by the Homeowners'
Association. The application includes an unsigned highway access permit (CDOT
permit #399152) which allows for 300 ADT. Per the comments of the Road &
Bridge Department, the applicant has agreed to dedicate an additional fifteen (15)
foot right-of-way along the county road for the entire length of the development,
to install all traffic control devices per code, not to place fencing in the right of
way, to pay the applicable road impact fees, and to obtain an access permit from
the R&B department.
The application appears to generally conform to sections 9:35 (road standards),
9:33 (dead end streets), and 9:34 (dedication to the public) except as follows:
permit.
way and must be named on the final plat as well as slightly reconfigured so that
the 37' radius becomes a 50' radius.
G. Fire Protection: The site is located in the Burning Mountain Fire Protection
District (BMFPD) with ambulance services provided by Silt. The application
states that the potable water system will provide the required fire flow for the
subdivision. Don Zordel, the Fire Chief, indicated to the applicant that 10,000
gallons is necessary for fire protection. The tank has been sized to accommodate
the 10,000 gallons in addition to 350 gpd/unit storage for the homes. The water
Page of14
H.
supply is from an existing well located on lot 4. A20,000 gallon partially buried
(approx. 2' of tanks are exposed) concrete water storage tank will be located on
the northwest corner of lot 7. A series of pumps will transport the water from the
well to the tank. The application further states, '?lease note that the BMFPD
adopts the UFC as reference only...The UFC would require a minimum of
180,000 gallons storage for this tank for the fire flow conditions...The service
demands from the subdivision would not be capable of using the volume of water
to keep the water in the tank from becoming stagnant...[which would require]
additional maintenance facilities."
Written confirmation from the Fire District that the proposed development has
adequate water and facilities must be provided as part ofthe preliminary plan.
WWE notes that the letter should specifically contain approval of the 10,000-gallon
fire storage tank.
Water: The application states the water supply will be from an existing well
located on lot 4. A copy of the approved well permit was included in the
application (#53426-F). The well will operate under WDWCD (West Divide
Water Conservancy District) contract #95081sJS(a). Resource Engineering found
no evidence of any wells within 600 feet of the subject well. Water will be
transported to the water storage tank on lot 7 by a series ofpumps. The
community water system will be built at the applicants' expense but will be owned
and maintained, to the property line, by the HOA" as specified in the covenants. A
24 fu. well test reveals that the well is capable of physically producing over six (6)
times the daily in-house demand for the subdivision. Water samples indicate the
limits for sodiunu sulfate, dissolved solids and hardness are exceeded. The
proposed water treatment is chlorination, as discussed in SGM's letter dated
2122100. The chlorine iqjection, along with the contact time, will resolve the non-
coliform bacteria problem. Although the water would be safe for drinking, the
water would still be *hard". SGM encourages individual homeowners to
determine further treatment as they desire thnough the use of water softeners
and/or reverse osmosis systems.
The State Engineer finds the proposed water supply will not cause material inju.y
and is adequate (see letter dated 3/21100, pag&!$. The approved well permit
will limit the use of the well to household purposes inside I I single family
dwellings, the irrigation of 1.5 acres of lawns/gardens (approx. 6,000 sq.ft.per
dwelling), and the watering of domestic animals.
WWE has commented as follows (letter dated 3130100):
supply due to the presence of non-coliform bacteria and the relatively shallow
well construction.
Page of14
Section 20.1 of the covenants should reference the West Divide Water
Conservancy District (WDWCD) water allotment contract. The results of the
water quality and the need for individual water treatment facilities should also
be included in this section.
Reference to the WDWCD allotment contract and 6,000 square-feet of irrigation
should be removed from Section}}.2. We recomrnend ttrat ttris section provide initial
rules and regulations for use and operation ofthe irrigation systern
The well permit issued for the project (53426-F) is based on the WDWCD's
substitute water supply plan. A water court approved augmentation plan will
ultimately be required for the well. The Applicant should include this cost in
the SuMivision Improvements Agreement or indicate in Section 20.1 of the
covenants that the lot owners are responsible for this cost with the WDWCD
when it arises.
Althoughttrc well permit allows for outside irrigation (6,000 square-feet per lot), the
potable water system is not desigrrcd for outside irrigation and the covenants should
prolubit such trses in Section 20.1 and20.2.
The disinfection treatment system should consider use of liquid chlorine rather than
gaseous chlorine for a srnall HOA systern
The well water quality should be tested for nitrates on an annual basis. This should
be included in Section 20.1 ofthe covenants.
I. IrrigationlDitches/Easements: The plan reflects a twenty-five (25) foot wide ditch
easement for the Cactus Valley ditch. The building envelopes have been set back
thirty (30) feet from the easement, as requested at the sketch plan public meeting.
The applicants hold a reliable water right of senior priority in the Cactus Valley
ditch which entitles them to 3.75 shares, or 0.53 cfs, of irrigation water. A central,
independent gravity flow raw water irrigation system is proposed to service each
lot. A 5,400 gallon buried water storage tank will be located on the northeast
corner of lot 6. The HOA will own and rnaintain the irrigation system to each
property line. The individual low owner will be responsible for providing and
maintaining their own booster pump.
The warranty deed for the property (8870,P727) describes an access easement
ircross the northwest corner of the property for the use ofthe Dunbars, and their
heirs and assigns, to maintain their adjudicated springs and their headgate from the
Cactus Valley Ditch. The applicant has noted no legal description of the easement
currently exists. The applicant must locate the easement on the final plat and
create/include a legal description of said easement on the final plat.
WWE also notes the following (letter dated 3/30/00):
Ditch Company with a formal Easement Agreement or otherwise accepted in vvrit'mg
by the ditch company, whichever may be the appropriate legal course of action
Page of14
J. Wastewater: The applicant has investigated the possibility of connecting to the
Town of Silt's wastewater services and determined it is infeasible for two (2)
reasons:
l) The nearest mainline is approx. one (1) mile away and connection would be
too costly.
2) The grade differential would require a kft station to force the flow back to
town.
For these reasons, each lot will be serviced by an engineered Individual Sewage
Disposal System (ISDS). Although a high groundwater condition exists and the
soils are slow to percolate, SGM has stated confidence in engineered ISDS given
the two plus (2+) acre lot sizes. An Evapotranspiration Absorption system (ET),
which may require considerable area to place, will likely be needed. The
application states that operation and maintenance of the ISDS will be the
responsibility of individual lot owners. It states that those responsibilities are
contained within the covenanis and mainterumce guidelines will be distributed to
each lot owner at closing.
WWE strongly discourages the use of ET systems for this project. In additioru
WWE states that an ISDS management plan should be included in Section 7 ofthe
covenants. Plan components typically include special design considerationVcriteria
inspection schedule, and a homeowners guide to maintaining an ISDS systern
A good source for this information is "Maintaining Your Septic System-A Guide
for Homeowners" in Pipeline, Fall 1995, Vol.6, No.4 sponsored by the EPA. Staff
suggests this brochure be provided to all homeowners (and can provide this
information to the applicant upon request).
K. Drainage: There are no major drainageways located on the property. The
application states storm water drainage will be collected by means of borrow
ditches and culverts and transported to four (a) different detention ponds located
on the southwest corners of lots 3,4,5,&6. The pond on lot 3 will serve to capture
the increased flow rates on lots 1,2,&3 aurrd 7 ,8,&9. Lots 4,5,&6 will require
individual ponds to service each lot. SGM notes that it could be argued that lots 5
&7 Inve existing development and no storm drainage may be necessary.
WWE notes the following (letter dated 3130100):
it should be demonstrated how the proposed qystem fits in with the existing systems.
Page ofl4 8
L.
construct the *individuaf'detention ponds. A drainage easement should be shown
on the Plat for these ponds. If constructed by lot owners, then the engineering
criteria for the pond to comply with County regulations and the Ivlaster Drainage
Plan for the project must be indicated on the Plat. A Colorado registered
professional engineer must design the ponds.
responsible for maintaining a functional detention basin(s).
In a 4128100 letter, WWE notes that a typical section of the detention pond needs to
be added to the drawings for Final Plat submission. WWE has not received
additional supplemental information demonstrating compliance with Section 9:43 of
the Subdivision Regulations. Prior to Board approval, the supplemental information
needs to be reviewed by WWE.
Wildlife/Vegetation: The application includes a DOW WRIS wildlife habitat
checklist. It indicates that the following are entirely in the area:
S naU Eagle Winter Range
S Mule Deer Winter Range
S Mule Deer Overall Range
S Mule Deer Resident Population
The applicant contacted Don Crane, ofthe DOW, regarding the project. He was
most concerned with conflicts between dogs and wildlife and maintaining low
fencing.
In his review letter dated 3/13/OO Don Crane states he is quite familiar with the
site and is satisfied that his stated concerns have been sufficiently addressed in the
covenants. The DOW can find no sigfficant impact to wildlife if the protective
covenants are approved and enforced in their present form.
Existing vegetation consists of irrigated pasture grasses, irrigated blue grass lawns,
and cottonwood trees. The existing trees will be protected through the
development of the project. Steve Anthony, of GarCo Vegetation Management,
has stated that the revegetation plan is acceptable (he plan is contained on pg.4 of
Taufer's 2/2ll00letter). He has requested the covenants be amended as follows:
til Include language that reminds landowners that it is their responsibility,
according to the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, to numage any County Noxious
Weeds that are on their property (he suggests this go in the "maintenance of
property'' section).
S Management of noxious weeds on roadways, drainage ditches, and
common areas should be addressed. Responsibility for this should be
designated.
WWE notes the following (letter dated 3/30/00):
Page of14
N.
discusVanalyze the impacts, ifany, fiomthe project. Field observations indicate
that wetlands may exist in the southern and western areas of the property.
M.Fees: As determined by Section 9:80 of the Subdivision Regulations, the
will be required to pay $200 per each new parcel (8 new lots X $200 : $1,600.
for School District fees in lieu of land dedication. The property appears to lie in
area 6 of the Capital Improvements plan. The road impact fees are approximate
$2,100 per dwelling unit that impacts a county road (6 units), less the appropri
discounts. In the event any fees increase before the time of final plat, the i
fees shall be paid. Any applicable fire district fees will be due prior to final
approval of the final plat. The applicant should be aware that property taxes will
increase following the change from agricultural valuation.
Covenants: The covenants should be amended as discussed elsewhere in this repo
and as follows:
downward and towards the interior of the subdivision".
Other Utilities: All utilities must be buried. Propane tanks will be screened from
view.
Electric and telephone: Public Service
Natural Gas: not available. Propane gas will be utilized.
Cable t.v.: not available.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
l. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the
before the Board of County Commissioners;
Commissioners was extensive
o.
V.
2.That the meeting before the Board of County
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and
interested parties were heard attlnt hearing;
issues were submitted and that
4.
5.
Page of14
3.That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the
interest ofthe healttu safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare oft
citizens of Garfield County;
That the application is in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zonng
Resolution, &.2.i
That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Subdivision
l0
Regulations of 1984, a.a.;
6. The application generally conforms to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of
1984, a.a.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
On4/12/00, the Planning Commission moved to recommend conditional approval ofthe
Ukele Acres preliminary plan application by a unanimous vote. The conditions of
approval are as follows (note: bold items needed to be complete prior to this meeting):1. That all representations made by the applicant in the applicatioq and at the public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners , shall be conditions of
approval, unless specifically altered by Board of County Commissioners.
2. The final plat shall reflect a ffieen (15) foot wide utility easement along Esther Ct.,
as requested by Public Service and U.S. West.
3. Increased historic runofffrom the property shall be prohibited.
4. One (l) accessory dwelling unit is approved on Lot 6 provided the applicant
complies with the provisions of section 5.03.21of the Garfield County Zodng
Resolution of 1978, as amended. No guest house will be permitted on Lot 4
without first obtaining a special use permit.
5. All geology related recommendations made by Hepworth Pawlak, the Colorado
Geological Service, and Wright Water Engineers shall be complied with.
6. The applicant shall submit a copy of a fully executed approved CDOT access
permit to staff at least two (2) weeks prior to the Board of County
Commissioners meeting.
7. The existing driveway accessing State Highway 6124 shall be improved to County
suMivision standards including :
of chip/seal pavement.
8. The applicant shall submit a copy of a letter of approval from the Burning
Mtn. X'ire District to staffat least two (2) weeks prior to the Board of County
Commissioners meeting. The letter shall include conlirmation that the
proposed development has adequate water and facilities for emergency
response and that the proposed 10,000 gallon tank is acceptable.9. Wright Water Engineers comments regarding the water supply and water system
shall be conditions of approval as follows:
supply due to the presence of non-coliform bacteria and the relatively shallow
well construction. The mpa analysis shall be included in the application for
final plat.
llPage of14
10.
11.
Conservancy District (WDWCD) water allotment contract. The results of the
water quality and the need for individual water treatment facilities shall also be
included in this section.
be rernovod from Section 20.2. This section shall provide initial rules and regulations
for use and operation ofthe irrigation systern
substitute water supply plan. A water court approved augmentation plan will
ultimately be required for the well. The Applicant shall include this cost in the
Subdivision Improvements Agreement or indicate in Section 20.1 of the
covenants that the lot owners are responsible for this cost with the WDWCD
when it arises.
potable water system is not designed for outside irrigation and the covenants shall
prohibit such uses in Section 20J and20.2.
than gaseous chlorine.
included in Section 20.1 ofthe covenants.
The Dunbars' easement shall be legally described and shown on the final plat.
Wright Water Engineers comments concerning the ditch shall be conditions as
follows:
Corrpany with a formal Easenent Agreement or otlrerwise accepted in. dtrs by the
All individual sewage disposal systems shall be designed by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer. The use of Evapotranspiration Absorption sewage disposal
systems (ET) shall be discouraged.
Wright Water Engineers recommendations concerning draimge shall be conditions
as follows:
,. /, F The existing drainage system shall be shown (e.g., culverts acnoss Highway 6)
Y and it shall be demonstrated how the proposed system fits in with the existing
systems. (at least two (2) weeks prior to approval by the Board of County
Commissioners).
(2) weeks prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners).
construct the "individual" detention ponds. A drainage easement shall be shown
on the Plat for these ponds. If constructed by lot owners, then the engineering
criteria for the pond to shall comply with County regulations and the Master
t2.
13.
t2Page of14
14.
15.
16.
Drainage Plan for the project shall be indicated on the Plat. A Colorado
registered professional engineer shall design the ponds.
responsible for maintaining a functional detention basin(s).
At least two (2) weeks prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners,
theapplicant shall addrrss the prrcsence/absence of wetland aneas and discuss
and analyze the impacts, if any, from the project.
Applicable fees shall be paid prior to recordation of the final plat.
The covenants shall be amended as follows:
addresses be clearly marked and visible fromthe right ofway.
it shall not exceed 1,500 sq. ft. and may not be sold as a separate interest.
methods shall be encouraged for geotechnical reasons.
movement, and groundwater conditions on the project, site-specffic
geotechnical studies shall be conducted for proper foundation design.
responsibility, according to the colorado Noxious weed Act, to manage any
county Noxious weeds that are on their property. Management ofnoxious
weeds on roadways, drainage ditches, and common areas shall be addressed
and responsibility for this shall be designated.
"...shall be directed downward and towards the interior of the subdivision".
The following plat notes shall be shown on the final plat (some of these notes are
in the covenants but shall be duplicated on the plat):
1) Alt irrigation ditches and ditch easements are to be recognized and maintained
as existing and in place, in the usual manner.
2) One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required
to be confined within the building envelope.
3) No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the
suMivision. one (1) new solid-fuel burning stove as defined by c.R.S. 25-7-401,
et. sew., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed i, *y
dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted nurnber of natural
gas burning stoves and appliances.
4) All exterior lighting willbe the minimumamount necesmry and all exterior lightlng
will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that
provisions may tle made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property
boundaries.
5) No further divisions of land within the Subdivision will be allowed.
17,
Page of14 t3
Site specific geologic studies must be performed on individual building envelopes
to determine design level recommendations.
Radon gas may be present and should be tested for once building construction is
completed.
Lot 6 shall be permitted one (l) accessory dwelling unit provided it meets the
conditions of section 5.03.21of the Garfield County ZonngResolution of 1978,
as amended.
Homeowners strould consider filther treatment such as water softeners or reverse
osmosis to eliminate problems associated with hard water.
10) Colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities,
sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a norrnal
and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a
healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights,
mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public
roads, storage afld disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or
otherwise ofchemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any
one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non-negligent
agricultural operations.
11)All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law
and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation
ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using
property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining
property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights
and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A
good introductory source for such ffirmation is "A Guide to Rural Living &
Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension
Office in Garfield County.
UPDATE:
The applicant has met conditions # 6,8,13 subpoint 2, and 14. Condition 13 a. still needs
to be addressed by the applicant's engineer per W'WE comments.. Staffrecommends the
Board of County Commissioners APPROVE the Ukele Acres Preliminary Plan application
with the ofthe Planning Commission, except recommendations # 6,8,13
if the applicant can address the issue noted in the 4l28l00letter2, and
from
/n /h/- thtlLt'l ,
6)
7)
8)
e)
VT
\^/{*e'HhffifLdr#*o/0,
Page of14 T4
GARFIELD COUNTY PROJECT REFERRAL
MEMORANDUM
TO: KIT LYON - GARFIELD COTINTY PLANNER
FROM: DAVIS FARRAR - SILT PLANNER
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE UKLE ACRES SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY
PLAT REFERRAL
DATE: 03/30/00
CC: CRAIG OLSON - SILT TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Ukele Acres Preliminary Plan suMivision
application. This project lies within the urban growth boundary shown on the Silt
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and within the three-mile planningare,a around the
town. The application states that the request is for a total of 9 single-family residential
lots plus a caretaker unit and a guesthouse for a total of I I residential structures on 24.98
acres.
The Silt comprehensive plan identifies this area as Agricultural Conservation PUD.
Under this land use classification, the comprehensive plan anticipates and proposes
clustering of residential lots for purposes of preserving agricultural lands and agricultural
functions. The proposed development design includes no clustering of lots or structures.
In the comprehensive plan under this section "land use general policies" the plan states,
"suburban sprawl will be avoided. The subdivision of rural agricultural areas outside the
designated urban growth areas for the purpose of creating low density residential
development on large lots of trvo, ten or 35 acres will have undesired effects including:
changing the rural character of the area into one of suburban sprawl; making it difficult
for adjacent agricultural uses to operate; placing residents in remote areas where urban
services for road maintenance, transportation, recreation, police and emergency services,
water and sewer, human services in schools are inefficient and expensive to provide."
The plan goes on to state, "low density sprawl development unnecessarily burdens
municipal and County financial resources often resulting in increased taxes in which
urban areas subsidize low density developments."
Garfield County passed a "right to farm" resolution several years ago for purposes
supporting continued agricultural operations in the County. Subdivision of rural areas
into two-acre gnd style developments will add to the adverse pressures on agricultural
operations in the form of dogs at large, trespass, complaints about chemical applications
and similar objections from residential dwellers.
-/*
Recently, the Silt Area Economic Development Council identified preservation of
agricultural functions in the Silt area as an important goal. Their intent is not to eliminate
residential subdivision activity but rather work to make it compatible with surrounding
agricultural functions. This can be achieved through clustering of lots, strict dog
controls, education of new residents about agricultural operations and similartechniques.
The proposed development does not include any mechanisms that further the objectives
of the S. A. E. D. C., Silt Comprehensive Plan or the Garfield County 'Right to Farm"
resolution.
The I 70 interchange located in Silt is impacted by ever increasing fiaffic volumes tiom
Silt and the surrounding areas. In an effort to address the traffic impacts to this
interchange, the town is conditioning development approvals with a requirement to
evaluate the traffic impacts created by individual projects on that interchange. Most
recently, the town has proposed that the developers of Stillwater Ranch, Ferguson
Crossing and Spruce Meadows participate in a comprehensive study of traffic impacts to
the interchange area. Individual developer participation is to be based upon the
proportionate impacts created by each project on traffic volumes. The town recommends
that the developers of the Ukele Acres SuMivision also participate in this analysis based
upon the developments proportionate share of generated traffic. Using an accepted
single-family residential traflic generation figwe of 9.55 single trips per day per dwelling
unit, the project will generate approximately 106 vehicle trips per day. The developers
should be required to contribute a proportionate share of the total cost of such a study
based upon this trip generation figure.
Without a proportionate contribution from this project, these additional vehicle trips will
impact the interchange without due compensation. The net result will be that existing
taxpayers will be required to pick up the cost of this impact.
The proposed preliminary plan shows a single culde-sac offof Ukele Lane. A secondary
25 ft. "emergency access, utility and drainage easement" is shown providing access to the
lots in the west end of the subdivision. A more effective access configuration would be a
loop streetthrough the development from Ukele Lane to Highway 6 &24. This
configwation would provide better access to the project, dual access for emergency
purposes and better access for road maintenance.
Project drainage must be designed to avoid any increase in historic runofffrom the site.
Silt lies at the mouth of four separate drainages. The headwaters of these drainages all lie
outside of the municipal boundaries of the town. Any increase over historic runoff rates
will adversely impact drainage control structures designed and installed in town. All
drainage calculations for projects that impact these watercourses must consider the design
characteristics of the lower basin drainage structures. Redesign and reconstruction of the
existing facilities is a very expensive proposition. Any redesign or reconstruction
necessitated by adverse runoffcharacteristics in the upper basins will cause an undue
hardship for existing taxpayers.
-/i-
ln summary, it is requested that the Garfield County planning commission and county
commissioners consider the following conditions as they review the Ukele Acres
Subdivision.
Mitigating the impact to surrounding agricultural uses by clustering lots
and residential units to provide a buffer from adjoining areas.
Strict controls on dogs in the subdivision. Limits on the number of dogs
allowed and a requirement for use of kennels should be considered.
Education of project residents through covenants or other effective means
regarding surrounding agricultural uses and methods of minimizing
conflicts.
A requirement that the developers provide a proportionate contribution
towards a comprehensive study of the traffic impacts on the Silt I70
interchange. This could be accomplished through coordination with the
town and other developers.
connects Ukele Lane with Highway 6 &.24.
would adversely impact existing drainage courses off-site.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input about this project. lf you have questions,
or would like to discuss any of the issues in more detail, please feel free to contact me at
your earliest convenience.
, r7'
Folder: lnbox
http://www.ne*address.com/pl.fivlessagd" 'o...=06EecCHDW0427M24:4&FolderlD=4&SoreDate
Message 1ot2 (NEW)
More Details
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 00 01:39AM MST
From: "Davis Fana/' <digger@rof.net>
To: <kitlyon@usa.net>
Subiect: Ulele Acres Comments
f - r!rm'eyer,-:
Kit,
Attached are my comments on the project. Let me know how this turns out with theP&Z.If you need additiond information,
please feel freeio contac"t me. Let me know if this comes through ok. The document in in Mcrosoft Word.
Thanks,
Davis
DUkele Acres.doc (46K)
o 199&2000 USA.NEP, hc. Alt Rights Reserved. U.S. Patent# 5,937,161. Users of this site agree to be bound by
u,^*rrli*)F,J""*Sfffl*ffi,*,"*
[ - - Aoo-ro nudress Bo_9k
- 10-mAO/2000 10:16 Alv
Mar-07-00 13:14 Fron-USIIEST Fl'''r EIl0 GJT
2524 Blichmann Ave.
Crrand Junction, CO 81505
Mareh 7,2000
8t02444349 r-356 P.AI/AI F-383
ltt1,lrEsr"
Garficld County
Pluuring Dept.
Kit Lyon
Senior Planner
Dear Kir:
As per your requesr, I have reviewed rhe Ukele Acres Subdivision plan. U S Wesr'*ill
oeed a l5' easement along the fiout lot line of Lors L,2,3,7, 8, and 9 of Esther C\.
Lots 4 and 6 are currefily provided service from facilities on Hwy 6 & 24- Lot 5 will
also be fed from Huy 6 &24 via exisring easeneot.
If you require any additional iuformadou, please cotrtact me on 970-244-4916. 'fhank
you for yorrr assistaace.
Sincerely,
Carson Bell
field Engiueer
-/?-
Memo
To: Kit Lyon - Planning department
From:Tom Russell
Date:03/09/00
Re: Ukele Acres Preliminary Plan
Kit,
I have reviewed the comments from John Taufeis letter dated Feb.21,2000. On
page 6, he responded to a conversation betvreen him and l, about the chipseal on
that portion of roadway near his subdivision
., i, Ut,i f,r\ .
I have egreed that no chip sealrnould be needed on the road.- 'J "
f r.nderstand that impact fees from this subdivision will eventually be used for the
rodd improvements.
Feel free to oontact me if you have any questions.
r a Atr.f-'1-n ti /L;iiL.tiir
. Page 1 -20'
62/L8/2A88 23:23 ROAD AND BRIDGE,f
HII
Memo
Tol Jsft Leufttn - Plannirg @tmant
FrornrTom Ruseell
D.[.r V2l11l@
Rrr Smith Subdivision Al(A Ukele Acres
On 10-1&gg I revieued the proposed Smith SuMivision sketctt pl*t, locatsd
edie€nt to CR 216. I rrculd suggest that the da/eloPer be responsbb fu U.te
follcnfl ing improv€rnent8.
1. Dedicate 15'additbnel R.O.W alolp CR 216 for the entire lengtl of
cbvelopment.
Rebuild Uklele Ln. to s'minor ollocior statrs as ddned by Garfield
CoLmty e6diviion reguletlon 9 : 35 with cttip ceel diving surfu fa
entire langth of develoPment.
All trdic contnol devices indalbd per rnanud on trafrc confd devicea.
(Stop signs)
Obtain drivevray permit fiom Garfield Cornty Road & Bridge $psimsnt
for intersoction.
lf fenoes are proposed, they mud be d R.O.W and onners properfi'
PAGE 6L
.P{pl 4l-
STATE OF COLORADO
COTORADO GEOTOGICAT SURVEY
Division of Minerals and CeologY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2611
FAX: (303) 866-2461
March 27,2000
Ms Kit Lyon
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re:Ukele Acres
CGS Review No. GA-00-0011
Dear Ms Lyon:
In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972) I visited this property to
review the plat. A Preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech
(November 1999) was included in the referral.
1) Soil. The soil is composed of alluvial fan deposits derived from Wasatch parent material. The
blow counts at different horizons in a number of borings indicated low strength materials. The
swell-consolidation tests show some tendency for consolidation after wetting. H-P Geotech
recommends footings sized for a low bearing pressure, which is appropriate for such soils.
The size of the community water tank is not stated. This will be a heavily loaded structure, and
the load will vary. Foundation designs for the tank should be carefully engineered, so that
settlement (and subsequent damage) does not result. A mat foundation should be considered.
It is absolutely necessary that drainage be controlled at the site, as the soils are likely to
consolidate after wetting, and may cause structural damage. Slopes should grade away from
houses, and xeriscaping should be implemented for ground cover. Roof downspouts should
discharge at least 6 ft from the houses.
2) Septic systems. Each lot should have a backup site for a leach field, whether the field is
conventional absorption or engineered. The leach field sites should be removed from auxiliary
construction (sheds) and animal containment areas.
In summary, the site can be successfully developed with close attention to surface drainage,
which is critical in managing problem soils. Please call me if there are any questions.
DEPARTMENT OF
NAIURAL
RESOLIRCES
Bill Owens
Covernor
Creg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Ceologist
and Director
4Z'RECEIVEDAPRO32OOO
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
/#ryN
toqwDIVISION OFWILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
John W. Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 192
March 13,2000
Kit Lyon
Senior Planner
Garfi eld County Building and Planning Department
109 8ft Street, Suite:Ol
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Ukele Acres Preliminary Plan
Dear Kit:
I have reviewed the preliminary plan for Ukele Acres and I am quite familiar with
the site. The Dvision of Wildlife is satisfied with those portions of the protective
covenants that concem wildlife that the Smith's included at my suggestion. The
DOW can find no significant impact to wildlife with this suMivision plan if the
protective covenants are approved and enforced in their present form.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment and to work with the
developer.
Respectfully'
fr, o*
Don Crane
Dstrict Wildlife manager
cc: Steve Yamashita
RECEIVEDI,iARi52OOB,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Walcher, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chairman . Mark LeValley, Vice Chairman . Bernard L. Black, Jr.,Secretary
Members, Rick Enstrom . Marianna Raftopoulos . Arnold Salazar. Bobert Shoemaker'. Philip James
For Wildlife -
For People
-23'
STATE OF COLOT(ADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAX: (303) 866-3s89
http //water.state.co.us/defau lt.htm
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning DePt
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Bill Owens
Covernor
Creg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
March 21,2000
Re:Ukele Acres Subdivision - Preliminary Plan
SW %section 4 & NW % Section 9, T6 S, R 92 W, 6TH PM
Water Division 5, Water District 39
Dear Ms. Lyon:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 24.981 acre parcel into
nine (9) residential lots, with a total of 11 residential dwellings to be served by a central well. This
proposal is a modification of a previous submittal for the Smith Subdivision (our letter of April 16,
1999 is attached). Total in-house water use for the 11 dwellings is estimated at 350 gallons per
day or approximately 4.3 acre-feet per year. The applicant has obtained contract #950815JS(a)
for 11 acre-feet of water from the West Divide Water Conservancy District (District), and permit no.
53426-F was issued on March 20,2000 pursuant to this water allotment contract and the District's
temporary substitute supply plan.
Permit no. 53426-F limits use of the well to household purposes inside 1 1 single-family
dwellings, the irrigation of 1.5 acres of lawns and gardens (approximately 6,000 square feet per
dwelling), and the watering of domestic animals. Although irrigation is allowed by permit no.
53426-F, water for irrigation on each lot is to be provided by the applicant's surface water rights
consisting of 3.75 shares in the Grand River Ditch Company's Lower Cactus Valley Ditch.
A report from Paul Bussone, P.E. of Resource Engineering, lnc., indicates the well was
test pumped on June 22,1999 at a rate of 16.6 galions per minute for 24 hours. The static
water level was measured at 43.5 feet, and the maximum drawdown was approximately 3.6 feet
below this level. Based on this test, Mr. Bussone concluded that this well could provide an
adequate physical water supply for the in-house uses associated with 11 single-family dwellings.
The source of the proposed water supply would be tributary to the Colorado River. Due to
the fact that the Colorado River is overappropriated, a plan for augmentation is required to offset
depletions caused by the development. However, since this development is within area A of the
District's temporary substitute supply plan, this office has issued permit no. 53426-F. Note that
supply plans are temporary by definition, and that to provide for a permanent water supply,
permit no. 53426-F must ultimately be included in a water court approved plan for augmentation.
-24-
Kit Lyon
Ukele Acres
March 21,2000
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(hxl), C.R.S., it is our opinion that the proposed water
supply will not cause injury to decreed water rights, and based on a sustained yield in the above
reported range, and with appropriate storage capacity, the use of the proposed well should be
adequate fora potable water supply. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this
matter, please contact Jeff Deatherage of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
//*dp /*
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
l(VVl(J D/U keleAcres. doc
Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Jim Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39
' 25'
Yr.!r/- '\tr",b)
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
lll3 Sherman Street, Room 8lB
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAX: (103) 865'1589
hnp'//water.state.co. us/defa u lt. htm
John Barbee
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
i Fi,rin:iir$o
;l!rl' 'r: '11r.) ri .r r ;,)
ii;
April 16, 1999
Bill Orvens
Covernor
Greg E. lValcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Smith Su[rdivision
S% Sec. 6 & N% Sec. 9, T65, R92W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. Districts 39 & 45
Dear Mr. Barbee:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 24.6 acres into
9 lots, ranging from 2.21o 4.2 acres each, with one single family dwelling on each lot. The applicant proposes to
provide w;teithrough a central water system, utilizing the well with Permit No. 46427-F pursuant to contract No.
bSoet SJS(a) with the West Divide Water Conservancy District (the District). A copy of the contract was not
provided. Sewage disposalwill be through individual septic systems.
Although well permits for the intended this use may be available if the well is included in the District's
temporary substitute supply plan, the existing well permit and contract do not allow the intended use, no new
well permit application has been submitted for review by this office, and there is no guarantee that a well
permit can be'issued. Furthermore, to be considered a legally reliable source of water the well should be
included in a court approved augmentation plan, since there is no guarantee that a temporary substitute
supply plan will be renewed. No information was provided on the adequacy of the water supply.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1Xh)(l), that the proposed water
supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights. Due to insufficient information we cannot comment
on't'ne physical adequacy of the water supply. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this
matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
/L,TAI 2L>t
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWI(CMUsmith.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
James R Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39
Robert C. Klenda, Water Commissioner, District 45
r261
Form No.
GWS.25
APPLICANT
OFFICE OF TH TATE ENGINEER
COLOR,ADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
RONALDW&JEANMSMITH
31947HWY6&24
stLT, co 81652-
(e70) 876-2070
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTY
NW 114 NW 114 Section 9
Township 6 S Range 92 W Sixth P.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
200 Ft. from North Section Line
650 Ft. from West Section Line
PANS USE OF AN EXISTING WELL
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 053426 . tr-.-
DIV. 5 WD 39 DES. BASIN MD
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit
does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested
water right from seeking relief in a civil court action.
2) Thb construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval
of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump lnstallation
Contractors in accordance with Rule 'l 8.
3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) for the expansion of use of an existing well, Permit no. 50767-F (expired),
appropriatlng ground water tributary to the Colorado River, as an alternate point of diversion to the Avalanche Canal and
Siphon, on the condition that the well shall be operated only when the West Divide Water Conservancy District's substitute
water supply plan, approved by the State Engineer, is in effect, and when a water allotment contract between the well owner
and the West Divide Water Conservancy District for the release of replacement water from Ruedi Reservoir is in effect, or
under an approved plan for augmentation. WDWCD contract #950815JS(a).
4) The old well constructed under permit no. 10593 and previously permitted under permit no. 46427-F must be plugged and
abandoned in accordance with Rule 15 of the Water Well Construction Rules. A Well Abandonment Report form must be
submitted affirming that the old well was plugged and abandoned.
5) The use of ground water from this well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside 11 single family dwellings, the
irrigation of not more than 'l .5 acres of gardens and lawns (approximately 6,000 square feet per dwelling), and the
watering of domestic animals. All use of this well will be curtailed unless the water allotment contract or a plan for
augmentation is in effect.
6) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 15 GPM.
l) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 11 acre-feet.
8) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case
number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means-and precautions to preserve these markings.
g) This well shall be located not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit and not less than 600 feet from
any existing well.
10) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all
diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon
request'
;[b =
-2a - ]+tzrt>
State Ensineer
DArE rssuED t{AR 2 0
ui/l,/L, =_By lr A n ,, r'r ?tt
-zr
Memorandum
To: Kit Lyon
f,'rom: Steve Anthony
Re; Ukele Acres
Date: March 22,2000
l. Revegetation Plan.
The submitted revegetation plan is fine.
2. Covenants.
A. The covenants should include language that reminds landowners that it is
their responsibility, according to the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, to
manage any County Noxious Weeds that are on their property. This could
go under the "maintenance of property'' section.
B. Management of noxious weeds on roadways, drainage ditches, and
common areas should be addressed. Responsibility for this should be
designated.
-zr
GART'IELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST
Common name
Leaff spurge
Russian knapweed
Yellow starthistle
Plumeless thistle
Houndstongue
Common burdock
Scotch thistle
Canada thistle
Spotted knapweed
Diffirse knapweed
Dalmation toadflax
Yellow toadflax
Hoary cress
Saltcedar
Saltcedar
Oxeye Daisy
Jointed Goatgrass
Chicory
Musk thistle
Purple loosestrife
Russian olive
Scientific name
Euphorbia esula
Acroptilon repens
Centaurea solstitalis
Carduus acanthoides
Cynoglossum officinale
Arctium minus
Onopordum acanthium
Cirsium (mense
Centaurea maculosa
Centaurea diffusa
Linaria dalmatica
Linariavulgaris
Cardaria draba
Tamarix partti/lora
Tamarix ramosissima
C hry s ant he mum I euc ant he um
Aegilops cylindrica
Cichorium intybus
Carduus ru$ans
Lythrum salicaria
E I ae agnus angus t ifo I ia
4?
THouas P. Damssruroru
Shciff ofGarfitklCounty
GARFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.
P.O. Box 249 . Glcnnood Springs, CO 81602
(970) 94s-04s3
Fax (970) 945-765I
Date: March 7, 2000
Re: Ukele Acres Preliminary Plan
The Sheriffs Office has reviewed the attached Ukele Acres Preliminary Plan and u,ould like to
address the following concerns at this point in the application. I ) The need to ensure that the
cul-de-sac at the end of Ester Court has a radius large enough to accommodate fire or EIr.{S
equipment's turn around ratio. 2) The existing road off,rf Highway 6 & 24 that will access Lots
4,5 and 6 also provide the ability for emergency equipment to turn around. 3) Alt roads and
roadways shall be clearly marked with correct County road numbers and names. 4) All street
addresses be clearly marked and visible from the County Road or access roads
- 3o'
GARTTELD COUNTY
REGE,yEDWnsW
Building and Planning DePartment
Febnrary 28,200,0
Re: Ukele Acrec PreliminarY Plan
DearRwien,AgencY:
Enclosed please find an application that will so ugrollth.eilapning c.lryi.=l.rgl :.n'[rednesdal'
OW ri,iOOO. Pleas€ sJbhit'writtea comments by MOIIDAY' MARCT{ 27,2WA't
If you need any firrttrer iaforrratioU please contacl me. I look forward to working with you on
*,i, "p'pfi."tioo
for " nine (9) lot subdivision located near tlre Town of Silt.
Thankyou,WKitlyon \-/
SeniorPlanner
Enclosure
P9-eo.
fi) *DPrrtoa)
t2-t Au €-sr A
0F r*z torl
-fO Uf tLt lY EAtett\it+fs
l8a, {ta-) urrtriY cP ALL
att E€Tl+?4- cooQ'Y'
|Po*,at o* Pl'aY P' € ' ea
l-@o*t7 LoT Lt€{E't CgfCe:Z-f g'oc)
3- a- z4to
Hw-a rtat trld
P.$- Qt*ruerz
109 tth Street, Suite 303Tel: 945-82 l2,lF art 384'5flM
-3/-
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
.TjEGEIVEF ffA,ft, S S Z080
il-- -r-I
'-- -J i*rr, .ea..),taqqrFqac r'o*a7
1.ta?. ttT1---2&:----,\
: )iltO.:no .-,'n:eiope i
t\
or
'Y
tEd-,I r ,lT J-72lc :,J) tI;,: :2.,7x1.97'htl-li 1aC@
I
tgo
-
t
,4
J-e
s$i.
b.,.eJq
hs'
N
N
a'
$a\
$
t\
N\.
e
It
"'<:!"
/
ynvlug--'t-itt90 1
- -qh'
il'I
-l .t
I
.,*i
:,i
!-
-
I'trzr.t ,4a?zs
:
I
L
I\
r\
t
s
az./
islf /entuf€J
PRSZ/.,1//NARr
PL4 7
X* TOTAL PRGE.@? x>I(
e..
4.4i2. _ _ _:4q':
, :ittiotnQ :.1 .'elOOe
::-
".\q
tO, vJrc ee,rrt\h
@2afr I
| '.t@
I l|r +g i lr
t u.rzJ-zJ ,:afi. , I
II l.,Uooco I I Iin l- ;l
ir} i3 'ilq'! a.t!q i -:ii* i; ;l
i\-- .... - -, ut' ',-l
| -Suttdn? c..rel@e | *
i -: ti,*,tt;l
) 'tmra-*i I.te' iouu* rap wctt uktl
+ -+rh.- -J]a l9a9'a' € .rt.02'
Eslh,er Court
-'7' tca6. g1i1;1, n-'
g.a 2*f,ry ;o6a. :
AF!E.-..4.
' 3a;t1ing thvetooe',
\rr J e,a.
, :)
-v. =!%.62aag k ^209 e
fra'gl
t'@ Eu@ Cutt'led ga, E@6e.ary €w Sa*r, .
\ ro' rzrta rt;r r
a2'
, E rr'z't- :t.&
l\
_l:t,.:tn? E.- /etooe :
-rE' -
i vaa-t' :.t@'
,\\,
1 iu;tathg clltvaoocr.\,\
_:\ACO. !rr;t. <-.@o, ,
i---J.. ,;
:=-.r-._-_ .-.rr-- --:-1
-32-
RECEIVED
Water Engineers, tnc.
SlBColoradoAve.
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81602
19701 945-7755 rEL
1970) 945-92t0 FAx
(303) 893-1608 DENVER DIRECT LINE April28,2000
Kit Lyon
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE,: Ukele Acres Subdivision Preliminary PIan - Supplemental Submittal for BOCC Hearing
Dear Kit and Mark:
At the request of Garfield County, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has reviewed the supplemental
submittal for the Ukele Acres Subdivision Preliminary Plan. The submittal includes an April 20,2000
letter from John L. Taufer & Associates,Inc. with attached letters and reports.
STIMMARY
Based on our review, we believe the technical items of the Planning Commission recommendation
required for the BOCC hearing have been addressed, including Items 6, 8, 1 3. I , 13 .2, and 14' However,
we offer the fottowing comments related to Item 13.
l. The typical section of the detention pond shall be added to the drawings for Final Plat submittal.
2. The supplemental submittal does not demonstrate compliance with Section9.43 of the County
Regulations. The purpose of WWE's comment regarding how the proposed drainage plan fits in
with the existing drainage system was to address Section 9.43 with respect to the 100-year storm
runoff. We have discussed this issue with Jeff Simonson at Schmueser Gordon Meyer and
believe this can be adequately addressed prior to the BOCC meeting.
Please call ifyou have any questions.
Very truly yours,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
cc: Don DeFord, Esq., Garfield County
JeffSimonson, P.E., Schmueser Gordon Meyer
E:\Work\WWE\921-047. I l0\SupplementalSubmittalReview.doc
DURANGO (9701 259-741tDENVER (303) 4BGl700 -3)'BOULDER - {303) 473-9s00
REuftVEDI+irRtl2B$!
Wright Water Engineers, tnc.
SiBColoradoAve.
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8l 602
1970)945-7755 TEL
19701 945-9210 F,\X
{3031 893-1608 DENVER DIRECI UNE
March 30,2000
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Office
109 Eighth Steet, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8l 601 -3303
RE: Ukele Acres Subdivision - Preliminary Plan Review
Dear Kit:
At the request of Garfield County, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has reviewed the
Preliminary Plan submittal for the Ukele Acres Subdivision near Silt. Our comments on technical
issues are presented below.
WATER SUPPLY
A microscopic particulate analysis test should be conducted for the well water supply due to
the presence of non-coliform bacteria and the relatively shallow well construction.
Section 20.1 of the covenants should reference the West Divide Water Conservancy District
(WDWCD) water allotment contract. The results of the water quality and the need for
individual water heatment facilities should also be included in this section.
Reference to the WDWCD allotment contract and 6,000 square-feet of irrigation should be
removed from Section 20.2. We recommend that this section provide initial rules and
regulations for use and operation of the inigation system.
The well permit issued for the project (53426-F) is based on the WDWCD's substitute
water supply plan. A water court approved augmentation plan will ultimately be required
for the well. The Applicant should include this cost in the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement or indicate in Section 20.1 of the covenants that the lot owners are responsible
for this cost with the WDWCD when it arises.
WATER SYSTEM
Although the well permit allows for outside irrigation (6,000 square-feet per lot), the
potable water system is not designed for outside irrigation and the covenants should
prohibit such uses in Section 20.1 and20.2.
The disinfection treatment system should consider use of liquid chlorine rather than gaseous
chlorine for a small HOA system.
1.
2.
J.
4.
5.
6.
DENVER {3031 480-l 700 DUMNGO 19701 259-74t t BOULDER - (303) 473-9500
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Office
March 30, 2000
Page 2
7. A letter should be obtained from the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District regarding
the 10,000-gallon fire storage requirement.
8. We recommend the well water quality be tested for nitrates on an annual basis. This should
be noted in Section 20.1 of the covenants.
WASTEWATER
9. The use of evapotranspiration (ET) systems for this project is strongly discouraged.
10. An ISDS management plan should be included in Section 7 of the covenants. Plan
components typically include special design considerations/criteria, inspection schedule,
and a homeowners guide to maintaining an ISDS system.
DRAINAGE
11. The existing drainage system should be shown (e.g., culverts across Highway 6) and it
should be demonstrated how the proposed system fits in with the existing systems.
12. Atypical detail for the detention ponds and outlets should be shown.
13. The submittal does not indicate if the Applicant or the future lot owners will construct the
"individual" detention ponds. A drainage easement should be shown on the Plat for these
ponds. If constructed by lot owners, then the engineering criteria for the pond to comply
with County regulations and the Master Drainage Plan for the project must be indicated on
the Plat. A Colorado registered professional engineer must design the ponds.
14. The covenants should indicate that the HOA and/or individual lot owners are responsible
for maintaining a functional detention basin(s).
SOILS/GEOLOGY
15. Due to the potential for settlement, differential movement, and $oundwater conditions on
the project, site-specific geotechnical studies should be conducted for proper foundation
design. This should be reflected in Section 22 of the covenants and on the Plat.
WETLANDS
16. The submiual should address the presence/absence of wetland areas and discussianalyzethe
impacts, if any, from the project. Field observations indicate that wetlands may exist in the
southern and westem areas of the property.
E:\Work\WWE\921 -047 .1 I 0\PreliminaryPlanReview.doc
-r5-
Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Office
March 30, 2000
Page 3
ROADS
17. A fully executed copy of the CDOT access permit should be submitted prior to any
preliminary plan approval.
18. The existing driveway/new entrance road has an S-curve with a 37-foot radius. The
minimum radius is 50 feet for a public road according to County regulations. The entrance
road should be revised.
19. The new entrance road should be a dedicated public right-of-way and not an access
easement.
DITCHES
20. The Lower Cactus Valley Ditch easement should be dedicated to the Grand Valley Ditch
Company with a formal Easement Agreement or otherwise accepted in writing by the ditch
company, whichever may be the appropriate legal course of action.
21. The access easement forthe Drurbar family, heirs and assigns should be developed into a
specific described easement shown on the Plat.
22. The Applicant should consider safety issues with a large ditch through the project.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Very truly yours,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
Don DeFord, Esq., Garfield County
JeffSimonson, P.E., Schmueser Gordon Meyer
Paul Bussone, P.E., Resource Engineering, Inc.
E:\Work\WWE\92 I -047. I I 0\PreliminaryPlanReview.doc
-36-
JctHN L. TAUFEFI & ASSOCI^ATESi! INC.
Landscape Anchicectune / Land Planning -p.
April20, 2000
Kit Lyons, Senior Planner
Garfield County Building and
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
ASe&rSO
Ap.z,rooo
Planning Department
81601
Re: Ukele Acres Subdivision - Submittal of Supplementary Information for Preliminary
Ptan Public Hearing with the Board of County Commissioners
Dear Kit,
On April 1,2,2000 the Garfield County Planning Commission unanimously moved to
recommend approval of the Ukele Acres Subdivision Preliminary Plan to the Board of
County Commissioners. The recommendation was based on satisfying a number of
conditions that were imposed on the applicant. Four (4) of those conditions required
satisfactory submittals prior to the public hearing with the BOCC on May 8, 2000.
Attached is the necessary documentation to satisfy those conditions. The following
submittals are attached for your review and information and are referenced by the number
corresponding to the condition:
6. A copy of the fully executed CDOT access permits signed by the CDOT.
7. A copy of a letter of approval from the Burning Mountain Fire District
confirming that the proposed development has adequate water and facilities
for emergency response and that the 10,000 gallon water tank is acceptable.
1 3.a A letter from Jeff Simonson, P.8., SGM, discussing the existing drainage
system adjacent to Highway 6 and how the subdivision drainage ties in with
the existing systems and a discussion regarding the proposed on-site detention
ponds.
13.b A detail for the on-site detention ponds and outlets.
14. A letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers noting the determination of an
absence of wetland areas on the project site.
The remainder of the conditions are being addressed and will be finalized for Final Plat.
? 3?-
9O9 Colonado Avenue . Box 227 1 . Glenuzood Spnings,CO 416C)2
(s7o) 945-1337 . FAX (97O) 943-7914
Page2
Ukile Acres Subdivision - Supplemental Information for BOCC
Thank you for you thorough review of this application. It has been a pleasure working
with you on this project. We look forward to presenting this project to the Board of
County Commissioners on May 8,2000.
If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact my
office.
Sincerely,
JL v-a&
John L. Taufer, Owners Representative
Attachments
'38'
V*/ L*/VV LZaVO fArr utvarolaJ,Uf,'UI T(.' TlsAJ'TIU lgl uD
OEPARTTENT OF
STATE HIGHWAY AC PERMIT
The Permittee(s); Applicant:
Ronald & Jcan Smith John L. Taufer
31947 Highway 6 &24 John L. Taufer & Associates, Inc.
Silt, CO 81652 P.O. Box 2271
9"10-876-2201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
970-945-t337
rs hereby granted permission to have an ac.ess lo he state hlghnay at the location noled belour. The access shall be constructed, marntainod and used in
accordan@ with fris permit" induding fie Stab Highuay Access Code and any attachmenb, terms, conditions and exhibits. This permit may be revoked
by the issuing authority if at any time ttr€ permitted access and its uso violate any parts of this permit. The issuing authority, the Deparfii€nt and lheir duly
appointed agents and employees shall be h6ld hamloss against any action for pergonal iniury or property damago sustained by reason of the exercise of
the oermit-
Location:
On thc north side of US 6 &24, a distancc of 3929 feet of MP 97.
Access to Provide Service to:
Single-Family Detached Housin9................ 3 Each 100.00 %
Other terms and conditions:
. See Attached Pages 2 and 3 ond Othcr Enclosures for Additional Terms and Conditions.
MUNICIPALTTY OR COUNTY APPROVAL
Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority.
By
(x)
Oats TiUe
Upon the signing of this permit the permittee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained
Herein. All construction shatl be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from
tnitiation. The permitted access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of lhe permit prior to
Being used.
The permittee shall notify Philip fuiderle with the Colorado Department of Transportation in Glenwood at 970-947-
9361 at least 48 hours prior to commoncing construction within the State Highway rlghtof-way.
The person signing as the permi[ee must be dre oryn€r or legal representzdve o, the property served by the permitted access and have full aulhority to
Aocept the oeimit anO its tirng and w$i6ors.r/
iii"*U,,-.vhz,/t Oale/-/g-Do\&4,(
This permit is not valid until signed by a duly authorized representiative of the Department.
COLO RADO DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATIONffiBy
(x)
Oate (of issue)
3_ /0. Zooo Tille
Access Mauager
Cogy Roouired:Msks copi€6 es nccasgary for: Pr.vlou cdhlonr rrt ob3olci. and tn.y nol bo urcd
r.Rotion
2.AEdlcanl
3.Sleff Accots S€dbn
Local Adhoc/ty
irTCE PDtrol
lncpector
Traffic Engine€r
-3?'
COOT Forrn tlol 0r9t
\!l vu
4.
5.
STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT #399151
lssued to Ronald W. and Jean M. Smith
January 13,2000
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
I.This Access is approved as constructed- All previous permits are hcrcby rcmoved and deemed void.
If there iue any qucstions regarding this permig plcase contact Mike Smith at (970) 248-'7231.
Thc Permittee shall refcr to all additional standard requirements on the back of this permit and any enclosed
additional terns, conditions, cxhibits and noted attachrncnts.
This Permit is issued in accor&uce with the State Highway Access Code (2 CCR 601-l), and is based in part upon
the informatioo submitted by thc Pcrmittcc. This pcrmit is only for the use and purpose stated in the Application
and Permit. Any changes in trafEc volumes or type, drainage, or other operatioual aspccts rnay render thrs perurit
void, requiring a new pcrmit to be applied for based upon existing and a:rticipated futue conditions.
Thrs permitted access is only for the use and pnrpose stated in the Application and Permit.
Irfsrhing in this permit shall prohibit rhe chief engrneer from exercising the right granted in CRS 43-3-lO2
including but not limircd to restricting left hand turos by construction of physical mcdial separatioos.
Watcr, sanitary, sewer, gas, electrical, communication, landscaping, and telephone installations will requtre
individual additional pcrmits.
The Permrttee is responsible f6s 6f6ining any necessary additional federal, state and/or City/County permits or
clearancesrcquircdforconsEuctionoftheaccess. Approvalofthisaccesspermitdoesnotconstituteverification
of this action by the Permittce.
1 is the responsibility of thc Pcrmittee to prevsnt all livestock from enrcring the Statc Highway right-of-way at this
access location. Any livcstock that does enter thc highway right-of-way shall be the sole responsibility of the
Pcrmittec.
7.
8.
9.
10. In the evcnt the laodscaping becomes unsightty or coosidcred to be a traflic hazard, Thc Dcparmrcnt may rcquire
that it bc removed prorytly by thc Permittee and at no cost to he Department.
I l. Landscaping shall not obstnrct sight disuace at any State Highway access Poitrt.
12. A fully crecuted complete copy of this permit must be on the iob site with the contrrctor et atl times during
lhc construction. tr'rilure to comply with thls or eny other coustruclion requirement mey result in the
immediete suspension of work by order of the depertmeut inspector or the issuing suthority.
13. Sqwey markers or roonuneuts found in state highway right-of-way must be presewed in thcir origrnal positions'
Noti$ the Dcpartment at (970) 248-7220 irnmediately upon daruge to or discovery of any such rnarkers or
monuruents at the work site. Any sunrey markers or moDuEleuts disturbed druing the execution of this pcrmrt shall
bc repaired and/or replaced ismediately at thc cxPcnsc of thc Pcrmittce.
14. Whcu it is neccssary to remove any highway right-of-way fcnce, thc Posts on either side of the access etrfance
shatl be secqrely braced with approved end posts and in conforrrance with the Departnent's M-607-1 staudard"
before the fence is cut, to prevent 5l6sking of thc rem:ining fencc. All posts and wire rernoved shall bc reNrned to
the Department.
15. No &ainage Aom this site shall enter onto the State Highway travcl lanes. The Permittee is required to detain all
&ainage in excess of historical flows and time of conccntrarion ou sitc.
Page 1 of 1
v1/ r*/ vu LZ; vo rAA u , varlo t aJ+
STATE HIG}TWAY ACCESS PERIT'IIT
1.R.11irln
2.At?lL.,r
3.Srdt A.ca S.do.r
L€lArinorly
ITTCE Hrd
lnrDdor
Trdtc Ettgin6.
The Permittee(s);
Ronald Ezlan Smith
31947 Highway 6 &24
Silt, CO t1652
970-n6a20l
Applicant;
JohnTaufer
John L. Taufcr & Associates,Inc.
P.O. Box 2271
Glenwood Spriogs, CO t1502
970-94s-1337 .77 t *
b hercby g,antd pemrbrion to iryc an acccae lo lhG Eldc Hghu6y at the lcadon notcd bclow. Thc aoccss shall bc consmrded, mainlalncd and tFcd il
*cora"i*i 'nrh tits pcrm( indrJdirg thc State Highway Acccss codG and any auacfimcflts, tcrnrs, condliions and crhbits. This p€mr may bc rcvokcd
uv U," i.s,r,ng ar.trorirf if at'any timc-the pcrmi[cd-rcis and iis usc viohtc iny parts ol thb permll. The issuirB authodty. thc O€P.]tmct{ and thcir ddy
#p;i,rtA;g;r.ttt anoimptoyia alrall be hcH lrarmls agrird any aciion for personal hiury or popcrty damagc Buddn€d by rcason of the erercisc ol
thc ocrmil
Location:
on the north sidc of us hiehcay 6 & 24 , a distatrcc of 50 16 feet east ftom MP 97
Access to Provide Service to:
Corurty Road............ 300 ADT 100'00 %
Other terms and conditions:
r See Attachcd Pages 2 and 3 aod CIher Eoctosures for Mditional Terms and Conditions.
MUNICIPALITY OR COUITITY APPROVAL
Required only '^'ten the appropriate local aulhority retains issuing authority.
By
(x)
DaIC Title
ons and referencod attachments contained
Herein. eil conshction shall be co;deted in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from
lnitiation. The permitted aooesr shall be cornpletd in accordanc8 with the tems and condiiions of the permit priorto
Being used.
The permittee shall notify philip Anderle wi0l the colorado Departmem of Transportalion in Glemvood springt at
9Z0-947-9361 at least 4! hous prior to commencang construclion witfiin the State Highway right-of'way.
The peoon sigr*ng 6, thc penr*tcc rw16l be the ouncr or lcgal reproGntatiye ol thc propcrty sened by thc pcmrittcd uctr and h.YG fu]! autfiorlty to
Acold thc pcmil end ils tGflE rnd conflioos. ./
DiIC/- /?- ao
fy a duly autfrorizeO repr€sentativ€ of the Department.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION?i,ffi Datc (ol bsuo)3- fo' Zooo Tno
Access lvlamgcr
Rcquind:ttalr ogiG .3 ncsrry foc Pr.Ylout adnont ara obELla lrd may rEt ba Ur.dcoPy
4t-
CN,TFdiltlot EIE
STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT #399152 December i7, isee
lssued to Ronald W. and Jean M- Smith
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
l. This Acccss is approvcd as constructed. All prcvious pcrmis are hereby removcd rnd dermcd void.
2. If thete are any qucstions regarding this permit, plcase contact Mike Smith at (970) 24E-7231.
3. The Permittec shall rcfcr to all additional sandard rcquircmcnts on thc back of this permit and any cucloscd
additional tcrms, conditions, orhibits aad notcd attachmcnts.
4. This Permit is issued in accordance with thc State Highway Acccss Code (2 C(X. 601-l), e.d is bascd in part upoa
the inforrnation submitted by thc Pcrminee. This pcmit is only for thc usc and purpose sbtrd io tbe Applicatiou
aad Permit. Any changes in traffic volumcs or t)?c, drainage, or other orperational sspccts may reuder this permit
void, requiring a ncw pcrmit to be applicd for based upon cxisting and anticipated future conditions.
5. This permitted access is only for the use and purpose statcd in the Ap'plicafion and Permit.
6. Nothing in Otis permit shall prohibit the chicf cngineer tom exercising ihe right grurtcd in CRS 43-3-102
including but not limited to rcsricting left hasd hrns by construction of physical nrcdial scparations.
7, W'ater, sanitary, sewer, gas, elcctical, communication, Iandscaping, atrd tol€phonc installatiols will rcquirc
individual additional pcrmits.
8. Ths P€rrnittee is responsible for obtainiog any Decessary additional federal, state and/or City/County permis or
clearaoccs rcquired for construction of the acc€ss. Approval of this acccss permit does not coostitute verification
of this action by the Permittcc.
9. It is Orc rcsponsibility of the Pcrmittce to prevent all livestock Aom entcring thc State Highway right-of-way at this
acccss location. Any livcstock that does enter thc highway right-of-way shall be the solc rcsponsibility of the
Permittee.
10. In thc event the landscaping bccomes unsightly or considered to be a traffic hlzar4 Thc Dcparmcnt may require
that it bc removod prorrptly by thc Pcrmittee and at no cost to thc Dcpaxftrcnt.
I L Landscaping shall not obstruct sight distance at any State Highway acccss poirt.
12. A fully erecuted complete copy of this permit must be on the iob site wlth the contnctor rt ell dmes during
the construction. Failure to comply with this or any other construcfion requlrement mry result in tbe
immedigte suspension o[work by order of the department inspcctor or the issulng ruthorlty.
13. Survcy rnarkers or monuments found in state highway right-of-way rnrst bc preserved in 6cir uigiDsl positions.
Notify the Dcpartncnt at (970) 248-7220 immediatcly upon damage to or discovcry of any cuch markcrs or
monurnents at the work sitc. Any survey markers or monuments disturbcd during the cxecution of ftis permit shall
bc rcpaired and/or replaced irmtcdiatcly at ttre expcnsc of the Permittee.
14. Whcn it is necessary to rcmovc auy highway rigbt-of-way feuce, the posts on cithcr side of tbe access cnuance
shall be securcly braced with approved end posts and in conformance with thc Dcprrtmcut's M-607-l stadar{
before thc fence is cut, to prevent slacking of thc remaining fcncc. All posts and wire removcd shall be retrrrrcd to
the Departrrcnt.
15. No drainagc from this site sball enter onto thc State Highway tavel lanes. Tbe Permittec is rcquircd to dctain all
drainagc in cxccss of historical flows aad tirne of concentration on sitc.
-41,-
trl
cr.{.{vuJ su roocrolD t6zLgtzoL6 xv8. 90:zr oo/tT/t0
I'll\ .I :, I-lnl\!rUJnl\L
ffituuti,,,
ict
Board
Ross Thlbolt'Otalrmu ' '
JocMontpvQr.'..,.
Norm Brov_vn .: ",;;. ii :1 ii .i
RbtcilSutPhcn.; ,
,:
33s #410
iJ
i,
''::.',:..:..:
'... i'. .;i.,.i,.,....,: Do4 Zdidct,:,Ghlcf ,
Stu,Ccr-lsc i Airbt. chlcf
. i,l
..:
.j
r;:
.,i
,i,i
.il
.: !
:
..,,.,,,.
: l!.i:::r.lirli:r
i.''... :
r:rl'-rIr'1,-:ri 'iiit::li ii;;'l
1..
- i:..,1^ ... i, r1 :l . . '
l.ii
iiFrririr $i.ji..{-lrl J)ii..l ., r.:
ii.i\!..rJ r::Iiii.:tililti:t' . "i
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
EIVG'/VEEBS
-^
-M-_
JUdilUEJEd :
GONDON MEYER
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
April 20,2000
Mr. John Taufer
John Taufer Architects
P.O. Box 2271
Glenwood Springs CO 81602
RE: Smith Subdivision
Dear John:
I am providing this letter to discuss comments provided to Kit Lyons of the Garfield County
Planning Office regarding the drainage on Ukele Acres Subdivision from Michael Erion of
Wright of Water Engineers.
Mr. Erion's comments regarding drainage were requesting the Applicant to provide additional
information regarding how the proposed system fits in with the existing drainage system
relative to Ukele Acres. Regarding this issue, borrow ditches exist parallel to Ukele Lane and
drain from north to south towards the Highway 6 right-of-way. Once at the Highway 6 right-
of-way, drainage then proceeds in a westerly direction in the highway borrow ditch along the
north side of Highway 6 to a point approximately 3OO feet west of the project site. At that
point, water discharges both under Highway 6 and the railroad, through a culvert for eventual
deposition into the Colorado River.
Regarding the project itself, the project is bounded on the east by Ukele Lane, on the north
by the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch, and on the south by Highway 6. lf one were to discount
the existence of Lower Cactus Valley Ditch, additional off-site drainage could be tributary to
the site from a 17-acre basin bounded by Ukele Lane on the east and a ridge along the west
and north sides running in a northeasterly direction.
As was discussed in our drainage calculations report submitted with the Preliminary Plan
application, the proposed drainage system will enter the existing system by reducing
developed flows on site (based upon a 25-year rainfall event) to the historic rate of flow.
Detention ponds are proposed to be constructed to accommodate that goal. A detention pond
is proposed to be located in the southwest corner of Lot 3 which will reduce the developed
peak flow rates to the historic rates for Lots 1 through 3 and 7 through 9. This detention
poind volume would be 5305 cubic feet. This volume would be gained by providing a square
footprint (excavated into existing grade) of 55 feetx 55 feet. Thedepth of excavation would
be to two feet. The controlled outlet for this pond would be a 15" diameter CMP sloped at
one percent slope. The capacity for this culvert has been identified in the calculations
attached for the drainage calculations. This facility, being a copmmon facility for new road
infrastructure and six lots, would be constructed by the developer.
t1
April 20, 2000
Mr. John Tauffer
Page 2
ln regards to individual lot detention identified for Lots 4, 5 and 6, it is proposed to locate the
detention ponds in the lowest points of these lots. However, for Lots 5 and 7, it is noted in
our drainage report that it could be argued, since existing development is already in place on
these lots, no detention requirement is necessary. ln the event that detention is required for
these lots, it has been determined that 535 cubic feet of volume for each pond is necessary.
Accordingly, a 1 Yz' deep x 2Q' square pond bottom would be necessary to contain the 535
cubic foot detention volume.
Again, calculations are attached to the drainage report which identify the performance of an
8" diameter CMP serving as a controlled outlet for each one of the ponds and being sloped
at one percent slope. lt is proposed that these ponds be installed by the individual lot owners
and be responsible for maintaining the functional detention basins.
The original intent of the drainage plan was to have the ponds on Lots 4, 5 and 6 be
constructed individually (as previously stated) and, therefore, Note #13 as stated in Mr.
Erion's letter regarding construction by individual lot owners is valid in requiring engineering
criteria for the pond construction to comply with County regulations and the Master Drainage
Plan be identified on the plat.
Additionally, Michael mentions that it be a requirement the pond be designed by a Colorado
Registered Professional Engineer. However, please note that the purpose of not identifying
a specific location for the ponds at this point in time is due to the fact that, by in large, on-
site development of individual lots will themselves determine the specific drainage patterns
and the specific location of the pond placement itself . The specifications identified on the
Master Drainage Plan (drainage and grading plans submitted with the Preliminary Plat) identify
the specific requirements regarding volume and controlled outlet construction necessary to
be incorporated into the design. However, specific siting and runoff has not bee provided
since individual on-site lot development will affect the design. We have attached (in
accordance to Note #12l. a schematic typical section for the detention pond that could further
serve to clarify detention pond requirements, once a specific location relative to future lot
development has bee identified.
Hopefully, this letter has served its intended purpose. lf you have any questions or
comments, please don't hesitate to call.
MEYER, INC.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.4r
SCHMUESER GORDON
118 W. 6th St. Suite 20O
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
YER, INC.
P.O. Box 2155
Aspen, CO 81612
(970) e25-6727
Fr\x (970) 925-41s7
ro8 uF%e M-@9
SHEET NO.
CALCULATEO SY Y-2 b
CHECKED BY
Ar41
9t lort wrzfiH
I /A),//\ *
ee*talrq>
Z:l tl4l/l&Ar\
Frrr 3t4eA! At?n*-*-uAJf rct
C.a;+TfutL*oqrurr{
lNPtc,arret>
Ttl ,ufi
ilct e.', A,\%tEJ/tN(ic, Fur ) Ta Fnt*o /rt 46y'atx4W ff^1s174;
{EtA,eare ftutPa!?@ fCE#
td/ rurrrrue- %.
fi-xr ?o*o
Fraqe 1&rure
Rr\^t i
,
ltnLp\L )E-L{tDr{
Wvxfrbr.t bgg
\io k*'e
mooufl ma-r rstu. SMr2l)5{ rhdfir
NEPLY IOArtcxilot oF
DEPARTTIIENT OF THE ARIIY
U.S. ARTY ENGINEEF OISTRICT. SACFAMEilTO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
I325 J STREET
SAcRAUENTO. CALTFOBI{IA 9581a-2922
April L2, 2000
Regulatory Branch (200075140)
Mr. Taufer
John I-,. Tauf er & Associates, Incorporated
Post Office Box 2271
Glenwood SPrings, Colorado 8L602
Dear Mr. Taufer:
I am responding Lo your written requesE dateo April 5, 2004,
on behalf of Lh. o*i.t" 6f the proposed Ukele Acres Subdivision,
i;r-; jurisd.ictional determination-on their properLy near Silt'
The property is located about one mile west of silt within the sw
1-li Zt bection +, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, Garfield
CounLy, Colorado.
Based on a site inspectlon by Susan Bachini NaIl of this
office on April 4,2000, w€ have d,etermined that the site does
.roi-"o"tain- j urisdict j-onal waters . Theref ore , a Department of
ih. ar*y is iot required for development of this site.
This determination is based on information supplied by you'
If t.hat information prowes to be incorrect, we will adjust our
determination accordingly. We have assigned number 200075140 to
this determination. please contact Ms. Na1I and refer to this
number if you have any questions regarding this matter and for
permit r"qi-,ite*ents aL (gZO) 243-1199, extension 16 or the
address beIow.
S1 reIy,
I
Regulatory Office
402 Rood Avenue, Room l-42
Grand .Tunct.ion, Colorado 8150L -2563
Copy Furnished:
Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County, 109 8th St,reet, Suite 303,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81501
-4el-
iCPLY IO
attExrtox of
DEPABTTENT OF THE ARIIY
U.S. ARTY ENGINEEF DISTRICI. SACRATEXTO
CORPS OF EIIGI}IEERS
1325 J STREET
sAcHArrEilTO. CALTFORNTA 95tr.-2922
April L2, 2000
Regulatory Branch (200075140)
Mr. Taufer
,John L. Taufer & Associates, Incorporated
PosE Office Box 2271
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Dear Mr. Taufer:
I am responding to you: writ:en request dated April 5, : ii)0,
on behalf of t,he owners of che proposed Ukele Acres Subdivision,
for a jurisdictionaL determination on their property near Silt.
The property is located about one mile west of Silt within the SW
t/4 of Sect,ion 4, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, Garfield
CounEy, Colorado.
Based on a site inspection by Susan Bachini NaII of this
office on April 4, 2000, w€ have determined that the site does
not contain jurisdictional waters. Therefore, a Department of
the Army is not required for developmenE of this site.
This deLermination is based on information supplied by you.
If that information proves to be incorrect, we will adjust our
determlnation accordingly. We have assigned number 200075140 to
t,his determination. Please contact Ms. Na1I and refer t,o this
number if you have any questions regarding this maEter and for
permit requirements at (970) 243-1199, extension 16 or the
address below.
Sincerely,
I
Grady L. MeNureChief, Northwestern Colorado
Regulatory Office
4O2 Rood Avenue, Room 142
Grand ,Junction, Colorado 8L50L -2563
Copy Furnished:
r,/ lttr. Mark Bean, Garfield Count,y, LO9 8th Street, Suite 303,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8150L
RECEIVEDAPR 1 32M
iEPLV IOarrExiloi oF
DEPABTIIENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARUY ENGINEER DISTRICT. SACRATENTO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STFEET
sAcRA[Er{TO. CALTFORNTA 9581a-2922
April ]-2, 2oo0
Regulatory Branch (2000751-40)
Mr. Taufer
John L. Taufer & Associates, Incorporated
Post Office Box 2271
Gl-enwood Springs, Colorado 8L6O2
Dear Mr. Taufer:
I am responding to you: writ.--en request dated April 5, : '10,
on behalf of the owners of the proposed UkeLe Acres Subdivisicn,
for a jurisdictional determj-nation on their property near Silt.
The property is located about one mile west of Silt within t,he SW
L/4 of -Section 4, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, Garfield
County, Colorado.
Based on a site inspection by Susan Bachini Nall- of Ehis
office on April 4, 2OOO, w€ have determined that the site does
not contain jurisdictional waters. Therefore, a Department of
the Army is not required for development of this site.
This detrermination is based on information supplied by you.
If that j-nformation proves to be incorrecL, we will adjust our
determination accordingly. We have assigned number 200075740 to
t,his determination. PLease contact Ms. NalI and refer to this
number if you have any questions regarding this matter and for
permit requi-rements at (970) 243-1199, extension t6 or the
address beIow.
SJ-ncere1y,
Grady L. McNure
Chief, Northwestern Colorado
Regulatory Office
402 Rood Avenue, Room L42
Grand .TuncEion, Col-orado 81501-2563
Copy Furnlshed:
y'tutr. Mark Bean, Garfi-e1d County, 109 8th Street, Suite 303,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8160L
-4?'
RECEIVEDAPR 1 32MO
RegulatorY Branch
DEPARTiIENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARTY E}IGII{EEF OISTRICI. SACRATENTO
COFPS OF ENGINEERS
T325 J STREET
sACBAllEtitTo. cALtFoRNtA g5Era-2922
April 12, 2000
(20007sr.40)
ICPLY IOlYrExrlox of
Mr. Taufer
,John L. Tauf er & Associat,es, Incorporated
Post, Office Pox 227L
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8L6O2
Dear Taufer:
I am responding to you:: writlen reguest dated April 5, : rr)0,
on behalf of the owners of che proposed Ukele Acres Subdivision,
for a jurisdict,ional determination on Eheir property near Si1t.
The property is located about, one mil"e wesE of Silt within the SW
t/4 of Section 4, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, Garfield
County, Colorado.
Based on a sj-te inspect,ion by Susan Bachini NalI of this
office on April 4, 2000, w€ have determined that the site does
not contain jurisdictj,onaL waters. Therefore, a Department of
Ehe Army is not required for development of this site.
This determination is based on information supplied by you.
If that information proves Eo be incorrect, we will adjust our
determinat,ion accordingly. We have assigned number 200075140 t,o
t,his deEermination. Please contact Ms. NaII and refer to this
number if you have any questions regarding this matter and for
permit requirement.s at (970) 243-L199, extension L6 or the
address below.
Sineerely,
Grady L. McNure
Chief, Northwestern Colorado
RegulaEory Office
402 Rood Avenue, Room 1-42Grand,function, Colorado 81501-2563
Copy Furnished:
/'t/ lttr. Mark Bean, Garfield CounEy, 109 8th Street, Suite 303,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
-50-
RECEIVED,APR 1 32M