Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Referral Comments• Axany ge4 Ychtd giala NICHOLAS R. MASSARO, Superintendent DWIGHT L. HELM, Assistant Superintendent TOM E. EMMONS, Director of Business November 15, 1977 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 `Ir 1G 7377 GARAI: r Re: Lake Springs Ranch Preliminary Subdivision Plat Dear Mr. Witkowski: The Board of Education of Roaring Fork School District RE -1 is recommending the donation of one acre of land for each fifty units or dollar value of said donation to be deposited with the Garfield County Commissioners to be used by the school district for the purchase of future school sites. Eighty-six units would represent 1.72 acres or dollar value thereof. Sincerely yours, Nicholas R. Massaro mlw P.O. Box 820 Glenwooa Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-6558 Mountain Bell Grand Junction, Colorado December 1, 1977 Planning Department 806 Cooper Avenue City of Glenwood Springs Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Lake Springs - Preliminary Plat Dear Sirs: We have reviewed the plat of the "Lake Springs Subdivision" and found the utility easements on the plat to be adequate. However, may we suggest the following phraseology be used for the dedication of easements within said subdivision. "And hereby dedicate to the PUBLIC UTILITIES a perpetual easement for the installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities, including, but not limited to, electric lines, gas lines, telephone lines, over and through the PRIVATE ROADS AND STREETS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION; together with a UTILITY EASEMENT being Ten (10) feet in width along side and rear lot lines, and Twenty (20) feet in width along the exterior boundary lines as shown on the plat; together with the right to trim interfering trees and brush; to- gether with the perpetual right of ingress and egress for installation, maintenance and replacement of such lines; said easements and rights shall be utilized in a reasonable and prudent manner." We believe all preliminary, as well as final plats should show the dedication, or reference to the particular "Protective Covenants" which will run with the property. Also, all "Private Roads" should be dedicated to the utilities for the installation, operation and maintenance of gas, lights, power and telephone lines. No easements should be dedicated to the property owners, cities or counties exclusively; all easements should be dedicated to the public utilities companies. • • Grand Junction, Colorado December 1, 1977 Page 2 The above request is in accordance with C.R.S. 106-2-34 (3) (d) (viii) and the Colorado Land Use Commission's paragraph 5-2, Item #G-7. We appreciate the opportunity of being able to review this plat. Very truly yours, 9.C. /-e-i-frt.t.„ A J. C. Kilmer, SR/WA Right of Way Agent P. 0. Box 2688 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 JCK:cr cc: Foster Petroleum Corporation, owner Scarrow and Walker, KKBNA, Inc. Paul Patterson, Mountain Bell Gordon Jones, Mountain Bell RICHARD D. LAMM Governor �I..::....,., DIVISION OF WATER RESOU ESLD Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street - Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Administration (303) 892-3581 Ground Water (303) 892-3587 December 2, 1977 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Jr . te✓ Re: Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. C.J. KUIPER State Engineer Dear Mr. Witkowski: This is to acknowledge receipt of preliminary plan material for the above referenced subdivision. We understand that it is the developer's intent to supply domestic water to the subdivision by means of two proposed alluvial wells with irrigation water being supplied from ditch rights owned by the developer. The developer has made application for permits to construct two commercial wells to serve the subdivision. These applications have been denied, AD -6856 and AD -6857, because it was found that water was not legally available for appropriation. The developer also owns senior irrigation rights in the Van Cleve No. 1 and No. 2 ditches and proposes to use these rights for irrigation in the subdivi- sion and for transfer to the wells to be used for domestic purposes. To accomplish this, the developer must obtain a decree for change in point of diversion and change in use from the Division 5 Water Court for the two wells. Because of the above, we cannot recommend approval of Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. until a decree is granted by the Water Court. Very truly yours, a JAD/GDV:mvf k r. Jeris A. Danielson cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. D-puty State Engineer Ralph Stallman Land Use Comm. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH D E C 1 19/7 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE • DENVER, COLORADO 80220 • PFQf48L75111; ; ,:... Anthony Robbins, M.D., M.P.A. Executive Direct'""." December 6, 1977 Mr. Robert Witkowski Garfield County Planning Dept. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Lake Springs Ranch Request Dear Mr. Witkowski: The Colorado Department of Health has received and reviewed the above mentioned document and offers the following comments: Water Quality & Engineering Division: The Division has no objec- tion to the proposal inasmuch as ultimate responsibility for approval of individual septic systems lies with the County Sani- tarian. However, the recommended percolation rate should be between 5-60 min./in. Test hole number ten exceeds this recom- mendation. If further drilling substantiates these results, a septic system would not prove compatible with the ground condi- tions and an alternate method of sewage disposal may be required. If individual systems are allowed, they must be engineered to fit each site where slope exceeds 30 per cent. In accordance with Senate Bill 35, any development serving more than 20 people must receive site plan approval from the Water Quality Control Commission before construction will be allowed to commence on a central sewer system. In addition, any construction undertaken should strictly adhere to an approved erosion and sedi- ment plan incorporating measures designed to minimize possible con- tamination of area waters. ggb Sincerely, /1 Ron Simsick Program Administrator RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I_: 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) i4Mbdidtt 839-2611 December 6, 1977 1-77 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski Garfield County Planning Dept. 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Witkowski: RE: LAKE SPRINGS RANCH We have reviewed the submittal material along with other available geologic information. It should be noted that although a bedrock geologic map was included there is not a geologic report that describes the local geology and the geologic hazards. This is an S.B. 35 requirement. A review of the H.B. 1041 hazards mapping for this area does not indicate any major problems. There is a concern that a number of lots (lots 6,8,13,14,16;B1k. 5) with steep slopes have poor access and also steep building sites. We wonder what stability problems may be expected when cuts for roads and structures are placed in these steep slopes. • cliN W. ROLD , L....../Director Leach field systems on these steep lots will not only be difficult to construct but depending on bedrock conditions may not junction as designed. Results could be an increase in instability of the slopes due to saturation by effluent or actual surfacing of effluent along road cuts or steep banks. At this time, we cannot recommend approval, with a final recommendation only when we have reviewed a geologic report based on a field check and with the proposed subdivision in mind. Sincerely, L. R. Ladwig Engineering Geologist LRL/vt cc: Land Use ,;ommission GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE Pee Mount So • ris Soil Conservation District 6,1 0 DISTRICTS m AMERICA P.O. Box 1302 - Glenwood Springs, Color coq; -"8-1601 L v 1 2 ,0/ 7" GARFkiZ1 L^ k. �r , December 7, 1977 Mr. Robert Witkowski Garfield County Planner 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Witkowski: The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District Board has reviewed the Lake Springs Ranch Subdivision. We feel this plan is well developed, but we question the use of individual septic tanks. All the subdivisions we have reviewed recently have had individual septic tanks, and we feel these are going to cause pollution to the underground water. We recommend close supervision regarding individual septic tanks. Housing should be confined to the drier sites to prevent water table problems. Sincerely, Richard Cerise Secretary RC/te December 8, 1977 Mr. Robert Witkowski Planning Director of Garfield County 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Witkowski: GARF Li; RE: Foster Petroleum/Your Request of Basalt Water Conservancy District I have reviewed the information you forwarded to Scott Balcomb, Secretary of the Basalt Water Conservancy District. I have the following comments to make on behalf of the District as authorized by its Board of Directors at the last meeting of the Board. You should understand our comments relate only to the legal and physical water supply of the proposed development. We feel it imperative that future purchasers and/or users of units within the development receive in addition to lots, a reasonably dependable water supply. Generally speaking, we see no objectionable features of the development as proposed by Foster Petroleum Corporation. We believe that if the developer takes the appropriate legal steps to insure the legal water supply as described for the development that few or no problems should be anticipated by the ultimate lot purchasers/users. We do, however, recommend that two conditions be imposed upon the developer in order to secure approval of your department. First, you should request the developer to agree not to attempt in the future to utilize "exempt" domestic wells to provide all or any portion of the subdivision water supply (we believe that this is not his intent in any regard and ask this condition only for the effect it should have on ultimate lot purchasers down the road). Second, on the assumption that the area in question will someday be developed to a suburban type density, and that some governmental entity such as Basalt Water Conservancy District ultimately extend centralized water service to this and other areas, that the developer agree as a condition of subdivision approval, to obtain said water supply from said governmental entity when the • Mr. Robert Witkowski December 8, 1977 Page 2 same is offered. By implication, he must also agree to pay a fair and reasonable charge for said water service. The Basalt Water Conservancy District feels that these conditions are in the long range best interest of all parties concerned. If you would request additional input or explanation of the foregoing, do not hesitate to contact me at your con- venience. Very truly yours, BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT By Floyd/Crawford, 'resid-n COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 839-2611 February 3, 1978 Mr. Robert Witkowski Garfield County Planning 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Witkowski: RE: LAKE SPRINGS RANCH SUBDIVISION We have reviewed the Chen and Associates Report on this subdivision (Job No. 14285A Jan. 30, 1978) and find that it has adequately addressed the geology and soils of the site. It appears that the geologic constraints of the site are minimal but that soil conditions are such that individual site specific soil investigations and tests should be required before building permits are issued. With the possiblity of both swelling soils and/or soils that can compress under load when wet being present, this will be very important to assure the long term stability of the structures. If these tests are required, we would have no objection to approval of this proposed subdivision. LRL/vt cc: Land Use Commission Sincerely, • L. R. Ladwig Engineering Geologist GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST .. . KEY TO THE FUTURE JOHN W. ROLD Director RICHARD D. LAMM Governor • DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street - Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Administration (303) 839-3581 Ground Water (303) 839-3587 November 2, 1979 Mr. Ray Baldwin, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Baldwin: • W. R. SMITH Acting State Engineer Re: Lake Springs Ranch This is to acknowledge receipt of amended preliminary plan informa- tion concerning the above referenced subdivision. As requested, we have reviewed this information and find that a dependable water supply plan should be available if the Water Court approves the plan for augmentation (Case No. W-3571). Therefore, we would recommend approval of the pre- liminary plan now and the final plat when the plan for augmentation is decreed. Very truly yours, • Hal D. Simpson, Chief Water Management Branch For: Dr. jeris A. Danielson Deputy State Engineer HDS : mvf cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. Ralph Stallman Land Use Comm. RICHARD D. LAMM Governor DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street - Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Administration (303) 839-3581 Ground Water (303) 839-3587 July 26, 1979 Mr. Ray Baldwin, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Lake Springs Ranch Dear Mr. Baldwin: C.J. KUIPER State Engineer This is to acknowledge receipt of additional information concerning the above referenced subdivision. At present, the water supply plan as presented is not in complete agreement nor is it up-to-date with information on file in this office. The water supply plan as indicated in the pending plan for augmenta- tion (Case No. W-3571) is based upon three wells constructed in the west one-half of Section 33. These wells would supply a central distribution system serving the 193 lots in this filing. The information submitted by the developer does not indicate that well permits were issued by this office on April 2, 1979 for a total annual appropriation of 300 acre-feet. Since the permits have been issued, the plan for augmentation should be able to proceed in the Water Court since it is a prerequisite that a permit must be issued or denied prior to the Water Court considering the matter. We should also point out that the locations of the wells on the water site plan do not agree with the location on the well permits and in the plan for augmentation. The wells as shown on the water site plan are less than 600 feet apart which is not in accordance with our rules and regulations for well construction. In conclusion, it appears that a dependable water supply plan will be available if the Water Court approves the plan for augmentation and the Mr. Ray Baldwin -2- July 26, 1979 wells are constructed at the proper location. Therefore, we would recommend approval of the preliminary plan now and the final plat when the plan for aug- mentation is decreed. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact us. Very ruly yours, JAD/HDS : mvf cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. Ralph Stallman Land Use Comm. Jeris A. Danielson uty State Engineer • STATE OF COLORADO Richard D. Lamm, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Jack R. Grieb, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 (825-1192) Mr. Ray Baldwin, Planning Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Baldwin: AUG 10 1979 4ARii•iElD August 9, 1979 We have received the Lake Springs Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plat and offer comments as follows: Page 9, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE SUMMARY. Second Sentence, Second Paragraph at Page Bottom. "in that light it was recommended that fencing be restricted to buildings and irrigated land, both of which have been included in the Zoning Regulations." Concerning the above, we found that the only place fencing restrictions are mentioned is on Page 7 under COVENANTS (see Item 1. Architectural Committee). Also, the lead paragraph at top of Page 7 implies that the recording of protective covenants will occur as a final step after County Board action. Nevertheless, if DOW is allowed input on fencing stipulations, we enclose for reference a copy of official DOW fence specifications that we hope would be considered in deliberations. Finally, "Dog kenneling requirements" does not provide enough detail under Item 3. Animals on Page 7. Like the "fencing restrictions," we would appreciate more specific direction. Thank you for the opportunity to review this Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. preliminary plat. BB:dh Enclosure cc: Perry Olson Mary Smith Rick Adams Sincerely Bert Baker Wildlife Program Specialist DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris Sherman, Executive Director • WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Michael Higbee, Chairman Wilbur Redden, Vice Chairman • Sam Caudill, Secretary • Jean K. Tool, Member • Vernon C. Williams, Member James Smith, Member • Donald Fernandez, Member • Richard Divelbiss, Member Jt'cil� G wtC� L xe. 1)- ? C 0.1 B1 NATION \w! E. FENCE: q 11, 147E it .i -i, 34" LJ 1 STn.:D!J D It.STALLATIUN ( Required along Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Division o' Wildlife lands) BARBED .WIRE FENCE 42" d 4_t L� ALTERNATE ( Where 26" mesh is not acceptable to landowner.) it 4.,30" ��f1 T _;/1704 2" .-4_ , 1- l6„ STANDARD IN 5TALLATION ••-t/ �`4rmay M c +c: 4 Po .15 i` LI �.�p�W� a ` t ALTERNATE ( For blow -sand and tumbleweed _areas, if desired by landowner.) RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR AUG .E 1979 jj JOHN W. ROLD ,-1.4...„„/ Director GU. r IMIAER COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 839-2611 August 3, 1979 Garfield County Planning Department Attn: Mr. Ray Baldwin 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Baldwin: RE: LAKE SPRINGS RANCH In our letter to your office on February 3, 1978, we indicated that we had reviewed the Engineering Geologic Report by Chen and Associates, Inc. for this subdivision. The current preliminary plat indicates that construction will avoid many of the steeper slopes on the site. This will play a major role in reducing potential future slope stability problems on the property. We feel that if the recommendations made in the Chen report are followed, this property can be safely developed as currently proposed. JNP/dks cc: Land Use Commission Sincerely, aures N. Price Engineering Geologist GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE IIIIIIIIPPF P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 Mount SSris Soil Conservation District August 1, 1979 Mr. Ray Baldwin Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 1979 Dear Ray: The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District Board has reviewed the Lake Springs Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan. The Spring Valley area has several subdivisions and CMC located in a relatively small area. The Lake Springs Ranch Subdivision calls for 192 single family lots on its own. We feel that a central sewage system for the entire area should be considered. The Health Department should be aware of the potential problems and make sure the waters of Spring Valley are not polluted. Consider a possibility of the sewer district including Los Amigos and Lake Springs areas as well as CMC. We also feel that the irrigation rights should be addressed, as the water should be kept at a usable supply at all times with the use of a rotation system. According to the soils write-up in the preliminary plan, an on-site investigation will be made before construction of buildings. We agree with this because of the variation of the soil characteristics in the area. Provisions are made for open space and for the owners to have horses, etc. We feel there should be some type of pasture management to go along with the completed subdivision plan. If grazing is not controlled, there will be nothing but annual weeds in a few years. Sincerely, -07.1.1.44-4) Richard Cerise Secretary RC/te CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH r, Th tr,, DEC 6 7979 RARFJELU l.U. ro.4i4ER 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 80220 PHONE 320– 8333 Anthony Robbins, M.D., M.P.A. Executive Director DATE: December 4, 1979 SUBJECT: NON -STATE ASSISTANCE REVIEW AND COMMENTS TO: Ray Baldwin Planning Director Garfield County Planning Dept. 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PROJECT TITLE: Subdivision Review - Lake Springs Ranch - Garfield County, Amended Preliminary Plat STATE IDENTIFIER: COMMENTS DUE BY: Yes No U Is this project consistent with the goals and —1 objectives of this agency? Yesi I No II Is there evidence of overlapping of duplica- tion with other agencies? Yes{I No IJ Is meeting desired with applicant? YesLj No LI A 15 -day extension is requested. Comments: (ADDITIONAL) Air Pollution Control: The effect of a single development of this size may be very small on the total air quality level in the area. The cumulate effect of numerous developments of this size are of concern. Activities during the normal construction phase, such as earth -moving, are relatively short in duration and can be effectively con- trolled by various measures. The same is not true for the ongoing air quality impacts such as reentrainment of dust and dirt from both paved and unpaved roads, direct automobile emissions, and emissions from fire- places. These emissions, added to similar emissions for other developments, coupled with the unique meteorology of mountain communities, may have a considerable air quality impact. This has been seen in a number of areas, SOC -3, Feb 77 Name, Title 6 Phone ATTACHMENT B Air Pollution Control - Page 2 Additional Comments on Lake Springs Ranch Subdivision including Aspen and Vail. The air quality impacts of a single subdivision cannot effectively be dealt with from the State level. It is local governments who must weigh the cumulative environmental impact of growth and development in light of local needs and desires and overall environmental standards. In a number of our comments (Colorow at Squaw Creek, June 22, 1979) we have pointed out the basic sources of pollution from subdivision developments and some control measures which can be used. Our comments would be the same for any major (over 25 acres) development. Furthermore, our concerns for the cumulative impacts, especially with respect to auto -related emissions, continues to grow. /K r �� .Y _, !� vMzcki Barnes, Program Admilist ator • • AUG 1 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 3 1979 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE • DENVER, COLORADO 80220 • PHONE 3-20-8333 Frank Traylor, M.D., Executive Director DATE: August 9, 1979 SUBJECT: NON -STATE ASSISTANCE REVIEW AND COMMENTS TO: Mr. Ray Baldwin Planning Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PROJECT TITLE: Preliminary Plat - Lake Springs Ranch Subdivision STATE IDENTIFIER: NA COMMENTS: Air Pollution Control COMMENTS DUE: August 13, 1979 The effects of a single development of this size may be very small on the total air quality level in the area. The cumulative effects of numerous developments arise. During the construction/grading phase there will be the potential of generating substantial fugitive dust emissions from the following: 1) earth moving and grading activities, 2) movement of vehicles on unpaved roads, 3) wind erosion from stripped areas, and, 4) tracing of dirt onto paved roadways and subsequent reentrainment. Normal control measures employed to reduce the air quality impact of the above are: 1) watering and limiting the acreage of graded to that on which construction will occur in a six-month period, 2) paving of heavily trafficked roadways; wazztering, chemical stabilization of lower volume roadways, 3) revegetation and limiting areas stripped, and, 4) clean-up of mud and dirt carryout. Following initial development the major sources of emissions will be: 1) emis- sions from vehicles moving on unpaved roads, 2)dust reentrained by auto traffic on paved roads, 3) wind erosion from exposed areas, 4) emissions from fireplaces, and, 5) motor vehicle emissions. Normal control measures for the above sources are as follows: 1) paving, watering, chip seal, chemical stabilization of unpaved roads, 2) installation of curbs and gutters, cleaning of major roadways, 3) revegetation of exposed areas, 4) control burning periods if proven a major contributor to pollution levels, and, 5) at- tempt to encourage ride -sharing and alternative means of transportation to reduce vehicle miles travelled. Name, Title Micki Barnes, Program Administrator SOC -3, Jan 79 ROBERT DE.LANEY KENNETH BALCO MEI JOHN A.THULSON EDWARD MULHALL,JR. ROBERT C. CUTTER SCOTT M, BALCOMB DAVID R. STURGES LAWRENCE R. GREEN DELANEY & BALCOMB ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAWER 790 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 October 4, 1979 Mr. Duncan L. Sinnock Real Estate Investment Manager Foster Petroleum Corporation 242 Main Street Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Mr. Sinnock: 0 C i 1979 818 COLORADO AVENUE 945-6546 TELEPHONE 945-2371 AREA CODE 303 You have heretofore petitioned the Board of Directors of the Basalt Water Conservancy District for service of water either pursuant to the Basalt Project Decrees or its Ruedi Reservoir source of supply. If, as is the general case, your water supply is contemplated to be for new development, the Resolution requires the County Planning Commission to adopt procedures whereby in providing the water service the Board of Directors of the Basalt Water Conservancy District does not adversely affect the county land use planning function. Accordingly, at this date the Board is unable to act upon your request either affirmatively or negatively. We recommend that you contact the appropriate County Planning Agency to determine what procedure, if any, has been adopted for obtaining service from the Basalt Water Conservancy District and to follow that procedure if you wish to obtain the water service contemplated at the time you made the request. Any question you may have may be directed to the undersigned. Thank you. Very truly yours, DELANEY AND BALCOMB By Scott Balcomb SB:sjg cc: Garfield County Planner Board of Directors of Basalt Water Conservancy Distract Roaring Fork School District RE -1 P.O. Box 820 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone (303) 945-6558 August 15, 1979 M4. Ray Ba2.dwLn Ga46iad County P.2annen. 2014 & .aEze Avenue Glenwood Spi ngb , Co.eotado 81601 RE: Lake Sp/Ling.!) Ranch P.U.D. NICHOLAS R. MASSARO, Superintendent DWIGHT lb,.,,J-1 LM, Assistant Superintendent WALLA M. `PARKEZi Assistant Superintendent, Business • Zi• AUG z G 199 GARP/p4 CO. , Dean Ray: The Boand o6 Education o6 the Roo/Ling Eo4k Schoo.e Vi taict is 4ecommend ng the donation o6 one acne o6 £c.nd On each 6i6ty homebite6 in connection with the above stated P.U.D. This would be 3.86 acvices based upon the p wpo4ed tota.e ob 193 units. The Board og Education atzo deicAi.ptLon o6 said donated waxen and 6ewen to pnope. ty wowed be changed the ichoot wate4 and sewer tines. ne4pect6utty nequeata that .hand contain p4ov.L Lona aiiun i ng £-Lnei and atzo that no tap bees distnu,ct 04 hooking on to P.eeaie Pnee to contact me 04 bwcthen in6o4matLon. SLncene.ey you 4, ate (/ o2.as R. Massa/to RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 839-2611 November 23, 1979 Mr. Ray Baldwin Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 NOV 2 7 1979 Dear Mr. Baldwin: RE: LAKE SPRINGS RANCH JOHN W. ROLD Director We have reviewed the information submitted regarding this amended preliminary plat. We have no objection to the approval of this application if individual, site- specific foundation studies are conducted at each building site and if central sewerage treatment is provided. Conflicting statements in the various portions of the submittal indicate that individual septic/leachfield systems might be used. Given the planned density of this development we must strongly recommend that indi- vidual septic systems not be allowed due to the likelihood of overloading the surface soils and contamination of both surface and ground water associated with the site. JLH/gp cc: Land Use Commission Yours ver truly, Hynes En' Veering Geologist GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE ROBERT DELANEY KENNETH BALCOMB JOHN A.THULSON EDWARD M ULHALL, JR. ROBERT C. CUTTER SCOTT M, BALCOMB DAVID R. STURGES LAWRENCE R. GREEN DELANEY & BALCOMB ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAWER 790 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 November 15, 1979 Mr. Ray Baldwin, Planning Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Ray: NOV r 1979 ,isi_iEft 818 COLORADO AVENU 945 6546 TELEPHONE 945-2371 AREA CODE 303 RE: Lake Springs Ranch I have reviewed the material you supplied me with under mailing date of October 29, 1979 with respect to the above referenced development. As usual, we are reviewing the material on behalf of the Basalt Water Conservancy District with that District's concern that development have an adequate legal supply of water in mind. I might point out that the opinion of the Wright Water Engineers itself points out that this developer has already contacted the Basalt Water Con- servancy District for the purpose of obtaining a legal water supply to the development. This, as I am sure you are aware, constitutes an adequate supply in the District's eyes. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Very truly yours, DELANEY AND,j$.ALCOMB r By SB:pc Scott Balcomb • Roaring Fork School District RE -1 P.O. Box 820 Glenwood Springs , Colorado 81601 Telephone (303) 945-6558 November 13, 1979 Mn. Ray ba.edw.in Gan6.ietd County P!annen 2014 &size Avenue G.€enwaod Sp/I,ings, Co.Lonado 81601 RE: Lake Sp.'uLng4 Ranch P.U.D. 1 Nov NICHOLAS R. MASSARO S�i iiitififgettA �� DWIGHT L. HELM, Assistant Superintennt P tit 1,:�p WALLACE M. PARKER, Assistant Superintendent,ss 14 1979 Dean Ray: On November 12, 1979, ROWL.Lng Fotk Schao.L Vi ttr ict Board o6 Education nev.iewed the revs. ed p!a t o6 Lake Sp/ ing4 Ranch. The Boated o6 Education ov the Raan.ing Fa/Lk Schao.L DLstn ict is recommending the donation of one acte o6 .Land on.. each Ui�ty homesites in connection with the above stated P.U.D. an money in £-Leu oU. This would be 4.2 cw es based upon the pna pob ed total o4 210 units. . The Baand of Education also nespect6utty requests that .Land is donated, the descaiption o6 said donated tai -id contain paov.is-i.ons asawc.Lng wateh and sewer to prapenty tines and a.Lso that no tap lees would be charged the schoo.e dist/Lief 6 or hoofing on to wateh and s ave& tines. P2.ease 6ee.L free to contact me Oa 6unth L , n�atcrlatLon. puts, (D\ ✓iL ^.. e4l 14 (fiJ IL ' s.to NNc ott s R. Mabsano h.l IIIIIIIIIPF P.O. BOX 1302 GLENW''60D.SR.R,INGS, COLORADO 81601 Mount ,ris Soil Conservation District November 7, 1979 Mr. Ray Baldwin Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Ray: NOV 1979 GRRfieLD L'U itiotto The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District Board has reviewed the preliminary plan for the Lake Springs Ranch. The subdivision will have several acres of land which will be used as open space. If this area is to be used for grazing, it is impor- tant to develop a plan on utilizing the area, but not over -grazing it. This plan should be based on using 50% of the annual growth and a method of grazing to defer one area each year or time of use. This subdivision plan indicates they own several cfs of water. The plan should indicate how this water is to be distributed. If each lot is to receive a portion of the water, a system for distribution is needed before construction begins. Sincerely, Richard Cerise Secretary RC/te CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT WILLIAM H. NELSON GREGORY K. HOSKIN JOHN W. GROVES ANTHONY F. PRINSTER FREDERICK G. ALDRIGH GREGG K. KAMPF EDWARD A. LIPTON GURTIS G. TAYLOR NELSON, HOSKIN, GROVES & PRINSTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW MONUMENT BUILDING, SUITE 400 200 GRAND AVENUE P. 0. BOX 40 GRAND JUNCTION. COLORADO 81502 TELEPHONE 242-4903 AREA CODE 303 February 27, 1984 Jerry W. Raisch, Esq. Vranesh and Raisch 2120 13th Street Post Office Box 871 Boulder, Colorado 80306 Re: Spring Valley Ranch - PUD and Landis Sanitation District Dear Mr. Raisch: THEODORE ALLEGRA KATH LEEN PULLEY JOHNSON DAVID A. YOUNGER BARBARA L. W1DI(iK DAVID M. SGANOA On the invitation in your January 18, 1984 letter, representatives of Los Amigos Ranch Partnership and Spring Valley Sanitation District attended the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting January 30, 1984. We were disappointed not only that you were not there, but the developer had no intention of discussing the crucial issues of mutual concern. At this point, it is our belief that the application of Spring Valley Ranch PUD should be denied or indefinitely continued. FGA:ks xc: Thomas E. Neal Gary Goldman F. Malcolm Wall Walt Brown Dean Gordon Very truly yours, F ederick G. Aldrich FEi UFO' FOSTER PETROLEUM CORPORATION 242 MAIN STREET CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 303.963.3200 February 23, 1984 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mark, I wanted to confirm with this letter our phone conversation of earlier this week in which you stated that in your opinion, after reviewing the documents and minutes of both the P&Z and County Commissioners hearings, Foster's obligation was to surface that portion of the existing County Road 114 from CMC to Lake Springs Ranch not to include the re -building of County Road 114. However, if the road obligation is not spelled out in the County Commissioner's Preliminary Approval, is the obligation still there? At least, Mark, I will use the distance and hard surfacing in my cost analysis and assume that that's the worst we can see in road improvement outlays. Sincerely, Duncan L. Sinnock Real Estate Investment Manager DLS/ah ';) 't 14 tiU r^r1 foMM 1ST k' I' ETROLEUM COR' 242 MAIN STREET CAR tONDALE, COLORAIP- 81 303-963-3200 February 21, 1984 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mark, AT ION 23 • ,"r1 F :32 9 1984 GA4tia.0 co. PLANNER Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter from Jerry Raisch who is the attorney for Landis Sanitation District. As you can see, the opinion of Vranesh and Raisch is that should the Landis Sanitation District be formed, there is no statutory reason why the Spring Valley Sanitation District would be forced by state statute to join the Landis District. Mark, I would like for you to think about this particular situation and the situation with the Carmichaels who are neighbors of the Spring Valley Ranch people. In both of these situations, criticism of the Spring Valley Sanitation District were answered by the Landis District. I would like to suggest to you that when criticism is made, that the individual making the criticism support and document the criticism himself. In the case of the Carmichaels, they said in public meetings that the sanitation plant of the valley floor would ruin their view. Nobody asked them to define what "ruin their view" meant and nobody asked them to document how much view damage there would be. We went to the expense of having photographs taken and having the Sanitation facility super- imposed to scale on the photographs of the views taken from the Carmichael's porch. When the photographs were made available, the effect on the view was shown to be virtually nil. In the case of Mr. Wall's statement that they would be forced to join us by state statute, we had to go to our attorney and pay him to research the files and document the fact that Mr. Wall's statement is untrue. In both cases, the developer has been forced to spend money to refute claims which in my opinion should have been supported and documented in the first place. If you had simply said to Mr. Wall that if he felt that Spring Valley Sanitation District would be forced to join Landis Sanitation District, then he should support that feeling with chapter and verse. In fact, Mark, I would suggest that the county Planning Department consider as a policy change a requirement that public comment regarding subdivisions being reviewed by the Planning Department should be supported and documented or they will be striken from the record. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department February 21, 1984 Page 2 To me, this is an extremely important step, Mark and one which I probably will not get off of until its implemented. Thank you for your attention to this matter and I hope that the enclosure will enable you to respond to Malcomb on this issue and that, in the future, you will be able to handle some of these comments in a new way. I am looking forward to seeing you soon. Sincerely, Ceimea,,_/41,;, DLS/ah Enclosure cc: Henry Kane Spring Valley Holdings Duncan L. Sinnock `4`Q) Real Estate Investment Manager GEORGE VRANESH JERRY W. RAISCH JOHN R. HENDERSON MICHAEL D. SHIMMIN VRANESH AND RAISCH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2120 131.0 STREET P. 0. BOX 871 BOULDER, COLORADO 80306 TELEPHONE 303/443-6151 February 15, 1984 Duncan L. Sinnock Real Estate Investment Manager Foster Petroleum Corporation 242 Main Street Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District -- Statutory Requirements for Joining Landis Sanitation District EUGENE J. RIORDAN PAUL J. ZILIS Dear Duncan: You have asked us whether the Spring Valley Sanitation District would be required to join the Landis Sanitation District upon formation of the latter. This question is motivated, as we understand the situation, by a conversation you had with one of the County Planners. A representative of the Spring Valley Sanitation District apparently told this Planner that formation of the Landis Sanitation District would force Spring Valley Sanitation District to join Landis. We don't believe this is true. In response to your question, Gene Riordan and I have reviewed the Special District Act, C.R.S. §32-1-101 et seq., which governs the formation of special districts and the subsequent operation of special districts. We were unable to find any statutory provision that would mandate the inclusion of Spring Valley Sanitation District into Landis once Landis is formed. The Special District Act does provide for consolidation of special districts and does provide for inclusion of additional territory into a special district. But both consolidations and inclusions require some sort of mutual assent. See C.R.S. §32-1-401(2) and §32-1-602. In short, without more information concerning the factual and legal bases for Spring Valley's representation to the County Planner, we believe that there is no statutory requirement for forcing Spring Valley to join Landis upon the formation of Landis. Duncan L. Sinnock February 15, 1984 Page 2 I hope this has answered your question. If you want further clarification, please call. Sincerely, VRANESH AND RAISCH JWR:clm • • SUPPLEMENT LAKE SPRINGS RANCH PUD APPLICATION PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN Domestic Wastewater Wastewater treatment will consist of central sewage collection and treatment. Total wastewater flow is estimated at 68,000 GPD based on 100 gpc/d. Treatment will be at an areawide facility located to serve this development, Los Amigos PUD, and CMC. The existing CMC facility will be upgraded to meet the proposed total design capacity and to meet current State and Federal standards. CMC has previously agreed in prinipal to the use of the existing facility for arewide treatment. LEG• BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION Said Planned Unit Development consists of 195 residential dwelling units and is located in Section 32, Section 33 and Section 34 all in Township 6 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian and also Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian more particularly described as follows: A parcel of land situated in Lots 5 and 6, Section 32, Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 and the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 33, SW1/4SW1/4 of Section 34 all in Township 6 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian and also Lots 2, 3, and 9 of Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield State of Colorado, according to General Land Office Plats dated and approved April 29, 1893, of Township 6 South, Range 88 West and Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian and also according to General Land Office Plat dated and ap- proved June 11, 1908 of Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Quarter Corner common between Section 33, Township 6 South, Range 88 West and Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 88 West being a Lava Stone properly marked and set; thence N. 89°42'46" W. 2504.15 feet between said Sections and also the South lines of Lots 20 and 21 of Section 33 to the Southwest Corner of Lot 20, Section 33, whence the Southwest corner of Section 33 bears: N. 89°42'46" W. 175.56 feet; thence N. 01°53'48" E. 2065.00 feet along a fence in place and also between Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20, Section 33 to the Northwest Corner of Lot 17, Section 33; thence N. 87°15'05" W. 199.50 feet between Lots 9 and 18 of Section 33 to a point on the line between Section 32 and 33, whence the Quarter Corner common to Section 32 and 33 bears: N. 01°14'01" E. 511.58 feet to an iron post with a brass cap properly set and marked; thence N. 87°15'05" W. 1179.82 feet between Lots 6 and 7 of Section 32 to the Southwest Corner of Lot 6, Section 32; thence N. 01°41'27" E. 1295.50 feet between Lots 3, 5, 6, & 7 of Section 32 to the Northwest corner of Lot 5, being in the center-one of County Road No. 119; thence S. 89°05'51" E. 2696.30 feet along the traveled area of said road and eventually leaving said road and. between Lots 4 and 5 of Section 32 and Lots 4, 5, 7, and 8 of Section 33 to the Northeast Corner of Lot 7, Section 33 being one foot southerly of a fence Corner; thence S. 01°55'45" W. 838.37 feet along a fence in place and between Lots 6 and 7 of Section 33 to the Southeast Corner of Lot 7, being also the East-West centerline of Section 33; thence S. 88°28'36" F. 3624.12 feet between Lots 6, 11, 12 and the SW1/4NE1/4, SE1/4SE1/4 • • and NE1/4SE1/4 of Section 33, being also the East-West centerline of Section 33 to the Quarter Corner between Sections 33 and 34, being a Lava Stone properly set and marked; thence S. 03°53'31" E. 1236.27 feet between said Sections and also between the NE1/4SE1/4 of Section 33 and the NW1/4SW1/4 of Section 34 to the Southeast Corner of the NE1/4SE1/4 of Section 33; thence N. 89°02'17" E. 1365.61 feet between the NW1/4SW1/4 and SW1/4SW1/4 of Section 34 to the Northeast Corner SW1/4SW1/4 of Section 34; thence S. 02°50'09" E. 1215.09 feet between the SW1/4SW1/4 and the SE1/4SW1/4 of Section 34 to the Southeast Corner SW1/4SW1/4 of Section 34 being also on the inter- secting pont between Sections 34, Township 6 South, Range 88 West and Section 3, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; thence S. 88°10'31" W. 1342.31 feet between said Sections and also the South line of the SW1/4SW1/4 of Section 34 to the Corner common to Sections 33 and 34, Township 6 South, Range 88 West and Sections 3 and 4, Tonwship 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; thence N. 89°52'15" W. 1127.59 feet between Section 33, Township 6 South, Range 38 West and Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, being also between Lot 13, Section 33 and Lot 1, Section 4 of said Township, to the Northeast Corner of Lot 2, Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 88 West; thence S. 00°19'29" E. 490.00 feet between Lots 1 and 2, Section 4 to the Southeast Corner of Lot 2 of said Section • • 4; thence N. 89°51'06" W. 218.38 feet between Lots 1 and 2 of said Section 4 to the Northeast Corner of Lot 9; thence S. 00°11'22" W. 852.20 feet between Lot 1 and Lot 9 of said Section 4; thence N. 89°49'27" W. 1330.86 feet along the South line of Lot 9, Section 4 to the Southwest corner of Lot 9, being the same as the North-South centerline of Section 4; thence N. 00°16'06" W. 1341.07 feet along the North-South centerline of Section 4, also being the West lines of Lots 3 and 9 of Section 4 to the Point of Beginning: said parcel of land contains 441.76 acres, more or less. LAND SURVEYORS TOe Hr. Duncan Si nock fli... Letter from Mr. Hopkins dated May 1, 1979 1fiii appears that ,:1 d } , ! be forced :o•m:ke a judgment )eYeei the work rt the m that continue 'L:... d°Ii,Y' �`�--('i t, i ;� and "C!i.. claims +~f �, t, 1 am making. ,� CGiI t;'I n��c to completely disagree ee with the idea that an activated sludge facility L] (,; is cost-effective Ci{UarCu to aerated lrgol:aI feel that you are w co being asked to accept cce L a needlessly eedIess complex o plea and operation oriented f`Lfacility and that acceptance will cost both you and the proposed m CJ C District in terms of capital and 0 to i'i costs. W a. Ci) 0 S•!6at 1 do nut. gree with the aerated lagoon design of W - M, 1 will 8 use .1•y est i.!!ate $296,000.00, '.f 2 % cn Q my i i. _ �,'{ which includes Jio contingency, and arbitrarily add $50,000.00 to account partially for our di i L!..1 r t, estimating s' 7 q a present W i•^ci :-ill. in and sizing, :1i:1� use $350,000.00 �Jf� J 4^.o i,it analysis. 1 will use the d^ -J'! figure of $435,000.00 for an La, activated sludge facility and aged to it the deleted contingency CONSULTING CL) T :✓ 1 have calculated a horsepower requirement of 30 hp for aerated Q W lagoons • . n_ and 42p for an activated sludge facility, 1 disagree tea.)l_,C7y 1i%3 t:_ horsepower requirements in the W. analysis. is e SS •. ,,� } e art f & M used, as O iJ`:. i" costs assumed (.a;i;� to _?• part of the0 costs 1 'l:$ .� � developed i the following O511:SeC•(;'iCi!, factor of 25% for a total of $544,000.00 for comparative purposes. Z w I am going to repeat some of the figures es 1vav you previously 0 =' on 0 & N costs at various facilities on the WWest ;dope. 1 think O �> it is obvious that 0 u i•'i costs for aerated lagoons is not C greater 0 `` than for al. Ci vt ,, Ci sludge i n actual practice, contrary to what w is suggested in 'i;h`. W-;'1 analysis. The following table includes power costs and salary costs but not sinking fund or dePreci a ti on costs for various treatment facility locations. ELDORADO ENGINEERING ("') C0 Ounan 7, 19.L) 172J3LE 0 &.M Costs Community Treatment Budget Flow Cost ($/1000 gpd) Crtiondale Sanitation AS $84,000 225,000 gpd $373/1000 (-.pd Rd—toe Sanitation AS $27,000 20,000 gpd $1350/1000 gpd Eagle Sanitation h.) ,,, $35,000 100,000 gpd $350/1000 gpd West Glenwood AS $86,000 150,000 gpd $573/1000 gpd kangely Sanitation . Lagoon $40,009 150,000 gpd $256/1000 qpd Rifle Lagoon $51,500 400,000 gpd $129/1000 gpd AS $ 3,000 250,000 gpd $ 20/1000 gpd W -H As -Service Plan $33,500 250,000 gpd $154/1000 gpd W -k Lagoon $26,300 250,000 gpd $105/1000 gpd Eldorado AS $ 55,000 250,000 cod $220/1000 gp(j El 6:ri-,:ldo Lagoon $-42,000 250,003 gpd $168/1000 gpd ,,. Duncan Si:!iiUCk iiy7, 197.9 Paa Three do not i s `.`nderstand the `)resent worth analysis the letter and ` � J ' I'm not sure 1 can Coordinate the Various 0 & M costs referred ,o in the final service plan to the letter. Therefore, 1 cannot Co, - ie t 71 ; present worth analysis. _Jon he numbers I developed the present esent ;orth analysis Fields fol 1 L .`i i n i l . Activated Sludge 2. Aerated a.ed $1,833,990 $ 762,355 1 iClike also to refer again to two analyses done on 1 1G0 facilities. The first rst study wjs done on Rifle bpi NHPQ in l 9/ d and ,.h•, second V Engineering ring in 1974 (keep in mind lain e saris aerated lagoon ec;u i wai i ). The numbers are important only to the extent of comparing activated sludge to aerated lagoons in each case. A. TABLF TYPICAL rP RTIV ; STUDIES Rifle Activated - Aerated Lagoon B. Hinda Analysis - Activated Sludge Aerated Lagoon Capital Cost 0 & l Cost $2,750,000 ($2.7 /gallon) 5(13,250 ($0.51/gallon) $1,115,000 ($l . 11/gal ion) $ 425,000 (r0.43/gal bili) $230,000 $230/1000 gpd) $ 53,250 ($53/l003 gpd) 30,800 ($30/1000 god) $ 17,1:x8 ($17/1000 gpd) As you can see neither of these studies feels that activated sludge is cos t -e i i esti Ve compared to aerated lagoons. • • S.innoc;: May 7, Pi2 conOusion, 1 -ftel that. t;i2iiysi s 'one to arrive a the proposal for an a.ctivated sludg facility do not adequ:2AL,ly refn,ct th true costs involvej. RONALLJC. MCLAUGHLIN KENNETH R WRIGHT HALFORD E. ERICKSON DOUGLAS T. ",OVERN WILLIAM C.'7.''OGART THOMAS W. MORRIS JIMMIE D. WHITFIELD JOHN T. MCLANE DAVID J. LOVE RONALD B. CLONINGER rIT-McLAUGHLIN ENGINEER ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Dean Gordon Eldorado Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 669 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Dean: 2420 ALCOTT STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80211 (303) 459-6201 Glenwood Springs Tel. 945-7755 May 1, 1979 COMPLETE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN THE THE -SPECIALTY FIELDS OF WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT SEWAGE COLLECTION AND REUSE STORM DRAINAGE FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER WATER -ORIENTED PROJECTS RE: Spring Valley Sanitation District During our April 23, 1979 meeting in Eagle, Colorado, Wright -McLaughlin Engineers was requested to develop a cost comparison of aerated lagoons versus activated sludge for the proposed Spring Valley Sanitation District sewage treatment plant. Cost estimates were based on the preliminary design for each system as out- lined below. A present worth analysis was also done in order to determine the most cost effective system. The cost estimate shown in the preliminary service plan dated April, 1979 is a conservative estimate. Service plan cost estimates are limiting and should have higher safety factors built in so that there is enough money to build the system. the design criteria for sizing both the aerated sludge systems is based on a peak rate of 450,000 gallons per day, an average daily flow of 250,000 gallons per day and an influent BODS of 220 mg/liter. Design Criteria - Aerated Lagoons In cold temperatures it is necessary to lengthen detention times for per- formance reliability. Ice covers tend to result in loss of pond volume and therefore detention time. Recommended total detention time at the SVSD site is 35 days. Two types of aerated lagoon systems were investigated and sized using the following parameters: Type 1 Description Detention Time Pond 1 (Fully mixed) 5 days Pond 2 (Maintain 1-2 mq/I D.O.) 20 days Pond 3 (Settling pond) 10 days BRANCH OFFICES ASPEN P.O. BOX 5028 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Type 2 Pond 1 (Fully dispersed) 15 days Pond 2 (Maintain 1-2 mg/1 D.Q.) 15 days Pond 3 (Settling pond) 5 days DILLON LAKE P.O. BOX 1171 FRISCO, COLORADO 60443 GLENW00D SPRINGS P.O. BOX 1286 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS P.O. BOX 5220 STEAMBOAT VILLAGE, COLORADO 80493 LEAD/DEADWOOD 93 SHERMAN DEADWOOD, SOUTH DAKOTA 57732 May 1, 1979 Page 3 2, Draft tube channel Pretreatment Draft tube channel Chlorination (Aeration requirement 10 HP) Total Estimated Capital Costs Present Worth $ 30,000. 300,000 18,000 $348,000 The present worth of each system was evaluated assuming an 8 percent interest rate over 20 years. It was assumed that salaries for District employees were equal in all systems. Power costs were the only variable and a rate of 5c/kwh was used. System Present Worth 1. Activated sludge 2. Deep tube channel 3. Aerated lagoon Conclusion $489,600 391,200 573,900 The aerated lagoon system has a lesser initial capital cost. However, because of poor oxygen transfer efficiency, energy requirements are approximately twice that of the complete mixed activated sludge system and five times that of the draft tube channel system. Over a 20 year period, the activated sludge system is more cost effective. Very truly yours, WRIGHT-McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERS By y" John Hopkins JH:ad 792-32 May 1, 1979 Page 2 for comparison, detention time for aerated lagoon systems i,n operation in Colorado are listed below: Location Louisville Niwot Silverton Telluride Total Detention Time 24,3 days 40 days 30 days 30 days The recommended aeration system is a static tube aerator system. (Surface aerators are not recommended for high altitude service.) The disadvantage of aerated lagoons is that there is a low oxygen transfer efficiency in th} range of 5 to 6 percent. The capital cost estimate for the SVSD aerated lagoon system is: Pretreatment Excavation with backfill at $2.35/c.y. Pond lining at 30C/SF Aeration 60 HP Blower building Piping Chlorination Design Criteria - Activated Sludge $ 30,000 98,000 30,700 90,000 9,000 40,000 18;000 $315,700 Two types of activated sludge systems were investigated and sized. They are: o Complete mix activated sludge o Draft tube channels The submerged turbines used in the complete mix activated sludge system have an oxygen transfer efficiency of 11 to 12 percent. The draft tube channel has an oxygen transfer efficiency of 40 percent or more. The capital cost estimates for the SVSD activated sludge system is: 1. Complete mixed activated sludge Pretreatment Activated sludge, chlorinator Aerobic digestor Sludge drying beds (Aerator requirements 30 HP) $ 30,000 290,000 90,000 25,000 Total estimated Capital Costs $435,000 F°si' PETROLEUM CO OO AT(W Ni( ,:; ;-,-1777 1, 242 MAIN STREET, �. ,.. CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 ' JUL 1 CI 1979 Gr,fi4;...'..c7 COUCIiY Cr ';1. CEr;SE....... JOLLEY .� V V ELAS QU EZ .... :............. FILE ............. July 13, 1979 Gentlemen: The subject of this letter is the Sanitation District presently being formed to include CMC, Los Amigos Ranch and Lake Springs Ranch. It is Foster Petroleums position that the public welfare will be served best if the County Commissioners refused to approve the formation of this district unless an impartial panel is established for the purpose of choosing the type of treatment plant to be installed. I would suggest that the County Commissioners choose the membership of such a panel and that perhaps the County Planner would be one of the members. The reason for this position is to insure that the taxpayers who will support the district are considered with respect to the cost of the installations. As you know the front end cost of developing a district are the responsibility of the developer. However, it is evident that the property owners ultimately will pay those front end costs in the price of their lots. In addition those same property owners must pay for the maintenance of the facility as well as the amortization of the installation for the entire time that they own their property. For these reasons we believe that the decision as to the type of the system to be utilized should not be left up to the installing engineering firm but rather an impartial body whose primary interest is cost effective service for the taxpayers. I would be happy to discuss this in detail and answer any questions you may have upon request. Sincerely, \/ ( t'w 61) SURVEYORS 0 z J 0 w cc t— m C7 cc cn w C7 z w U� lD C) L) rn (4) 0 CO COLORADO 81601 v) 0 z 0 U) / GLENWOOD ca P r x _) m z U ° It remains my opinion that the proposed District is buying a facility tnu't: is too expensive and too complicated. It looks like now only f;:e will e t �, ..� t bJ ) had an "Gl 1 1 t verify trii.ii;, As a parting salvo on this subject, .( a opportunity todayto review as part •of a project ia have in %,7 ;L)y a rice t1 r completestudy ^oi r u• Si;t tion District, Th .,) completed for the Gypsum JarJl i The study compared activated sludge to aerated lagoons ° a r t ' ;; ] li r' a flow i) i� . of 2 0.,1)'00 gpd. We couldn't ask for a better third party opinion! r. Nay 18, 1979 Er. Duncan Sinnock FosterPtroleum P.O. Box 698 Carbondale, CO 81623 JUL 2 C 1979 GARriELL) GO.--% RE: Lake Springs Ranch/Los Amigos Wastewater Treatment Dear Duncan: feel we won all the battles but lost te war. Even though we are doing. to participate in the construction of the activated sludge plant 1ta ec rid- ' S that take ?'� 5 li.t �1�J.t. on •S.��O:sudi',� ��i�?:, only, � urge "i;il�ti, you L?;.? .c.1 active part in reviewing the progress of the design and more importantly review the costs associated with the facility, both design and construction. Your one refraining check on the cost of the facility is comparing the construction bi l cost. with the estimates previously presented in the Service 1,1,1 and sI.jrse:lu nt -�. r1 letter to Hie Hr. Hopkins. � t1 COMPANY ELDORADO ENGINEERiNG 11.1 The study was done by i\{' l'iA and concluded that the activated si Es it ates were as follows: N m Activated Sludge Aerated Lagoon Capital Cost Annual 0 & M Cost $46,000 ;337,000 $20,000 $10000 • Duncan Sinnock C;ay 18, 1979 Page Two Again the absolute values are not as important as the relative ntii.:Ibers. It might also be noted that the design detention time is 14 days. sincerely, Dean W. Gordon D'A/j1w xc: Mr. Ron Liston Mr. Dean Maffatt