HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report BOCC 09.21.92EY.h - ?rTf ?ftAltut"tU'1
$ ^ Rtou6-rirnJ(_B El:)F,?f*-irnf,rw
?os{rYt'1
) b- et*t^i''v
=-t- 5'rlrr 7g;ro'cf
e E- o-?I;E o
BoCC s t 2t t s2Y-t1'.;*,,,L-
I.
II.
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
ENGINEERS:
PLANNER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
ZONING:
Preliminary Plan review of the Los
Amigos Ranch Subdivision, Filings
2,3 and 4, Subdivision II Rehling
Los Amigos Ranch PartnershiP
Schmueser Gordon MeYer, Inc.
Gregory S. Boecker
A parcel of land located in Sections
5, 6,7, and 8, T7S, R88W; more
practically described as a Parcel
located approximately six (6) miles
south of Glenwood SPrings, and six
(6) miles north of Carbondale offof
County Road 114.
A 59.14 acre parcel to be sPlit into
20 single family lots
Red C-anyon Water C-ompany (Central
water system)
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
C.R. I 14 and internal roads
PUD (Single Family)
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The parcel of land is located in the District B - Minor Environmental Constraints and
Central Sewer and Central Water, as indicated on the Garheld County Comprehensive
Plan Management Districts Map.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The Los Amigos Ranch is located approximately 6 miles south
of Glenwood Springs on the east side of State Highway 82. Access is via
Highway 82 to County Road 114 (CMC Road). The entrance to the project is
approximately three (3) miles beyond the intersection of County Road 114, and
State Highway 82. The entire project encompasses approximately 2,100 acres;
of this approximately 889 acres are forested; 840 acres is under the Soil
B.
C.
Conservation Service Conservation ReserveProgram(CRP); approximately 330
acres are field or meadows not under the CRP pfogram, and the remaining
acreage consists of steep rocky slopes descending towards Highway 82.
The Los Amigos Ranch rises from the Roaring Fork Valley up a steep hillside
and onto a flat to gently rolling plateau. Slopes range from 25to 60 percent, and
rise 1,000 feet from the low point to about 7,000 feet to the top of the hill. The
plateau sits at an average elevation of 6,000 feet. The hillside has a southwestern
aspect and extends along the contour from the northwest, where bare slopes and
rock outcroppings are present. The southeastern section of the property where
the slopes are gentler and are more densely vegetated. Vegetation consists
primarily of pinion/juniper, sage and meadow grasses. The south and
southwest-facing slopes provide winter habitat for both deer and elk'
Project Descrintion: The applicant is proposing to modify a previously
approved portion of the subdivision. This version proposes a twenty lot
subdivision of the 59 acre parcel. The gross lot density will be approximately
three (3) acres per lot Lots range in size from 2.0 to 3.68 acres in size' A Site
Plan is attached on page '/ / - .
The phasing plan proposed by the applicant is as follows:
Filing 2: Consists of extending Pinion Drive to two cul-de-sacs, one extending
north through the power line easement and colnmon area, and the second
extending south of the easement. Eight single family lots, each exceed two (2)
acres, willbe servedby underground utilities consisting of gas, telephone, electric
and central water. These lots will be served by individual I.S.D.S. systems'
Filing 3: consists of finishing a previously graded road and cutting a new road
to a cul-de-sac in a wooded bench north of the power line easement and common
area. Seven single-family lots, each exceeding two (2) acres, will be served by
underground utilities consisting of gas, telephone, electric and central water.
This filing will contain a corrmon park area adjacent to the power line easement
and common area. These lots will lie west of the cornmon area and will be
served by I.S.D.S. systems.
Filing 4: consists of f,rve single-family lots, each exceeding two (2) acres, served
by underground utilities consisting of gas, telephone, electric and central water.
These lots lie north and east of the cornmon area park and will be served by
I.S.D.S. systems.
Background: The Los Amigos Ranch Subdivision Number Two received
preliminary plan approval in 1982 (Resolution No. 82-182). The original
configuration of Subdivision #2, hlings 2, 3, and 4 hav e been mo dified, and this
submittal reflects a proposed Preliminary Plan for an this area. This staffreview
is based on an assessment of the issues concerning this new submittal.
REVIEW AGENCY/CONSULTANTS/PUBLIC COM MENTS
A. Colorado Geological Survey: The State Geologist visited the site on Jvly 22,
1992, and had the following comments and concerns:
[I.
2
1.) The most signihcant geology-related constraints to development on the
on this property is the overall steepness of the terrain, the bedrock types
present and the overall depth of bedrock. Although the State Geologist
noted that the lot layout takes these factors into account, he recommends
that final construction should not take place until detailed geotechnical
investigations are performed for each building site. In addition, he
recommends that purchasers be made aware of these conditions prior to
closing.
2.) The State Geologist also has significant concerns regarding the long-term
effectiveness of I.S.D.S. systems on the site due to the soils and rocktypes
on the site. As the amount of development in the general area increases,
the surcharge of the groundwater will increase. As the soil moisture
increases, some steeper slopes may become unstable. In essence, the State
Geologist is recommending that the development be tied into the Spring
Valley Central Sewage System.
3.) Extreme care should be taken when making cuts and frlls on the property,
especially for roads.
4.) In shallow-bedrock areas, foundation and utility excavations may be
difficult or expensive to undertake.
A copy of the July 30th, lgg2letter lrom the State Geologist is included on pages
/e-8.
Garfield County Road and Bridge: Planning Staffand King Lloyd conducted
fieldwork on August 3rd,lgg2regarding the entrance road to the project. Due
to site distance constraints and CMC traffic on CR I 14, both Planning Staff and
Road and Bridge Staff are recommending the developer consider a left-hand
turn pocket into the main entrance to the project. This would avoid stacking of
southbound vehicles and address safety conrerns.
C. Division of Wildlife: No comments received to date. A srunmary of wildlife
characteristics on the site, prepared by the applicant, is attached on page
Colorado State Forest Service: Due to the presence of mature pinion-juniper
woodland, sparse understories of native grasses, and slope conditions (25 to 60
percent), fires are quite common in the area. The Forest Service recommends
that "defensible space" be created around each homesite, including the thinning
of all trees within thirty (30) ofeachhouse. Furthermore, all down and standing
dead trees, limbs, and debris be removed from the defensible space to reduce fuel
loading. A copy of the July 17, lgg2letter from the Forest Service is attached
on pages /5-G.
Schmueser Gordon Meyer. Inc. (Water Supply Plan) : Dean Gordon has
summarized the water supply plan proposed to serve the development. Mr.
Gordon concluded that with the addition of supplementary hydropneumatic
storage, the existing system will have sufficient capacity to provide the necessary
domestic water to serve the project.
B.
D.
E.
3
4
G.
H.
I.
J.
L.
IV.
F.ChenA.{orthern (Geology): Provided additional percolation tests and geological
review for this portion of the project. Chen-Northern did not identify an
unstable slopes during their site review. The percolation tests performed by
Chen-Northern concluded that I.S.D.S. systems are feasible, but recommended
that site-specific percolation tests be conducted for individual leach field design'
nngineered septic systems may be required on some lo_ts. A copy of Chen-
Northern's July 2nd,l992letter is attached on pages /7-2A '
Mount soFris Soil conservation District: No response to date.
Holy Cross Electric Association: No response to date'
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas: No Response to date'
U.S. West Communications: No Response to date'
Off1ce of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources: The State Engineer
noted no serious concerns with the proposal. A copy of the State Engineer's
letter is attached on Page -43 ' .
Mount Sonris Soil Conservation District. Dee Blue, President, cited con@rns
regarding animal control, erosion control and revegetation concerns' Ms' Blue's
letter is attached on Page - Ar' - -
MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
1. Roads: The proposed subdivision will be served by two roadways, with the
northern ,oud*uy ending in a single cul-de-sac, and the southern roadway
(extension of Pinion Drive) ending in two cul-de-sacs'
The newly constructed roadways take access offthe existing Los Amigos Drive,
which is accessed directly off of CR 114. No emergercy access to the site is
proposed.
The lower road cul-de-sac, deflrned as a primitive roadway, is proposed to have
a gradeof approximately twelve (12) percent. on Monday, April 6, 1992, the
Board approved amendments to the design standards of the Subdivision
Regulations. According to the new standards, the grades of the proposed
roadway will require the Board to grant a variance. The maximum allowable
grade is 10% unless the applicant can adequately demonstrate compliance with
six (6) mandatory criteria as well as three (3) additional criteria tf a wildhre
hazard is determined to exist.
The applicants have provided the lollowing documentation in support of a
variance for the excessive grade:
1.) A topographic map indicating the alignment of the roadway if designed
to meet a maximum 10 Percent grade;
2; Evidence that the excessive grade will avoid cut or flrll slope that exceeds
12 feot in height (variance design will have a maximum flrll of 9 feeO;
3.)
4.)
s.)
6.)
That the excessive grade is the minimum length (in this case2 percent
grade over a distance of 480 feet) necessary to provide a@ess to all lots;
The area has a slope exposure to maximize solar exposure and minimize
snodice build-up;
The excess grade in excess of 150 feet in length shall have a turnaround
approved by the local fire district (verbal approval has been received by
Ron Leach);
The excess grade must permit the transport of water for firef,rghting (fire
hydrants will be used, and these locations have been approved by Ron
Leach, although the ultimate locations are not shown in the applicants
submittal).
Prior to Board approval for the roadway grade variance, three additional criteria
will have to be satished, due to the presence of wildhre hazards in the area:
Doar Nor
1.) Excessive grades shall only be approved O",lthe judgement of the local
fire fighting authority the wildfire hazardlpresent\ a danger due to
excessive vegetation, inadequate lane widths or inability to transport
water.
2.)In areas where wildfire hazard presents a danger, excessive grades shall
only be approved if landscaping requirements consistent with Fores!
Service recommendations to minimize wildfire hazard are Xincorporated into the covenants of the subdivision.
3.) A variance to the maximum grade shall only be allowed if the use ofroof
shingles and siding of the structure are built out offiHngptfrer than
fire retardant praterials and/or sprinklers for internal structural fire
protection u."ffirundated by covenant.
{'{
These additional criteria will need to be addressed prior to the Board of County
Commissioners granting the requested roadway variance. A letter dated August
3,1992, from Dean Gordon addressing the Roadway Variance is attached on
pages 4.f'"?6 .
The cul-de-sacs meet the allowable maximum of 600 feet. The fire department
has consented to the 45 foot cul-de-sac turning radii of each cul-de-sac.
Water Sunfrly: The applicants are proposing to utilize a central water supply
system using an extension of the Red Canyon Water Company. This system
currently serves Los Amigos Filing #1 (10 platted lots with 2 existing dwelling
units) and the 48 apartment units at the Auburn Ridge Apartment Complex.
The source of water will be two existing wells registered pursuant to State
Engineers Permit Numbers 18147 and 40906-F. These wells, when taken
together, have yields exceeding 600 gallons per minute. Red Canyon Water
Companywill retain all ownership andmaintenance responsibilities ofthewater
system infrastructure.
2.
5
An additional hydropneumatic storage tank is proposed to address peak hour
demands for the proposed 1ots. Water quality samples have been taken, and
indicate the water quality meets the parameters of the State of Colorado Primary
Drinking Water Systems. An existing gas chlorination system is located on the
site, and has capacity to serve this portion of the subdivision. The distribution
system will consist of 6" water mains with fire hydrants. Exact fire hydrant
locations do not appear to be shown on the Site and Utility Plan (Sheet 2 of the
Preliminary Plan Maps).
The Los Amigos Ranch Partnership owns water rights as described in Water
Court Case Nos. W-3873, W-2156 and W-3893 for diversions from two wells
with augmentation water supplied through a contract with the Basalt Water
Conservancy District. In the opinion of the State Engineer, these rights are
sufficient to satisfy all requirements. Copies of the application and engineering
reports are included in ExhibitL-2of the application submittal.
Water Disnosal: The applicants engineer has indicated that soils and
topographic conditions will allow the use ofconventional septic tank/leach f,reld
system. Percolation tests conducted on a cross section of the property indicate
adequate percolation rates. The applicants have indicated that site specific
engineering and soils investigations should be conducted for each residence. The
applicants have proposed a Management Plan for Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems. This plan is attached on pages ;7-Ao.
Lot Design/Development: No building envelopes have been identif,ted on the
preliminary plan. The applicant does reference the possibility of building
envelopes being deflrned for each lot (see Covenants in the Application as Exhibit
C). This issue is relevant to the recorlmendations of the Colorado State
Geologist, which recommended that detailed geotechnical investigations be
conducted for each building site. The prior approved subdivision II included
several pie-shaped cul-de-sac lots, and generally included smaller lots than is
currently proposed. In Staffs opinion, the proposed lot configuration is
superior to the prior submittal. The proposed lots have been designed with
careful consideration of drainages, adjacent building sites, vertical separation
and access to open space uses.
Fire Protection: The Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District has
suggested that an emergency egress road be dehned between the two cul-de-sacs.
Secondly, the Fire District is requesting a hydropneumatic pressure system to
ensure a 500 gallon per minute flow rate at 20 pounds per square inch. The
applicants appear to meet these flow requirements, and the hydrant placements
are acceptable to Fire District.
This proposal appears to meet the requirements of Section 9:70 Fire Protection,
assuming the applicant develops an emergency egress road between to the two
cul-de-sacs, or some other method approved by the Carbondale Rural Fire
Protection District.
Zontng Section 5.04.01 - 3 olthe ZorungResolution requires theidentification
of areas of the subdivision over 40o/o. Those portions of the lot in excess of 40o/o
do not count towards the minimum lot size. The applicant has submitted a
preliminary plan identifying those areas in excess of 40o/u. As indicated on the
6
7.
40% Slopes Site Plan, Lot23has a net acreage of approximately 1.78 acres when
the excessive slope is subtracted. The applicants intend on re-configuring Lot
23 at the time of Final Plat submission to ensure consistency with the two (2)
acre minimum lot size requirement.
Other than Lot 23, all lots appear to meet the requirements of this section.
Comprehensive Plan: Section 4:33 ofthe Subdivision Regulations requires that
the Board review an application based on compatibility with various issues
including the Comprehensive Plan. The following comments will address the
project's compatibility and non-compatibility with these applicable portions of
the plan:
Agriculture: (Policies: all) The ranch has been historically used for agricultural
purposes, but both the site itself and neighboring agricultural uses
are currently out of Production.
Housing:(Policies: 2a,3,4b, 5 & 6) Existing platted subdivision lots do
exist in small numbers in the area. Low and moderate income
housing is not being proposed. The majority of lots will have
positive solar orientation.
Recreational/Open Space: (Policies: 2) While the subdivision will not create
dedicated public open spare, it is not located within an
intercommunity corridor.
Transportation: (Policies: 2,3,4,5b, 6, 7,8 & 9) County regulations do not
have any provision for off-site improvements to county roads.
The applicant is limiting traffic to one intersection with County
Road 114. The proposal does not discourage automobile use.
The road design will require some cut and fills, although the
requested variance appears to reduce the number of curves and
earthwork that would benecessary to stay within the confines of
the current roadway standards.
Water and Sewer Service: (Policies: 1,2,3,5 & 6) The proposal will provide
adequate water and sewerservices to the proposed lots. Itmaybe
physically possible to connect to the Spring Valley Sanitation
District, although the costs of infrastructure and capacity
improvements may be economically infeasible. The State
Geologist has stated that the soil types may create a diffrcult
situation for I.S.D.S. systems, although this is disputed by the
applicant's consulting geologist.
Environment: @olicies: l, 3, 4, 5, 6,7,8 & 9) A significant portion of the
subdivision is located in areas of minor environmental
constraints. No revegetation or slope protection has been
proposed. Development on lesser slopes should be mitigated.
Development on steeper slopes will result in loss of vegetation
cover and visible cut slopes. The development should be
compatible with the wildlife habitat on the property. The
applicant has addressed wildlife characteristics and proposed
IV.
mitigation.
Community Service: (Policies: 1,2 & 3) The development has reasonable
accessibility to services in nearby Glenwood Springs and
Carbondale. The Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and
suggested minor modifications.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS
l. That proper publication and public notice and posting were provided as required
by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission.
That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested
parties were heard at the hearing.
That the proposed subdivision of land is in general compliance with the
recoillmendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated
area of the County.
That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garheld County Zontng
Resolution.
That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the
State of Colorado and Garfield County have been submitted and, in addition,
have been found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
On September 9, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Preliminary Plan with the following conditions:
l. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated
at the public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless stated otherwise by the Planning Qemmission.
2. The Homeowner's Association shall be incorporated in accordance with
Colorado Revised Statute requirements.
3. Theapplicant shallprepareandsubmitaSubdivision lmprovementsAgreement
addressing all on-site improvements, prior to the submittal of a flrnal plat.
4. The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all roads, bridges, utilities,
fire protection, improvements signage and drainage structures prior to the
submittal of the final plat.
5. That all proposed utilities shall be placed underground.
3.
aJ.
4.
V.
8
7.
9.
That all cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native
grasses and shrubs with adequate weed control. All revegetation shall be in
accordance with the applicant's revegetation plan. Revegetation and
landscaping shall be included in the Subdivision fmprovements Agreement. In
addition, adequate security shall remain in place for a period of two (2) years to
guarantee the survival of all plantings.
That the applicant shall demonstrate that procedures are established for the
maintenance of all roadways and bridges, including snow removal, through the
Homeowner's Association.
b. prior to issuance of abuilding permit, the ownerof each lot shall prepare
and submit a soils and foundation report, an I.S.D.S. design, a grading
and drainage plan, and a geologically acceptable building envelope
prepared and certified by a professional engineer. All improvements
shall be constructed in accordance with such measures which shall be a
condition of the building Permit.
That the applicants shall prepare and submit protective covenants, articles of
incorporation and other Homeowner's Association documents including by-laws
will be submitted for review by the County Attorney prior to the approval of the
Final Plat.
That the plat and covenants will provide that there will be no re-subdivision of
the lots.
That all roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards
in effect at the time of submittal of the Final Plat.
That adequate easements for wells, waterlines and other attendant facilities shall
provide on the Final Plat.
The applicant shall provide road signage in accordance with the Unifonn
Manual of Traffic Control. These should be included in the Subdivision
fmprovements Agreement.
A northbound left-hand turn pocket will be provided on C.R. 114 at the
entrance to the project,T:,-l-'Jrt,t:f
fJi:f,",
The afplicant will restrict woodstoves to one (1) open-hearth and one (l)1*..r-l'li::r,i'
Colorado certified woodstove per single-family dwelling unit...;;.",t(
lvr
10.
11.
t2.
13.
it.
*- ,(?Xe,*s FBo.a Fturu Pr-rr oB Fourru,'.rL\
.. l.;n?+;"/ Br-mJ+c t5 B;rusr-rq. Pe*"rr:, 'ot"o:"t-dff"::,,,
9
16. The applicant shall construct and provide emergency access easement between
the northern cul-de-sac from Los Amigos Drive and the northern cul-de-sac of
Pinon Drive. t.
6\'/ State llo"este+-as descri
- ll/ Lmag \
' Ito 5souuoeR ( U" Fer"* ol EttcpalcLrnrrEA{)
. Co' Kow#
I, L{oo DlTrA{.(f,
. Jtowt Botr-ocur l, W h?.or B yetpg
lz' tur
-
L[oo t Ll LE,*qlp,
A,r- t-.or/wr"t
Lrr.,rqg16 Z Ar&f rrour Doq., .
)
10
ITYIm]
rl. ltoMEn,vIlillon
.:j.r I rrl'/
JOIIN W. NOLD
DINECION
COLONADO GEOLOGICAL SUNVEY
DEPANTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
7I5 SIAIE CENTENNIAI. BI,,ILDING - I3I3 SIIENMAN SINEET
DENVEn, COLOnADO BO2O3 PilONE (3031 866-26r I
July 3O, t992
Mr. Mark Bean, PlannerGarfield County Planning Department
l-09 Bth Street, Sult.e 303
Glenwood Sprlngs, Colorado B 1601 .,
GA-g 3 -OOO1
Re: Proposed Los Amlgos Ranch PUD Subdlvision No. 2, Flllngs 2,3, and 4t Resuhrmittal
Dear Mr. Beatr:
At the request of Andrew l,lcGregor of your off Lce and l-n accordancewith s.B. 35 (L9721 , we have revl-ewed the materials submiLted for
and made a fleld inspect.ion on July 22, 1992, of the slte of the
proposed residentlal subdlvislon referenced above. The followlng
comments summarl-ze our flndlngs. I
(1) The most significant geology-related constralnts to developmentof this property as planned are the overall sLeepness of theterraln, the bedrock types present, and depth(s) to the bedrock.
The submltted plans (as shown on the plat) take this lnto account,but final house constructlon on most of ttre lots should be doneonly after additlonal detalled geotechnical lnvestlgaUions ofindividual bullding sites. Dependlng on the architectural deslgnsfor bulldlngs and soils and bedrock conditions on the lots, lt maybe necessary to do consl-derable remedial englneerlng work Ln somecases. Lot purchasers should be made aware of thls prlor to lot-sales closlngs. In every event, architect(s) should collaboratewith geotechnlcal and f oundatl-on engineer ( s ) vrhen making thelr
des lgtrs .
(21 We have some concerns about the long*term effectlveness onlndlvldual septic sewage-disposal sysLems. Soil and rock types arenot especlally condueLve to leactr-field construct,ion in thls or
trearby parcels. As the amount of development in general area
increases, surcharge of the ground waLer will necessarlly lncrease.Thls may increase soil moLsture significantly posslbly naking someof the sbeeper slopes unstable. Whlle lndlvidual systems may berelatively problem free in the short termr w€ thlnk that a
commltment should be made now to put this general resldentlaldevelopment area on a central sewage-treatment system.
/1
o?Jr?o 'STONY OF TIIE PAST. . . I(EY TO TlIE FUIUNE
'ri...t,l
I
'-i
wv*!t9r-1ff*Pq\r,
P
I
{f
Mr. Mark Bean
July 30, 1992
Page 2
(3) Extreme care should be taken when maklng cuts and fllls on the
property, especially for roads. Diverslon of surface-water runoff
!o ^ttrai'tt -lnf iltrates f ll1s, upslope cuts betrlnd houses, ald
teneath bulldlngs (foundatlons)' shluld be speclfically avolded. The
dral-nage-control measures shown ln tl"re submltted roadway-segtfo1
dlagrafrs snouta be J-mplemented, but.may need t9 be modlfled
e;p;;ai"g on siting of houses and drlveways on ttre lots' Thls
sSould be done in Jonjunction wlth following the recommendatlons
made ln (1).
(4) In shallow-bedrock areas foundatlon and utllity excavations may
be dlfficult and/or expensive to undertake.
Whlle this subdlvlsl-on may be dlff lcult to develop, it ls fea;lble
to do so if t5e l-nvolved partles make a comml-tmenL to followln! the
appioprlate deslgn and erigineerlng conslderatlons Lndlcated above.
Th; Lubmltted ieports outllne- additional concerns and the
i""o**".datlons rnud" ln them should be followed also. If alI of ttre
r""o**"ndatlons made above and ln ttre submitted reports are made a
conditlon of approval of ttrls proposal, then we have no geology-
related objection to lt.
S-lncerely,
4 o-*o-- --.llt , )-t:,u(.u-,-
/,/ames M. Soule
'-'fungineering Geologlst
-/3---
t
V{ILDLIFE SUMMARY
Los Amlgos Ranch is a haven to a significant amount of wlldllfe. lt conslsts
largely of a southwest f acing mesa that grad"ually slopes to clif f s between Hed canyon
HoadandcMcFload onHighwayB2. Wildiifeconsistsot deer,elk,coyotes, porcuplnes,
if"[[itl', *"r"i"nrl fox ind bobcat, badgers, hawks, owls, vultures and numerous
;i;;t bird species. These are no knownlndangered species on the Ranch'
.The Divlsion of Wildlife has estlmated that the resident deer herd exceeds 200
head and for the tirst time in at feait 5 years there are indlcations that a.small
number of elk are staylng on Los Amigos Rinch year round' These numbers sftell at
migratory times and up to 120 elk hav"e been sigl'ttea on the Ranch ln a glven day'
The number of deer and elk that forage on LosAmigo Ranch seems to be on the
rlse. This lncrease can be attributed to incieased huntlng pruttrre on surroundlng
lands and lncreased food sources on lhe Ranch as the 470 t actes of CRP grassland
planted S years ago matures. The Dlvlslon of Wlldlife generally recommends that Los
Amigos Hanch ln"r"uu." the huntinjpressure on its proputty to prevent f urther herd
I nc r ea ses.
The slgnif icant maiority of deer and elk on LosAmlgos Ranch are concentrated
around three draws that cut through the CHP flelds io the steep slopes a.b9ye
Highway 82. They bed down on benchJs along the rldgeline and move up through the
draws to forage. The nearest of these draws ls more ihrn 1/2 mlle lrom the proposed
development. The f urthest is approximalely 2 miles removed. The f urthest two draws
also have sprlngs where they cut througn ine rldgellne. Los Amlgos Ranch malntalns
ihuru springs Jolely for wllilifu us" and they are heavily utlllzed'
No slgnlf icant forage lles in the proposed development area and no tlglll[ilj
game tralls have been observed. However, for the reason that deer may'be round
anywhere on Los Amlgos Ranch ariing-tne winter, all Los Amlgos Hanch property ls
considered by tne olvlsion of wildlife to be crltlcal deer habitat. Prellmlnary
discusslons with the Dlvision of Wildllfe lndicate that they are not opposed to the
proposed development il reasonable mltigatlng steps are iaken.
These mltlgalng measures consist of low density development and Protec.tlve
covenants and Restrlctlons on the land that prohlbii boundary line lences, llmlt
fences near homes to 42 lnches in'f","igf,t, t"qrir" strlct owner control of dogs and
provldes a mechanism for removal ol-pets that harass wildllle. see Exhlblt '"c",
i'Arunded and Hestated Covenants, Condltions and Restrlctlons"'
Greg S. Boecker, Manager
os Fanch
-//-
li
,l
i
it,
F0RDS l'
slilwlcD
Statc Sctvlccs llttlldlng
222S.6tlt Strcct, Room 416
(iranrl Jrtnctlorr, (blorotlo 8l 501
'l clcnlronc (30.1) 248-7325
July 17, 1992
Mark Bean
Clarf leld CounLy Planning Dept.
109 Bth Street, Suite 303
Cllenwood SprirrgS, Colorado 81601
Re: l04l l{azard Review, Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D.
Dear Mr. Bean, t
I have reviewed tJre plat and prel iminary plan submittal for the Los
Amigos Ranclr, f I I ings 2, 3, and 4, Subd'lvision ll, in Garf leld
County. I visited t.he site on July 15th, and I have the followlng
conlments in regard to wildf ire hazard ln blris proposed developmenL.
Vegetatlon within the proposed subdivision is composed almost
entirely of matur6 pinon-Juniper woodland wlth a very sparse
understory of grasses. Slopes are moderate (15-2o%). Fires occurlng
in thls fuel type are common ln the area, usually caused by
I iShtnlng stril<es. Fires are usual ly conf ined to single trees or
small groups of trees, due to the lack of ground fuels that can
spread the f'lre. Crown fires involv"lng entire stands of plnon-
Juniper are relatively unconrnon; however, under very dry, windy
condltions severe crown fires can develop, creating a dangerous
threat to homes.
Several measures lrave already been taken to mitlgate the a{ng""
from wl ldfire ln the subdivislon. Waber hydranLs are planned, and
road widths and turns appear adequat,e to lrandle emergency vehlcle
access. The plans do nob, however, show dual lngress/€9ross from
the subdlvlslon, which is always most desirable to accomodate
evacuation of resldents and access for flre trucks.
I also recomrnend creation of a defeDsible -sp-gce around homesltes by
thinnlng out trees wlth'ln 30 feet ;f homes. Thls dlstance should be
increased on tlre downhill slde of homes on slopes. Not, all trees
withln thls area need to be cuti thlnnlng slrould simply reduce tree
denslty so thab the crowns of trees are at least 10 feet apart. ln
addition, trees Ief t strould be I lmbed to remove dead branches that
wlll acb as ladder fuels. Down dead and standing dead brees, llmbs,
and debrls slrould also be removed from tlre defetrslble space area to
reduce fuel loadlng.
' C'i.l'
. \rii
,rI
l,
1., i
l ,,
i( .1\ r I i
Ir ll,.
t rl
- /5.
ruu 2 0 leez
GAfiFl[:Lt) COUI'lTY
Chen€Noflhern,Inc.
Lne 'noe, ot rheEllilgrouo ot comoan,es
COnSutlrrg Eng'r'et:,S and SC'eotsls
5080 nosd I 5,1
Glenw@d Splmgl. Cororado gtEOl
303 9{5.1158
3O3 9{5'2383 Frcsrm'tc
July 2, L99Z
Greg Boecker
2929 County Road 114
Glenwood Springs CO 81601-9391
subject: Percolation -'festing and summary Geology Report, Filings 2, 3 and 4,
subdivision No. 2, [.os Amigos, Gartield county, bolorado.
Job No. 4 385 gz
FDear Mr. Boecker:
As.requested, Che.n-Nortltern, Inc., perforrned percolation testing to evaluate the feasibilityof infiltration septic disposal systems at the subject site. We havellso revie,,ved the geologitconditions presented in reports and maps previously prepared for the developm.-nt .rlu.The study was conducted in accorrlan_ce with ou, ugr..rnent for geotechnical engineering
services to Greg Boecker daterl June 19, 1992. The clita obtainecl and our recorrmendations
F".:9 on tlte proposed construction antl subsurface conditions encountered are presentedin this report.
Proposed Construqtion: The proposed development will consisr of 20 single family lotslocated immediately north anrJ rvest of the e.riiring Filing l. The propot.-d lot layout isshown on Fig. 1. e r - --- r- -r
F
If develo.pment plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notifiedto reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report.
Site Corrclitions: The current propose.d development area consists of hilly anrl rolling terrainthat is covered rvith a juniper and pinon pine forest arrd some op"n ,r.os with grass andsagebrush. 'I-he slope grade varies trom ilight to retatively steep clown to the'southwest.A higlr power line crosses.the property as sh-own on Fig. l.'Relaiively minor clry drainagescross the area. Basalt cobbles and boulders are .,,por.d on the ground surface.
Subsurface Conditions: T'he subsurface conclitions at the site rvere evaluated by excavatingt0 etrglolatory pits at the locations shorvn on Fig. l. 'l-he pits were excavated with a rubbertired backhoe. The logs.of the pits are present.,l in the foilowing table. No free water wasobserved in tlre pits at the timi o[ excivation.
la-
-,f /
o
_t
reg Boecker
'ly 2, 1992
rye2
Pit Organic Depth Subsoil Bottour
No. (.ft.) TYP" of Pit ('ft')
1 1 Gravel anrl claY'
calcareous, cobbles
and boulders
2 UZ Gravel ancl claY'
calcareous, cobbles
and boulders
3 I Gravel and claY' 3*
calcareous, cobbles
and boulders
4 1 Weathered basalt 2'
rock
5 I Weathered basalt 2'
rock
6 1 Gravel' claY matrix' 4'
cobbles and boulders,
calcareous
7 1 Cravel' claY matrlr' 8
cobbles and boulders,
calcareous
, 8 1 Gravel and claY' 8
calcareous' cobbles
and boulders
g 1 Gravel and claY' I
calcareous' cobbles
and boulders
10 1 Weathered basalt rock 2'
'Practical refusal to digging on basalt bedrock'
Cherr€Norlhertt.IIrc.-lg -- .^i,, I ^1; !.rq -4e's .r,'o S.: :-l stl
,
{,|'
,
I'
ir,
Creg Boecker
JlJy 2. t992 '
[']age 3
Geology Review: T'e current proposed tlevelopment area lies wit.in basalt flows that are
covered with a variaSle rleptS or .oriuuiunr. 'ni" c9"rogi. .rj,gti:,ts were mapped for the
Los Arnigo, nun.f, in 1978, Linc]n-b"Vot" Fitt
-fro'
GS-740 and updated for the
development in lg1z,Lincoln-D"v";;'Fil;uo' cs-zao' 11'" nrapping classified the subject
area as having a minor slope hazard witrr respect to potential insiability' At the time of our
tield work we did not identify unstable slopes in the subject area'
percolation Testing: percolation.tests were concructed at [i,re of trre exploratory pit locations
where soil was .niount.rerl to tt,"';;;ril" f ii t1"nlr' o[ 8 feet' 1-he percolation tests were
conducterr in separate adjacent pit, [.i*"en a depth "i"u"rr 3 to 4 flet- 'I'he results of the
percolation tests or" pr.r"nted i,'fJt" t' Baied ;;-tl; results o[ the pit protiles and
percolation tests, iri*ii",i", se.pric disposal ,yr,"rn, ,irout,t tr" feasible at the tested sites'
site specifi. p.r.oiotion rests ,rioriJ-rrl conrtucterl ro, it " incrividual leach tield design'
Lir.itatio,s: .I.his report ha"s been preparerl in accorrlance rvith generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices in tl,i, oi"" for use;y it'; client tor tleiign purposes' The
conclusions and ,..o,rrrr",rdatio.s ,"f"'it'"tf in this ;;;J "" baserl upon th" dut" obtainerl
from the exproratory pits excavatJ at the rocations in,li.rt",l on Fig. r antl the proposed
type of construction. ttr" nature ,*r .*,rn, of subsurface variations across the site may not
become evirlent untir [urtrr". .*.r,roiion is performed. I[ tluri,g co,strucrion, [ill, soil, rock
or water concritions appear to be Jirr.r"ni from tnos" Jescriula herein, this otfice should
be advisecl at once so reevaruation o[ the ,..o*"nJations may be matle. we recommend
additionar subso* i,vestigation o,'irr" lndividuar building sites to rletermine foundation
bearing conditions'
If you have any questions or if we rnay
SincerelY,
CI.IEN-NORTHERN, INC.
be of further assistance, please let us k"o:'
P
Attn: Dean Gordon
.:-,,t1 tj,' ")'j,"-t. .t' ,-'+'
Steven L. Pawlak, P-E'
. i' l--
SLP/ec
Attachtnent
cc: Scltmueser Gordon lvleYer
6i.,i,t:il-hi:'d'- %'{-;t:' I S22z 1*ra. .$;
W[,'$]
C'ltett * Northel'l l. I llc.-/?_
i
- --r;--*, !_ -a _---(
I
I
:
It
ffi1
Et
*
(/)o$
.(
(r!a{
ii
I
l
I
I
I
I
ot-o-
t'tl,'
t:{!i
/\
'{'
'ti-
I
I
I
\
I
ffi nugq, n
\
\
IL---
I
I
l
I
I
I
L
/L////
--1' I
I\,\
\\
I
il
"tl ii{r
ll
\-\
I
-Ll
I
I
q{
\T
G\Il
[j{,
\
!l
I
,' /,'
.!b
,l r'
/' ,r--ts-
;i
'6i
L,';{ ti
Eii
l*
lt"
t;{
ET
t:
rV
Nlo-
q
li6l
L
I
I
q{
E9
;t ilrn{;t! ,"),i
1i
I
I
I
tntrl
d
:C
FvtulF
zI
Jo
L.,(E
uJC
Eo
zIF
U
9
-3e-
rl !t, . 4Gt0
Itl
i I i--
!i
P
t'
i
I
I
lt
t
I
I
I
I
ti
I
I
Iltlllt
L:{\i
II
Y
s.,
I
a
i,
l,!ili
lr
,ril,
i/
;
I
"tll*
ili '1^:,
JtilIIi !.iiitl,8t ,
:
.l
(
I
!totl
s{
:Q:.1 a{)a
I
I:{!t
L
B{!i
Ir{!i
t
l{
\H
i
I
-_*#
I
i -' .,7i#;i "l
I'i ',. !t:\\v
t0
' lfi
Job No. 4 385 m': Page t of Z
6-?5-92TABLE T
PERCOTATION TEST RESULTS
HOLE
IIOLE DEITTTI
No. (tn.)
LENCTII
OF
INTERVAL
(Min.)
WATER
DETTII AT
S'IART OF
INTERVAL
(Inches)
WATER
DEI.[}I AT
END OF
INTERVAL
(lnches)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(Inches)
AVERAGE
PERCOI.ATION
RATE
(Min./lnch)
36
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
r5 tl4
r12
rl4
r12
314
10
7 314
e 314
10 t/4
I 3/4
e rl2
e 314
10
3 tlz
3 314
4 rl4
3 314
4 rl2
4
4 rl2
7 314
6 tlz
I
I 3/4
7
8 t/4
8 t12
B 314
rlz
r12
I l,l
r12
r12
rlz
\14
2 tl4
t rl4
| 314
I rl2
t 314
t t/4
t t/4
I rl4
15142
12
14 t/2 ls 7tl?
I tlz
I tlz
6 tlz
6
5 tlz
9
7 tlz
't
15
6
I
9
10
8
9
9
9
314
t12
r12
314
tl4
314
314
5 tlz
1
B tl4
s 314
1
s rl4
s 1/4
8 314
I tl4
I t12
t tl4
I rl4
t 3l4
1
I tlz
1
Clur*Nor thcrtt.Ittc--3/*;"
7
F
7
' ...-,.,. .: :-.,i.,.t.-o.t ;f-f :,: ",-' S:S
I
q:,
':r
tf
Job No. 4385 92
Page2of.2
6-25'92TABLE I
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
I IOLE,
OI-E DETTTI
Io. (In.)
LENG-TI{
OF
TNTERVAL
(Min.)
WATER
DETTH AT
START OF
TNTERVAL
(Inches)
WATER
DETTH AT
END OF
INTERVAL
(Inches)
DROP IN
WT\TER
LEVEL
(lnches)
AVERAGE
PERCOI..ATION
RATE
(Min./Inch)
16 tlz r5 e 314
7 314
e 314
ro rl4
9
r0 t/4
10
l1
11
1314
6 t.lz
s Llz
7 rl2
8
8 rl4
7 314
8 1/4
8 314
8
7 tl4
6 314
7 314
6 tl4
8 1/4
9
7 314
9
8 rl2
t0
ro 314
6 rl2
s tlz
4 rl4
6 314
7 tl4
1314
7
7 314
8
7 tl4
6 314
6
2
I rlz
t tlzt rl4
t tl4
I t/4
t rl2
t
I tl4
I rl4
t
I tl4
314
314
r12
314
r12
314
314
r12
314
12
15n
20
Cl rerr € Nirrthertt. I ttc.*VL-I ..,;,, r '.1 i..r1...,,',S itr'4 S.j 9"r 915
,,i
P
4iffiX
affin\t6z
HANOLD II1ALI D. SIMPSON
State EndinoernOY ROi.lER
Governor
Mr. Andrew McGregor, Planne lt'
Gartield Counry Regtrlatory Ofliccs and Pcrsottnel
109 Bth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160l
RIj: Los Arnigos ltanch, Filings 2, 3 and 4, Subclivision Il, Preliminary I'lan
Sections 5,6,7, antl B,'l'7S, RBBW, 6't'll P'M'
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Andrew,
.l,hank you for tle referral on tfie aforementionerl project in which the applicant is requesting
approval of replattinf io ,ingt"-farnily lots and one rurirl residential lot. All proposed lots will be
connected to an "x[rting central *ut.. rlistribution system consisting of two wells, 5 and 6,
registered pursuant to Stite Engineer's Permit Numbers 78147 antl 40906-F' 'I'he water system will
provirle botl rlomesric antl irrlgation uses. Sewage disposal will be handled tlrrough individual
septic disposal systems.
'I'5e Los Amigos Ranch partnership owns water rights as described in Water Court Case Nos'
W-3873, W-2156 olra W-gSg3 for diversions from tlte two wells, 5 and 6, with augmentation--water
supplied through a conlract with the Basalt Water Consewancy District. 'I'hese riglrts are sufficient
to satisfy the requirenlents of the existing 48 units at Auburn tiiclge Apartments, the 10 platted lots
in Subdivision Ii, Filing 1, as well as the 21 proposed lots to t6is su5mission'
Basecl on t6e arlcquacy of the water rights in question, this office can recommend approval
of prelirninary subrlivirio. oiproual, as well fs final iubrlivision approval, if all conditions remain
^, ,tot",l in tire .lune 25, 1992 Prelirninary Plan Submittal'
Slroul{ you [ave furtfter questions or comments, please contact tne'
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Streel-Room B1B
Denver, Colorado 80203
(3C3) 866-s581
FAX [303] 866-3589
August 77,7992
Sincerely,
(lt',t:
fi',* tr tr',,' nfu
,-
J[rity'l'. Sa[pington
Water Resources Engineer
JTS/clf:larsulr
cc: Orlyn Bell, l)ivision Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Contmissioner
Steve Lauteltscltlager
12
-4J
,
, iI'i''i'
D*"*U<-L-,
A tl:l tr s t ':1 , 1. '?';::;i
Ma.rk [l sa.rr
Gnrf ier I'J C: i'urr't y F:'la.nrr
I ()';, :ill-t..| 1l'l: r et p b
G I E! ri,..r ,: ': ,J ,cii 1.' r' i 11 g ," , Ct t, ,
irrg Dep,av-trnerrt
rli J. c,(:,1
ItH:t l.-.,1,lii ./-\t.tti,:t ':t,r iit.t[., Di'u isi':rr
Dea.r llar'1.,: y
Tl-re f t'll,:wirrg a.re '1. l-re c':rlfirnen'hsi fr"':rn T'he l,lr,urrt Sc,pris 5*il
Cl':)rrfiBrVit. L i r:it'r Ii:,:taf',:l lrlemht*fg.
Arry c t.tl.: si, {: rr., r"
t'revnr'r'b (nt,lli i
l-01 $He,liti11r '*,i
wil 0 d s {:: r:' ri L r",::' I
T'l-r P L' ':' i:i. t- ,J i ti;
it.r'E i:t. wlt n r L' t",r i"ll-rci Ditibric:{::
I i trt i L [r tiln l.:' r] t- $
f"'jittl$':'f- C':'t-r$tf'UC t i,:,rr
r:rr'r il.t'rr:l Wee,J ffOe liOFd
t I rn(r f'r i t t:r ]- i fr,l
':J 'l |r et r:, f'l
Ie'l "
Eh,:u l,::l Lre revegetate,J t,:'
il.r"rrtl tnulcli used fr:t''Ltie':1t-':wtl'r tt-rrJ rrr:'ti i I'u$,
iLl,,',a.y;i t.r:trrt:et-r'rEd aL,,:t"t'b arlilna. I c':rr tr,:l irr art
l,llifn a.tirll rul rtrtfls*LiC a.rrirna. ls, Cr:rulrl C':'trf liC'b"
f'F(: ':'rrrrnfiirrd$ arr iIna. I (: ':,rrtr',: I E t,E 'Jevo I ,rF,ed trl
,:,.F 'Jt:trfie*tiC IiVeSbr:,C1.': Alr':l rl$p,pria. Ily ,J':lJS.
T'lie Dig{:r'ict'si ma.irr cr:'rrcet-rrs c':'r'r'biriue'L':i L'e c,:rtr'Lf-r:, 1 ,:f
nr-r:rgi':'r"r il.tri::l ary ,lis'bur"be'J a.r'eas glrrrulr::l h'e t'ovegebated and
lll':jl"r i trlrl"Eritl {:':'r" gI-r:tt/1,ti 'h,:, F r-pVefr'b pt-{rS i rtrt'r.
"l-hey'Fn l t'hl-ra.b a.ny'l i sturha.rrce,:f $,: i l crtlt l rtl iI.,JvErse l y
a.ffec'L,::,.Lliti.lr la.rr.lr]r(,,rflfTf-l:r, it.r'r,J grea.t cilre sh,rLtl':j tiB'ba]:: err trI,
ut i t iSittn i:L:i llln.ny ,:''f tht* [.'r-r:ib lernS a.$ F ':'::it:i il] I 0 wlr ich ar ise
wl]t*ti tru i ltl irr 1t ';'r'r iI. t1 a I luv ia. I f a.rr de;:,'1 g 1'5 a.rea,
Velr-,v i:;r'u I y yrlrr.rr"'!ir y
Drir6 Iill
li1,: d rr l:
r.lo, [::'r'e$ i,lprrt
$rrlir- i si Iii,: i I C*rrgerva.t i':rr Di r,tr i ct
_e/_
AUo 2 B 1992
GAFif:IELO (]OUN'TY
, L:;ii i,*.**,',
1001 Grand Avenue, Sulte 2-E
Glenwood Sprlngs, Colorado 8'1601
(303) 94$1004 (303) 92ffi727
Fax (303) 945-5948
August 3, 1992
Mr. Mark Bean, Planning Director
Garfield County
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
GAFIFiELL) (-;rJuir I y
RE:Preliminary Plat Submission, Los Amigos Ranch Partnership
Reouest For Road Variance
Dear Mark:
As part of the preliminary plat submittal for Filing No. 2, Subdivision 2, currently under review
by your office, Los Amigos Ranch Partnership is requesting a road variance for lower road No.
2.
Lower road No. 2 is being shown with a road grade of 12o/o. As per current County Road
Standards adopted April, 1992, this roadway is properly classified as a Primitive Boadway,
with a capacity of up to ten units. The roadway will serve three units as part of this
submission and we feel there is a possibility that a fourth unit, platted in the future on an
adjacent 3S-acre parcel, may be serviced by this roadway. Therefore, this road has the
potential to service in the future a maximum of four units.
The request for variance for this primitive roadway is a road grade of 12o/o. The maximum
grade allowed under variance is 14%. With respect to the conditions f or variance, we woutd
offer the following information:
Attached hereto is a plan and profile for an alternate alignment producing a
roadway with a maximum 10% grade. Please note that the horizontal
alignment requires several additional curves in order to generate sufficient
roadway length to meet the maximum grade requirement. Visually, the
roadway is less desirable and it is not as direct and, therefore, desirable an
"'access to the platted lots.
A maximum fill of nine feet is required at approximately Station 1+75.
The variance is for an increasein 2Yo in grade over a distance of 480 feet. The
alignment for the roadway was originally chosen to provide the most direct
access route with the minimum increase in grade possible.
The area requiring a variance in grade faces approximatoly west with respect
to solar exposure.
1.
2.
3.
SCHi.,UESER GORDOI{ i'EYER
"t'C.
CO^'SULT,,VG EA'G'IVEENS & SURYE
'AU0 0 6 1992
4.
-es-
..ii,,
l
i1
S.Withrespecttofireprotection,ahydrant-basedsystemisbeingproposedfor
this proiect. There wirr ue a fire hydiant located at the cul-de-sac at the bottom
of the;;;, over which the variance is being requested.
consideration of tlris variance is being requested.concurrently with preliminary plat review'
We trust the above provides sufficiJnt information for your review of this variance' We
remainavailabletoprovidefurtherinformationasnecessary.
Respectf ullY submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
2.4
Boecker, Los Amigos Ranch Partnership
wtr. RoriLeech, Carbondale and Rural Fire District
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER' INC.
-a6 -
,r 1,.:l'
SCTIMUESEn GOnDOil MEYER ll'lC'
CONSUIT'NO ENG'T''EERS t SURYEYO
1001 Grand Avenue, Sulte 2'EAil;li $rtnss, colorado Bl6ol
rsfui sastoda (363) s2ffi727
Fax (303) 9455948
June 22,1992
Mr. Greg Boecker
Owner's FlePresentatlve
Los Amigos Ranch PartnerslriP
2g}g CountY Road 114
Glenwood Sprlngs, CO Bl60l
RE: Prellmlnary Plat Submlttal
Dear Greg:
Thepurposeoftlrisletterlstofullilltherequlrementsofsectlon4zg2oftheGarlleld
county subdivision Regurarion, *iii,i;;;;;ito saniiary sewage disposalprans lor the
above-referenced Proiect' :
ltlsproposedtoprovidelndivlclualsewagedisposalsystemstlsDslfortlreproposed
rots rn this submtitat. t have ,*ui.*eJ th-e prerimtnary'Geologic Hazarcls tnvestlgatlon
prepared by Llncoin-DeVore, d.t;-;;bruary S, t SBZ' As part of that report' llve
percolatlon t""tr-*"r"-p"rtormed ln the arei' g"tld;n luriher slte lnvestlgatlon' lt
ls my oprnron ti,;i-i;. concrusro;;-;;r;fud rn thrs rnvestrgatron wrth respect to
geologlc t a.arOs'anJ, ln partlcular, wlth respect to ISDS' are valid for the property
i"tng-considered for thls submittal' ;
rt rs our opinron trrat there rs a strong rikerihood that standard septic tanks/leach tield
systems can be constru'ct9-d-.: tn. ]SOS for thls pioptt' The most likely restralnts
to trre treveropment o[ rsDS *Luro be strailo'w tle<trock conditions and rapld
percolation rate.
'in tf,, event tt.i "itf,.r of these conditlons exlst' lt ls our lurther
oplnlon that an ,ngin.ered. system, either a mound-type system or an evapo-
transprratlsn (ETl system courd be constructed on a[ oI ttre proposed lots. conslstent
witlr standard practice withrn Garfierd county, purrotution testi and a prollle hole wlll
be requrreo ut ir.', exact site of ;il rsDS'ui tn.-tin',e of development of bulldlng
permtt oorurunir. At tlrat time,liiai orirgn of lsDs lor each lot wlll be completed'
Based upon our review of past tlocuments, lt ls atso our concluslon that nonB of the
lots ln this submittal lie over th; aprfng Vattey uq'iftt and present any potentlal lor
groundwat., ,oniur"ination of ittr'.qtlit"' lt stroutO also be noted that any lSDs
designod and constructed ln accordance wlth "rittnt Gartleld county standards
;;;ld not pollute groundwater ln any situatlon'
^a7*
ti'
I
.i
tOS AMIGOS RANCI{
A. Purpose
The purpose of this Management Plan ls to provide for rogular operations andmaintenance of the individual sewage disposal systems. The Managemont plan
providos a mechanism for rogular pumping of septic tanks and for funding the costtlrereof' This Managoment Plan is not intended to provide for common ownorship ofsewage disposal facilities, nor to provide a meclranism for funding lot, otthe actualconstruction of, replacement of individua! systems
p
B. Responslbllity of Management plan
j"
The Management Plan shall be ttre responsibility of the Los Amigos BanchHomeowners Association. The Homeowners Association shalt make arrangsmentswith a septic tank pumping company for the pumping of septic tanks on a two-y'ar,rotating basis.
C. Funding
The Los Amigos Banch Homeowners Association wifl collect, as part of thsAssociation dues, sufficisnt funds to pay for the bi-annual pumping of soptic tanks.Ths amount of funds collected shall be adiusted as nec€ssary to pay for the cost ofthe Management ptan.
D. lndivldual Homeowner Responsibllities
Provids accoss to the septic tank for purposes or creaning.
Pump septic tank more frequentry, if required, basod on actuar use.
lnitially insta[, and subsequentty reprace, faired teach fired systems as required,all in accordanco with appricabre Garriord county Hearth codos.
IMUESEB GONDON iIEYER, INC._a? _
t.
2.
3.
I
i _ 4r?