HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 CorrespondenceCU DIY UT ITIL|..,LITD VLIIY
March 11,1998
STATEOF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Goveraor
PBTMTTUEX'T OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
^^l ts:QuAL OPPOITLNTTY Er{!I,}'ER
Ioho Mummo, Direcror
6060 BrordwaY
Dcnvcr. Colorido E0216
iiteptirin"' (3O3) 291 - t I 92
50633 HiglrwaY 6 &24
Glenwood SPriogr, CO 81601
3o,3445-7224
Thark you for tlre opporurniry to comment'
ForW{ldltfe-
ForPeople
Mark Bean
Garfield County planning Departnent
109 8th Sueer, Suitc 303
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
RE: Cornmeuts onI-o.s Amigos R'anch, Filings 5A-11
Dear Mark,
since my letter dated January 5, 1998, I have had a chance to discuss my recoflulendatio[s with Greg
Boecker. Afier reviewing a be{,"r map of the area, I have altered some of ,,y recommendalio*s' This leter
is a fotlow-up aftempt to clarifi some misunderstandings'
Greg Boecker was concerned abOut what was meant by bcar ploof gafb.age contaiDers' Certain
companies build garbage conraincrs with heavy dury lids urd openings tbat look like a mailbox lener drop'
however, other designs of containcrs ttrat prcciudc Uear entry ale uiepuble' 91tg3 or small sheds with
doors and windows crosed are usrarly tur, proor. If any trash is ro be srcred outside of an enclosed building,
odrer than on the same day ir is sct out on the curb foi pictrp, bear proof @ntainers should be required'
I recommended that severat los have predefimd builrling envelorpes to preclude fencing of areas near
draws that deer and elk would' usc !o *o'" to critical winer range' hftcr rcviewing a beuer map' I have
dropped several of these lorc from this list. Irowever, there is *till ro.. confision- ros Amigos covenants
allow femes of lesS rhan forty+uo inches 19 ftnce a building envelopc bug not a property boundary' For thi"s
resso', if uo building envelqe is req'irerl,_a landowner *.y "o^ro. his buirdiDg envelopc to iucludc all buc
a few tbet ftom the propcrty boundary. pu" io tle wording of Los nmigps ctrveuants' I wor:ld stiu like to
ssps--cnd predefinedbuiiOirg envelopcs on thc following lots:
filing 6'Lots 6 and7 '
Fillug 7 - LoLs 34,36.38, 40, A' 8 ' 41 and 48'
Filing 8 - Iots 9, l0 and 11'
Filing 9 - I-ots Z, 4 etd 5'
''n * 44-*,-
treen
'llife Manager
p6p1ar[4EM OF NATI'RAL RESOURCES'
'llDr"
l-octbad' tIlln DiFcsor
E, coMMlsslox. ernia itrtT i' crtti"1.1n 'n#-Ftnt' vt*cititt*n ' Mrrt tr'vrllcy' sc'm"r'
_.d I_ Blrcr, Mcmbcr . Irrncr R. Lrng, Mcorbcr -cnirr* D. I,cl/is, Mcobcr r pgl5 svifl McaDcr
LOS AMIGOS RANCH PARTNERSHIP
2929 CountY Road 1{4
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
(e70) e45-63e9
March 27, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
RE: "Exhibit E4", Los Amigos Ranch Preliminary Plan Submittal
Dear Mark,
I apologize for the
Preliminary Plan submittal.
13,1998.
lf you have already taken care of this miscue, please disregard this letter and
thank you.
error in copying "Exhibil E4, Radiation Survey" for our
I have enciosed 8 copies for the BOCC Hearing on April
Exhibit Bt
November 21, 1997
Mr. Greg Boeker
2929 County Road 1 14
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Subject:Radiation Survey
Los Amigos Ranch
Garfield County, Colorado
Job No. GS-2324
Gentlemen:
As requested, we performed a pretiminary radiation survey at Los Amigos
Ranch in Garfield County, Colorado. This letter describes the site and our survey
procedure and presents the results of our radiation survey.
The site is located in the southwest part of Spring Valley in Garfield County,
Colorado. The Roaring Fork River Valtey is betow the site to the west. Colorado
Mountain Cotlege, Spring Valley Campus is to the east. Glenwood Springs is
approximately 6 miles to the northwest. Access is lrom Highway 82 to the Colorado
Mountain College Road to Los Amigos Drive.
The site can be visuatized topographically as a gently rolling plateau. Several
comparatively broad and shallow drainage basins on the plateau surlace converge
into narrow drainages at the west edge of the plateau and drain down to the west'
The site has been used as dry tand pasture. Vegetation consists of grasses, weeds
and brush with areas of pinion iuniper lorest on the plateau. Larger meadows have
been cteared of brush and seeded with wheat grass to provide forage. On the
steeper slopes to the west, vegetation consists of pinion, iuniper forest.
The area to be developed is located on the plateau surlace. Plans are to
develop 158 tots with an average size of approximately 3.5 acres for single family
residences. Much ol the property will be open space. A rural residential parcel of
approximately 150 acres will be in the southwest part of the development.
On November 17,'1997 our engineering geologist, Mr. "Liv" Bowden visited
the site and performed a radiation survey. Our survey consisted of spot checking
radiation measurements at widely spaced tocations across areas to be developed
on the ptateau. The ground surface was covered with approximately 2 lo 4 inches
of snow which had melted to leave small patches of bare ground. Our radiation
measurements were taken at areas of bare ground to avoid the readings being
lowered as a result ol shielding by snow cover. The radiation measurements were
taken with a Ludlum lnstruments, lnc. Model No. 19 Micro-R-Meter carried at arms
length (approximately 2 feet above the ground surface). We observed radiation
CTL/THOMPSON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
't.l (-l t.Jil lt l)tilVt r (lt I NW()()l ):,t'litN(;li (l()t ()llnt)() tllr)o1 I {1)/'O) ()'l'-r 2'tlU!)
measurements that ranged from 10 to 17 microRoentgens per hour. ln our opinion,
our data indicates normal background radiation at this site.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this proiect. ll you have
any questions, please call at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
CTUTHOMPSON, INC.
Wilson L.'LaU' Bowden, C.P.G.
Engineering Geologist
(3 copies sent)
MR. GREG BOEKEB
CTLIT G5.2324
WM ,M
B:JM:cd
)
)
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
DAVID E. LEAVENWORTH, JR.
JOSLYN V. WOOD+
GREGORY J. HALL
rAdmined in Hawaii and Texas only
LEAYENWORTH & TESTER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P.C.
IOI]. GRAND AVENUE
P.O. DRAWER 2O3O
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-226t
FAX: (970) 945-7336
March 30, 1998
vIA FAX (970) 945-4767
Dan Kerst, Esq.
Basalt Water Conservancy District
c/o Schenk, Kerst & DeWinter
302 Eightn Street, Suire 3i0
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Dan:
On behalf of Los Amigos Ranch Partnership, I am writing ro provide norice of a
proposed minor change in use of Los Amigos Well No. 6 under Paragraph 6.B. of the
Amended Judgment and Decree entered Decernber lO, Lgg?-, in Case No. g7CW155, Water
Division No. 5, State of Colorado.
I have enclosed a letter from John Currier with Resource Engineering, in which heidentifies a proposed minor increase in consumptive use from Los Rmigos Well No. 6, due to
a modification of sewage disposal systems for 65 units located in the Los Amigos Ranch pUD.
The change in water use is proposed in the latest LARP Preliminary plan, which is pending inGarfield County. As you can see trom the figures reached by Mr. Currier, an increase in thenumber of single-family units with individual sewage disposal systems (,,ISDS,') and
corresponding decrease of single-family units utilizing central sewer service will result in an
annual consumptive use increase of 2.04 acre-feet. Over the course of each year, the increased
consumptive use is projected to be 0. 17 acre-feet per month, or 1.3 gallons ier minute. Iwould emphasize, however, that the minimal consumptive use increase, and associated fivepercent (5%) conveyance loss with the required Ruedi Reservoir releases result in a total
consumptive use of 70.04 acre-feet per year. This de minimis increase in consumptive use
remains well below the 75 acre-feet allocated to LARP under the water allotrnent contract with
the District.
Re:
Allotment Contract
LARP-Kersr-ltr-l
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Dan Kerst, Esq.
Page 2
March 30, 1998
I anticipate this slight increase in consumptive use will hot require any modification of
the augmentation requirement under Paragraph 6.8., and it is merely-my intent to comply with
the reporting requirements under such paragraph.
Please feel free to contact me at your convenience if you have any questions in this
Very tnrly yours,
GJH:lln
Enclosure
cc: Orlyn Bell
Lawrence R. Green, Esq.
John Currier
Dean Gordon
Michael Erion
Greg Boecker
LARP-Kerst-lrr-l
LEAVENWOBTH & TESTER, P.C.
I,M
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ffi&ft 5 t tew
(i*, s ,J;;LDUf\rrY
10I1 GRAND AVENUE
P.O. DRAWER 2O3O
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (9'7 0) 945 -2261
FAX: (970) 945-7336
t
",.l .r
L--
LOYAL E. LEAVEN'WORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
DAVID E. LEAVENWORTH, JR
JOSLYN V. WOOD*
GREGORY J. HALL
,Admltrcd in Hawaii and Texas only
"lirB..,
March 30, 1998
Mr. Orlyn Bell
Division Engineer
Water Division No. 5
P.O. Box 396
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
vIA FAX (970)945-8741
Water Division No. 5. Case 87CW155
Dear Orlyn:
This letter is provided to you on behalf of the Los Amigos Ranch Partnership ("LARP'),
which years ago entered into a water allotment contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy
District ("District") to provide seventy-five (75) acre-feet per year of storage water controlled
by the District. The District included the water allocation in its Augmentation Plan adjudicated
December 8, 1992, in Case No. 87CW155. Under paragraph 6.B. of the Amended Judgment
and Decree in Case No. 87CW155, each individual water user is required to notify the District
in the event of a change in type or manner of use of water from its well. Paragraph 6.8. of the
Decree provides:
In the event of any change in type or manner of use of a well, the user shall report such
change to the Applicant in order that the corresponding augmentation requirement may
be modified accordingly.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter to the District providing notification of LARP's de minimis
change in its individual water requirement for Los Amigos Well No. 6. The analysis contained
in the notification letter is based upon a recalculation of consumptive use by John Currier, an
engineer with Resource Engineering, who has outlined his analysis in the enclosed letter to our
office dated March 26, 1998.
As you can see, LARP's water use requirements have changed slightly due to the
submittal of a Preliminary Plan to Garfield County which contemplates an increase in single-
family units with individual sewage disposal systems ("ISDS") and a decrease in the number of
F:\BELL. LTR
Re:
F --*
. LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Mr. Orlyn Bell
Page 2
March 30, 1998
singie-family units proposed to access the central sewer service provided by Spring Valley
Sanitation District. In sum, Mr. Currier's calculations indicate that a slight increase in
consumptive use is projected due to the sewage disposal modifications for the 65 units in
question. The projected increase in consumptive use is 2.04 acre-feet per year, or 0.17 acre feet
per month. The slight modification in consumptive use, including the required Ruedi Reservoir
releases and corresponding five percent (5%) cotveyance loss results in reconfigured total
depletions of 70.04 acre-feet per year. The Water Allotment Contract between LARP and the
District allocates 75 acre-feet to LARP, as indicated above. As you can see, not only is the
projected increased in consumptive use minimal, the total depletions as contemplated in the
pending Preliminary Plan remain well below the level provided for in the Water Allotment
Contract.
This letter is intended to keep you apprised of our efforts to provide adequate notice to
the District under Paragraph 6.8. of the Decree, and I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions concerning this matter.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
fur,MGregorf
GJH:jp
Enclosures
cc: Hal Simpson
Dan Kerst, Esq.
Don DeFord, Esq.
Mark Bean
Lawrency R. Green, Esq.
John Currier
Dean Gordon
Michael Erion
Greg Boecker
F:\BELL. LTR
TiiiiFIESC]UFICE' TTIIIIIIIIE N G IN E E FI IN G IN C
Mr. Lee Leavenworth
Leavenworth and Associates
PO Drawer 2O3O
Glenwood Springs CO g1602
March 26, 1998
Los Amigos Ranch partnership and Basalt water Conservancy District CaseNo. 87CW155
This letter provides the technical basis for notification to the Basalt Water ConservancyDistrict (BWco) and the office of the State Engineer (SEo) about changes to the LosAmigos Ranch P-u-D. water use. The BwCo must b€ notified pursuant to paragraph
6. B. of the ciecree in BTCW'i 55 which states in parr:
ln the event of any change in the type or manner of use of a well. theuser shall report such change to the Applicant in order that the
corresponding augmentation amourtt may ie c,hanged accordingty.
The change in water use results from an increase the
s€wage disposal systems (|SDS) and a correspondingsewer. The net effect is a minor increase in total
summarized below.
numb€r of units on individual
decrease in units on central
depletions. The change is
unit Type
87CW1s5 Proposed Change
Units CU
(AF)Units CU
(AF)Units cu
(Ar)
Single famity with leachfietds 123 5.79 188 8.85 65 3.06
Single family on central s€w€r 194 3.O4 129 2.O2 -6s -1.O2
Single Family on Et systems 10 3.14 10 .3.t+o 0.00
Total ?27 11.97 327 14-O1 o 2.O4
The net increase in depletions resutting from the change is 2.04 AF per year. This is
.
The Los Amigos Ranch Partnership's water allotment contract with the BWCD issufficiant to cover the additional depletion. The total depletions for the developrnent,including the additional 2.o4 AF are 66.70 AF. Required Ruedi Reservoir ,.1."""",including 5o,6 conveyance loss total 70.04 AF. The water allotment contract is for 75
AF.
Changes the Exhibits A-C to the decree in 87CW155 are summarized on the attached
Consulting Engineens and Hydrologiscs
9OSColonedoAvenue I GtenrrvoodSpnings, COgl€O1 I t97Ol 9.;}_6777 a Fex(9701 S'a=t1O7
7')I.It I 9V6 ZL6 CNIU3fNIONS fCUNOS:U NOU.I hd6E,5 866t-92-t
Mr. Lee Leavenworth
Leavenworth and Associates
Page No. 2
sheet. Exhibit A, Water
Demand does not change.
rninor amounts shown.
March 26, 1998
Requirements, does not change. Exhibit B, Direct FlowExhibit C, Monthly Consumptive Use, changes by the very
lf you have any questions regarding this anarysis prease give me a cail.
Sincerely,
RESOyRCE ENG|NEERING, tNC.nL
Jdhn M. Currier, pE
Water Resources Engineer
JMC/jmc
File 707 -1.O nr.7q7\brcc.wpd
attachment
cC: Greg BOecker
:::!!F]ESOURCEraatar..r.iN':irNEr HrNG NC
L€lL 9v6 AL6 3NIU3:NI3N3 3CU0OS3U ,^tOUl Nd69,E 866t-SZ-t
Los Amigos Ranch Partnership - Notification of Modifications per Para.6 B, BTCW1Es
EXHIBITA
TOTAL ANNUAT WATER REQUIREMENTS BY STRUCTURE
(acte feet)
Shucture Narne: Los Amigos Well No. 6
Dome$ic Commercial Laurn Crooln-houee or other lrrigaton lrdgal,'on Livestock Total
Proposed 115,774 5.29'1 67.611 0.000 0.6S3 193.542
|-.
:
LN
o)
N|..
o)
(Jz
a
Lr.l
tdz
(,Z
LJ
LdOaloatda
oah
EXHIBIT B
MAXIMUM DAY DIRECTFLO\ff DEMAND
BYDIVERSION STRUCruRE
SUMMER DEIIAND
(acre feat)
Structure Name: Los AmiSor Wel No. 6
Amounl
(cfs)ffiProposed 0.67
5
0_
O){
m
@
o)
o)
I
LN(\
I
C4
EXHIBITC
MON?HLY CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE
BY STRUCTURE
{ecr6l€.1)
(lndud€3 59{ Rusd Resrvot ooovry!rc€ lo!.}
Stu.tra Namd Los Anlooa Wd No- 6
1.433 1?s 1-433 2.A7A 1i.602 14.552_ 13.789 e3O0 t.120 3.212 1.366 1.43it 70.038
Changelgpml l.S3 1.33 tJit 1,31 1.3! t,33 LSS t.3! t,t3 t.33 t.!S t.3r
?eMar-98 " RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC- e r 909 Colcedo Are., Glqrwood Sprinel, @ trrgl rr 1970) 945-8063 ..66O-l -0\sadersl .wq2
-
April B, 1998
,;y{w
j
Garfleld County Commissioners
109 Bth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Los Amigos Ranch Subdivision
Dear Commissioners,
$:9frFtEtLr;}UUIyC0,titrpls,B/yfflf
Filings 6 through 10
We have resided in Los Amigos Ranch since December 13, L997 |having purchased our lot in 1993. As residents of the subdivision
we will- be affected by these fllings and urge you to give it yourfu1I support.
Over the years we have seen many subdlvisions where thedeveloper's only concern is generating the maximum profit from thedevelopment. This arways means increasing housing density. ourobservation of Los Amigos as it has developed is that Tom NeaI (the
developer) has taken the opposite approach regarding density. Our1ot is 2.2 acres, Filings 6 through 10 indicate an average lot sizeof more than 10 acres. Additlonally, Mr. Neal has taken theextraordinary action of purchasing adjacent land to prevent itsbeing developed irresponsibly.
Mr. Neal has gone great lengths to ensure the Los Amigos Ranchdevelopment is the most responsible development in Garfield Countyand we believe it is in the best interests of everyone for theGarfield County Commissioners to approve these filings as presentedby the developer.
Thank you,
/f r&e u22A
Don & Linda Whilldin
209 Cedar Cove
Los Amigos Ranch
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
APft 0 8 r9gr,
t..ii3::{.$itHftffii$1.li ,+ Ltu-'
'','r,it , li 'r
J .rlorrr!XIIIIITITEITIIITTIr
FIESOUFICE
INCENGINEEFlING
Mr. Lee Leavenworth
Leavenwonh and Associates
PO Drawet 2O3O
Glenwood Springs CO g 1 602
BE: Los Amigos Ranch Pannership and Basalt Water Conservancy District CaseNo. 87CW1SE
Dear Lee:
This letter provides the technical basis for notification to the Basalt water conservancyDistrict (BwcD) and the office of the state Engineer iseol about changes to the LcsAmigos Ranch P-U-D. weter use. The BWCD rnust be notified pursuani ro paragraph6. B. of the decree in gTCWl SS which stares i. prn,
ln the event of any change in the type or manner of use of a well. theuser shail ,leoort such change to the Applicant in order that thecorresponding augmentation amount may be changed accordingry.
The change in water use resutts from an increase the numb€r of units on individualsewage disposal systems (lsDS) and a corresponding decrease in units on cenvalsewer' The net effect is a minor increase
'in
tota'i depletions. The change issummarized below.
Unit Type
87CW1ss Proposed Change
Units CU
(AF'Units CU
(ar1 Units CU
(AF)
Single famity with leachfietds 123 5.79 188 8.8s 65 3.O6
Single family on central sewer 194 3.O4 129 2.O2 -65 -1.O2
Single Family on Et systems 10 3.14 10 3.14 n
Total 327 11.97 327 14.O1 o 2.O4
The net increase in depletions resulting from the change is 2.oa AF per year. This is
The Los Amigos Ranch Partnership's wster allotment contract with the BWCD issufficient to cover the additionat depletion. The total depletions for the development,including the additional 2.o4 nF aie 66.70 AF. nequiied nueai Reservoir reteases,including 50,6 conveyance loss total 7o.o4 AF. The water alloiment contract is for 75AF.
Changes the Exhibits A,C to the decree in g7CW155 are summarized on the attached
Consiu;616g Engineens and Hydnologiscs
March 26, 1gg8
7')Ztt t qV6 A/ 6 5Nl TH?=NI TqNI: :z-ltirlrra=! r^rnlr r^rr--.- ---, -? -
I
Mr. Lee Leavenworth
Leavenwofth and Associates
Page No. 2
RESOyRCE ENGINEERING, tNC.
Jdhn M. Currier, pE
Water Resources Engineer
JMC/jmc
File 7 07 -1. O nr. 7o7\brvcc.wpd
attachment
cc: Greg BOecker
March 26, t 99B
sheet' Exhibit A, Water Requirements, does not change. Exhibit B, Direct FlowDemand does not change- Exhibit c, Monthly consumptive Use, changes by the veryrninor amounts shown.
lf you have any questions regarding this anatysis prease give me a cail.
Sincerely,
!i:i: NES O U RC EaaataaaaaaENtstN€r HrNG tNC
t t'd ./ tr l" t qvF. A/ 6 5Nl T H==Nt T r]Nrr =arrnna=> l^ln>l J T^],AC:C QAAI_Cz-C
L
Los Arnigos Ranch Partnership - Notification of Modifications per para. 6 B, g7CW155
E)fiIBITA
TOIAT AI.INUAI- WATER REQUIREMENTS BY STRUCTURE
(acre feet)
Stlucture Name: Losfunlgoe Well No. 6
Domeslic Commerclal Lar/vnln-houe€ or Olher lnigation #li,o^ uvestock roht
6t.614 0.000 0.683 193.542I
n
d
D
I
)t
5
7_
r
rJ
d
t7I
J)
EXHIBIT B
MAXIMUM DAY DIRECT FLO\,V DEMAND
BYDIVERSION STRUCruRE
SUMMER DEI/IAND
(acre feet)
Strucfure Narne: Los Amigos Wel No. 6
Amounl
(c{s)ffiProposed 0.67
EXHIBIT C
MONTHLY CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE
BY STRUCTURE
(acre feet)
(indudes 5% Rued Reservoh oonveyanoe !oss)
Sbucture Name: Los Amigoo Wd No. 6
Jun
2GMar-98 t' RESOI-,,RCE ENGINEERD'IG, lNC. ?r 909 CokxerJo Arc., Glqrunqt Sprrnga CO il69t oo 19?0) 94 j-t063 ..66{-I.O\sardusl . H2
Change (gpm)
LOS RI'IiGOS RRNCH TEL :305-945-6399 Har 1 1 ,98 22222 No .002 P .01
ti(rrrr: rit,ti t0.,ri, . ilr.llu(xlvll(rl():) :ir,rt.lltl,l!i (l(x)Ml{ ] 11 | . l^llt(l ll ,lN l:l l'l'.?
Sl l;l:-lNl UN.J CNlllnS;N():)'cNl 'NosdylloHu-llc
uollBlpe, pe r6qo el '(ocupns punor6 eqt e^ogo lea, Z l1e1eu;rorddr) q16ue1
sure le paprsc re1a1-U-orcln 6] 'oH ;apon 'cut'sluaurnrlsul utn;pn'l 3 qlpr uc1sl
elrm alu.l!.rnreeru uotlelpe, oql 'roAoo rrous Aq Euppgqt lo 13nteJ B EB pgiafiol
6qeq s6ulpeer aql plo o o1 punor6 ereq to seore te uolel arom slueuernaeeur
uolletpsrung 'punor6 areq lo soqcled lleuts a^Eet ol po1eu poq qqqa ilou6 lo
saqrut t ol z fiapqxordde qlrr poro^oc sBm ix,Bpnt punoro eql 'nBelBtd oql uo
pedopaap eq ol Deaie ssorce suolurlrot peceds lpp;m lE sluauarnseau uqlBps,
6ul1ceqc tods ro polslsuoc laruns rng 'Aearns uollBlprr e peuro;rad pue elp aql
peuEt^ uaporoB ,t1.'Ilt tst6otoe6 6u;reou16u. rno u66t '21 reguro oil uo
'lueudolcarp eqt ro lred |eenquos eql ut oq tiln sorce OSt fictrutlrordde
1o ;ecred lultuegser llrnr V 'oceds uado aq ggp firadord eql lo $an55 'Becueplsa,
figure1 o16u1s ,o, 8.rrB g'g Aleleulxordde lo ezlr aoeraae uB quru Slol ggl dolo Op
ol ore suetd 'ecipnr n;e1o;d eqt uo poteool sg pedoSeaap aq ol rera aql
'lserol redlun['uogqd ro slslsuoc uotppDca ,1ren ar;1o1sedo;r redeop
cqt uO 'e6erol opl ord ol ssu8 lBeqn rllla popoas pul qsruq lo perrcle ueeq
e^8{ snoPBorr ro6rrl 'nealetd eql uo lsarol.redlunf uotutd lo 3e3,' {lfr l|srug pu3
Epae,u'sesser6 fo rlalcuq, uolpta6en 'ernlsed pues Lrp sa posn uoeq ssq e1s eql
'tsoa eql ol utiop up.rp pus npelpld oql lo e6pa pan eqt lc se0eqetp rorreu olut
e6reauoc ecBlms nseleld eql uo suloBq e6eu1erp nollBqr put psorq l1ceflprsduroc
!3ro oS 'neepd 6qlpr lpueE r re ftlecgqdrfodol p*1ensp.q uBo e1seql
'ee;rg so0puy eoJ ol pro6 r0e11oC ulquno11
opBrotoc e$ ot ze lrnqfix uorl st EsaJrv 'l3enquou eql ol seutrl e lpl3trluorddsq sEupds poonuq5 1ssc ei;1 ol sl sndua3r r(qp1 6updg 'oOe;pg u;rUnoII
opsroloc 'lEot otll of cu9 e$ Hoteg sl Aelle^ re/rlu uoJ 8uprog eql 'oprrotoc
'Agunog p!.Urgg u| IoIBA 6uptdg p UBd teoaqlnos aql ul p3lGrol slelF o{f
'Iealnr uonnlpE, ,no ro sumcr eql lluacord pue crnpecord
r{eatnc rno pu! egi eql toqllcsap ,.1.1 B!r1l 'oporofoC 'I;uno3 ptollrBO ul rlcueg
eo6;ury so'l lB lerune uqlolpBr {raulurllerd e peur^loped en ,pepanber sy
:ururanuec
izEe-s9'oil qoP
oPBroloc'Iunoc plourP9
qcueu soEpuy so1
Iaarng uollllptu :p.Jqns
tqgtg 93'r0qtds poonuotD
DIt psou ttpttoS 6,757
r.)polE 6erg'ry1
{"1
L6l0l 'JiZ reqiueaoN
:,
t
LOS RI'IIGOS RANCH
d
TEL :303-94S-6S99 ]'lar 1 1 ,98 22:?3 No .002 p .O2
,rcr-tu J, t, i,
urxro8 oluo'cr
'unol lnrt LrrA
earq nor'pelord 8r{r uo ""^ *,lT,3'rffi,Tr1l?ir5"'fi,$ii3rfflfo ^r,
'uo;u;do,nour.rnoq;fr:['il,ff n',fi'i,rffi?ffi.rffifi .tl[iifffi 3"ffi
E
-
DBpanTMENT or EUERGENcy SBRvTcES
EMS.FIRE.RESCUE
1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
RE: Los Amigos Ranch
Dear Mark,
The Board of Directors of the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection District has met and
discussed the proposed de-annexation of portions of Los Amigos Ranch from the district. It is
our understanding that these de-annexed areas will be annexed into the Carbondale fire district
and that petition proceedings have begun.
Due to access, residents of the area in question would be better served by the Carbondale Fire
Protection District. The Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection Board of Directors are
reviewing this request and pending further review of some financial concerns, will most likely
vote in favor of the de-annexation. This process will also have to be approved by the Glenwood
Springs City Council due to our intergovernmental agreement. We do not however, anticipate
any problem from either entity. I have reviewed the fire protection requirements that Carbondale
has proposed and feel that they are adequate for the interim period that portions of the
development are within Glenwood's fire district.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
'l-Wr/ z.--//L/ Jack Jones
Fire Marshal
Glenwood Springs Emergency Services
cc: Greg Boecker
file
806 CooperAvenue .Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 .
.DDllI'
APR I 3 1990
(970)945-2575 . Fax (970)945-2597
I,IOUNT SOPRIS SOIt
P.O. BOX 1302
GI,ENWOOD SPRINGS,
CONSERVATION DISTRIqT
co 81602
December 16, L997 DtCtu
',.' f'|; i
:9: i
Mark BeanGarfield County Planning Departnent
1O9 8th Street, Suite 3O3
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Sir,
At the regrular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris SoLl
Consenration District, the Board reviewed the application andplan for the Los lnlgos Raroh, ELlLng 5A-11 and have thefollowin!, conment,s and concerns about the proJect.
Any cuts for roads or construction should be revegetated toprevent erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used for any
reseeding of the area. Monitoring of aII seeding should be doneto see if the grass is establishing or if weeds are becoming aproblem. Reseeding or weed control practices should be
implemented if a problem is noticed.
Ttre board is always concerned about animal- control in an area
where there is the potential for conflict between witdlife or
domestic livestock and dogs from the subdivision. Dogs runningin packs of two or more can maim or kiII domestic }ivestock andwildlife. The District reconmends animal control regulations be
adopted in the covenants for the subdivision and that they be
enforced.
Of prine concern to the Board, is the proper maintenance andprotection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site. New
landowners should be informed that the ditch owners have right of
way easement to naintain the irrigation system, that they willbe cleaning and working on the ditch, and that this work may bein their yards.
The district would like to know what the inpact will be on the
Wetlands in this area? All l{etlands should be protected and
remain in as pristine condition as possible.
The Board recommends that any irrigation water rights be used bythe landowners so they are maintained. In order to use theserights, a raw water delivery system could be used for landscape,fire protection, open space, etc. If at aII possible, this system
should be incorporated into the infa-structure of the subdivisionplans as it would be more cost efficient at this time. Their
concern is always for soil and water conservation andpreservation and plans should consider these concerns.
;i
iu
'r'/EiTreer
]flt
Drainage has the pocential to be a problem in une area andengineering recommendations for control of drainage should beclosely followed by the builder and/or homeowner.
They felt that any disturbance of soil could adversely affectother landowners, and great care should be taken to mitigate as
many of the problems as possible which arise when building on analluvial fan deposit area.
with increased concerns about Water Quality, the District is
concerned about monitoring ctremical application for fertilizer,
weed control, and other pest management reasons. Their concern isthe chemicals that will be used to fertilize grrasses and control
weeds in the area. They feel that the chemicals should beclosely monitored in this area due to the possibility that the
chemicals will soak into the soils and run off into the creeks.
The District suggests drilling of wells to monitor ground waterpollution, and that this expense and future expenses should be
bore by the deveioper.
Sincerely,
,fu1 ^[il-Sc-ot Doderfo, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
6000 HIGHWAY 82
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
J'3,,19?S
bi[mcd@rqfi1gt5ELD Ciour\, I_Y
January 9, 1997
Garfield Courfi Planning Dept.
Attention: Mark Bean
109 gth st
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
This letter con@ms the Los Amigos Ranch preliminary plat proposal. I own a home contiguous to and
south of the Los Amigos property along the north side of Highway 82 and immediately west of the center
of section 1. lt is inconectly labeled, "Slattery lnvestments" on the proposed plat.
I am not opposed to the development of the land; however, I am greatly concemed with the increased
run-offifrom Filing 8 and above, whicfr flows between lots '15 and 16 and then across my property. In the
proponents submittal I find no reference to increased storm water run-off retention or calculations to
indicate that the natural channel will not clog, overflow into my house or exceed the capacity of my
driveway culverts.
I would be pleased to show anyone irterested what the potential problem is.
Best Regards,
?f/i/r*,,, fi.n,,OM
William B. McDowell
TELEPHONE
Wright Water Engineers, lnc.
BlBColoradoAve.
PO Box219
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
1970) 945 775s rEL
1970) 945-9210 FAX
{3031 893-1608 DENVER DTRECT LINE
March 4, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
Regulatory Office & Personnel
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303
RE: Los Amigos Ranch - Preliminary Plat Review Drainage Submittal
Dear Mark:
At the request of Garfield County, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has reviewed the
revised preliminary plat submittal for Los Amigos Ranch, Filings 6 through 10 dated February
9, 1998. The revised submittal generally differs from the original submittal in that it eliminates
the proposed lots that would have been served by the Spring Valley Sanitation District and
responds to the issues raised in review of the original submittal.
ST.IMMARY
In general, the revised submittal addresses the concerns noted in the our January 9, 1998 letter.
There were, however, several items still unresolved that were discussed at a meeting with
County staff on February 13, 1998. A meeting was scheduled with the applicant on February
24, 1998 with Dean Gordon and David Kotz of Schmueser Gordon Meyer; Greg Boecker,
owner's representative; Michael Erion and Peggy Bailey; and Mark Bean. At this meeting, we
discussed several unresolved issues which are noted below.
1.The plat still shows lots in the Spring Valley Sanitation District, but includes a note
saying that they are "not developable. " We discussed if this would be acceptable to
the County. It was suggested at the meeting that these lots be merged with the
adjacent lots rather than noting them as being undevelopable. This seemed to be
acceptable to the applicant.
There appears to be some unresolved issues regarding fire protection jurisdictional
areas. In particular, the applicant must annex a portion of the site into the Carbondale
Rural and Fire Protection District and, secondly, there is an area that is within the
Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. We understand that it is the applicant's
intent to have the entire site within the Carbondale Rural and Fire Protection District
2.
DENVER {303) 480-t /00 DURANGO 1970) 259-7411 BOULDER - {303J 473-9s00
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
March 4, L998
Page 2
J.
4.
prior to final plat. At this meeting, a letter was submitted from the fire department
stating that the road design and hydrant spacing of the project is acceptable to the
Carbondale Rural and Fire Protection District. If Glenwood Springs Fire Protection
District serves a portion of the project, they should also comment on the project.
The effects of development on drainage has still not been completely addressed. The
applicant stated in their resubmittal that post-develop flows will increase but, the
amount is negligible. It was our recommendation that the applicant address the
impacts of these increased flows on off-site conveyance facilities such as channels and
culverts. A follow up submittal was made on February 27 , t998 addressing drainage
related issues and is discussed later in this report.
We discussed rural lot 3 in that most of the lot is covered by either landslide area or
fault lines. Our recommendation was to require a building envelope for this lot
because it appears that not much of the lot is available for development. The
applicant, however, feels that it is possible to construct a home on the landslide area
based on work that has been performed by their geotechnical engineers. Mark Bean
suggested that they include some language about development of this lot requiring a
geotechnical engineer to review and sign off on the location of any proposed
structures.
We discussed access and utilities for rural lots 1 through 3 and made the point that the
access and utility corridor for lots 2 and 3 is very long. Dean stated that this is not
a technical issue and should not be of our concern. However, we believe that wells
are a poor choice for these rural lots given the history of wells in this area and given
the number of ISDS system that will be installed in this area. Therefore, it is our
recommendation that the developer help facilitate the shortest connection possible to
the central water system with easements.
We discussed the requirement of BOCC Resolution No. 96-34 requesting an analysis
of environmental and health impacts which has not been submitted. In particular, we
were interested in seeing a mass balance analysis tracing the migration of nitrates and,
in particular, a discussion should be made regarding the impact these ISDS systems
will have on existing wells adjacent to the project. This has been addressed in a
subsequent submittal dated March 3, 1998 and is addressed later in this report.
5.
6.
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
March 4, 1998
Page 3
DRAINAGE
Schmueser Gordon Meyer submitted a letter report dated February 27 ,1998 addressing drainage
issues related to the development of Los Amigos Ranch. This letter is in response to our
recommendation that an analysis be conducted to evaluate the impacts of development on runoff
at and below the project site. Of particular concern is the downstream drainage facilities,
including open channels and culverts, that may be impacted by increased flows from this
development.
The Schmueser Gordon Meyer letter report proposes the use of on-site detention ponds for
maintaining historic flow rates under developed conditions. The drawing LAD, Drainage Master
Plan, was modified to include six detention ponds located in four drainage basins, all within the
property boundaries of Los Amigos. The letter report commits to performing drainage
calculations and final design of the detention facilities at the final design.
In summary, we believe that the proposed concept of on-site detention ponds as shown on the
revised Drainage Master Plan will meet County criteria and will address the particular concerns
of impacts to off-site culverts and channels. County Subdivision Regulations require
computations of expected flows and design of the proposed facilities at preliminary submittal.
The letter report did not include any computations. However, the concept appears reasonable
and can likely be implemented as shown with relatively few modifications at the final submittal.
The responsibilities for maintenance of the ponds need to be specified.
In reviewing this submittal, WWE performed a field inspection of the facilities downstream of
the noted design points and the Los Amigos property. Our field investigation is summarized as
follows:
1. Drainage Basin 2 is the largest basin and appears to contain much of the Los
Amigos property. Runoff drains off of Los Amigos property through an open
channel and into a 60-inch CMP under Highway 82. The open channel between
the Los Amigos property and the culvert is approximately 1,500 feet long. It is a
poorly defined channel with a scattering of large boulders characteristic ol'a debris
flow fan. There are several homes on this debris fan. The 60-inch culvert
includes a headwall and is clean with no sediment or trash in the pipe. WWE
believes that the most serious concern about drainage Basin 2 is the potential
impacts on this debris flow fan. Schmueser Gordon Meyer is proposing two
detention ponds in this basin to maintain historic flow rates under developed
conditions. These ponds are located above the steep canyon area and on the flatter
portions of the project site.
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
March 4, 1998
Page 4
Drainage Basin 3 drains to a24-inch culvert that crosses under County Road 114.
This culvert is in very poor condition with the end sections having been severely
damaged. In addition, this culvert discharges down below County Road 114 to an
area that is currently under construction and shows no sign of an existing or new
drainage ditch to convey flows away from this 24-inch culvert. This culvert has
no direct impact to the Los Amigos development. However, it is important that
existing flows be maintained under developed conditions due to the downstream
conditions.
Drainage Basin 4 is tributary to an l8-inch diameter CMP also draining under
County Road 114. We were unable to locate the inlet to this pipe, but the outlet
is visible from the road. Flows exit the culvert and drop at least 5 to 10 feet
before hitting the ground and flow through a man-made ditch which traverses
through a hayfield. It is unlikely that development or increased flows from the
development will have any negative impact on drainage in this area. However, due
to the potential erosion from the "drop" outlet at the l8-inch culvert, we
recofilmend they implement the design of the detention pond as shown.
Basin 1 drains through a24-inch CMP under the frontage road parallel to Highway
82. This culvert also drains a poorly defined channel with evidence of debris
flows. We recommend that they proceed with design of the detention pond as
shown.
We recommend that Los Amigos proceed with the final design of their proposed detention
facilities as shown on the revised Drainage Master Plan. The Drainage Master Plan shows
several ponds in the upper reaches of the drainage basins. The final design should include a
check to see that there is sufficient drainage area flowing to these ponds to create enough
detention volume that is needed for maintaining historic flow rates. There are also several
detention basins shown within private lots. Therefore, final design should include the
appropriate easements for detention, access, and maintenance.
ISDS HEALTH AND ENVIROI\MENT ANALYSIS
We received a letter report to Greg Boecker from Resource Engineering dated March 3, 1998
regarding ISDS impacts. This report is in response to the requirement in the BOCC Resolution
No. 96-34 Condition of Approval No. 5(A).
2.
aJ.
4.
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Office
March 4, 1998
Page 5
The Resource Engineering report indicates that there is no impact to the Spring Valley aquifer
and it is highly unlikely that the Los Amigos ISDS systems will contaminate the groundwater
and wells in the Roaring Fork Valley. This analysis is based on available data and reasonable
engineering assumptions. However, if actual conditions vary significantly from the assumptions,
the potential impacts may be more or less than identified in the analysis. In addition, the
cumulative impact of groundwater with a nitrate level of 4 mgll diluted in the Roaring Fork
valley groundwater may be significant if the existing nitrate concentrations are high. Therefore,
we recofilmend that the applicant develop a baseline and long-term water quality monitoring plan
prior to final plat. The plan should include a threshold limit or trigger at which mitigation of
potential impacts would be required.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss this in detail, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
WRIGHT WATER
PMB/MJEidIf
92t-047.040
ENGINEERS, INC.
Senior Water Resources Engineer
Michael P=E.
Engineer
(970) 94s-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
E/VG,,VEERS
7S..*M--
SCHT,IUESER ::.
GORDON MEYER
-
Ek- O
118 West 6th, Suite 200
co 81601
April 30, 1996
Mr. Mark Bean, Planning Director
Garfield County
109 Eighth St, Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
RE: County Road 11 Road lmpact Fees
Dear Mark:
Subsequent to our meeting to discuss County Road 1 14, I have proceeded to prepare this
letter report on possible road impact fees.
ln preparation of this report, I have discussed briefly with Mr. Dennis Stranger his anticipated
methodology for analyzing the Four Mile Road corridor, received from your office an estimated
dwelling unit count based on the Comprehensive Plan, reviewed the HNTB Four Mile Corridor
Draft Report and performed a site survey in the field.
Existing Roadway Conditions
For purposes of this report, I have assumed the study section to be from the intersection of
the highway frontage road adjacent to Highway 82 to the entrance point of the Pinyon Pines
housing area just beyond the CMC entrance. I further divided that study reach into three
sections as noted below, these study sections having common existing physical conditions.
A. Segment 1 -- Frontage Road to Switchback Curve
1. Total distance -- 1 .85 miles or 9,8OO feet
2.
3.
4.
Platform width generally 24 feet of asphalt with four-foot shoulders.
Appears to have two-inch asphalt mat pavement with new 3/4-inch chip
seal above County Road 1 10.
Some rutting noted; reconstruction of areas required at five different
locations.
B.
5. No guard rail present.
Switchback Curve to Los Amigos Drive -- 0.55 Miles or 2,9OO Feet
'l . Platform varies between 20 teet to 22 feet with minimal shoulders.
1,3.(Y O I fggfi,
s.r 1i :r. r: l 11 L:Ct.,,*f?1,r,
April 30, 1996
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 2
Asphalt surface appears to be several layers of chip seal,
new 3/4 inch chip seal surfacing.
3. New chip seal has covered any visual pavement failures.
Los Amigos Drive to Pinyon Pines -- 0.8O Miles or 4,2OO Feet
1. Platform width generally 21 lo 22 feet with two-foot to four-foot
shoulders.
Pavement surface appears to be several layers of chip seal, including a
new 3/4-inch chip seal.
Pavement distress noted in several areas.
Service Requirements
Your office has identified that the mean number of dwelling units for the Spring Valley area
will be approximately 1,916 du (dwelling units). Additionally, there will be traffic impacts from
CMC, not included in the above number. An estimate of the traffic generation from CMC is
as follows:
Future Campus Population -- 77O students plus support staff
Dormitory Population -- 250 beds
Commuter Population -- 52O
Traffic Generation
25O Campus Residents at 1.5 vpd/du : 375 vpd
520 Commuters at 2.5 vpd/du = 1,300 vpd
Total Traffic Generation Projection -- 1,675 vpd
The equivalent dwelling unit for this traffic generation is estimated to be 239 du based on a
conversion of 7 vpdldu, consistent with the current Garfield County Roadway Design
Regulations.
The total dwelling unit count for the Spring Valley planning area would therefore be 2,155 du.
Proposed Road lmprovements
As a basis for proposed improvements to the roadway, I reviewed the "Four Mile Road and
Glenwood Springs Alternative Route Connection", April 2, 1996 draft by HNTB Corporation
and had a discussion with Mr. Dennis Stranger concerning how he will utilize that report for
3.
GORDON MEYER, INC.
April 30, 1996
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 3
his work on determining the impact fees for Four Mile Road. The draft report contained limited
technical information for comparison purposes but my understanding of the report indicates
that the proposed improvements to Four Mile Road would consist of 1 1-foot driving lanes with
two-foot shoulders at the top sections of the roadway increasing to two 1 1-foot lanes with
six-foot shoulders near the bottom of the roadway corridor. Structural sections in each case
appears to be three inches of asphalt on a six-inch base course foundation. Projected traffic
counts for the Four Mile corridor appeared to be in the same range as those that would be
generated by the dwelling unit count for the Spring Valley area. Therefore, the draft report
was used as a guide for further analysis of County Road 1 14'
A.Segment 1 -- Frontage Road to Switchback Curve
Use existing platform width of two 12-foot driving lanes with four-foot
shoulders.
Repair areas of structural failure.
Provide two-inch overlay with leveling course; finished structural section
would be four to four-and-one-half inches of asphalt.
Add guardrail on critical sections for safety improvements.
Switchback Curve to Los Amigos Drive
Widen existing platform to create two 1 1-foot lanes with two- to three-
foot shoulders.
Provide additional two-inch overlay with leveling course resulting in a
finished pavement section of three inches to four inches of asphalt.
Provide guardrail for safety improvements.
Los Amigos Drive to Pinyon Pines
Maintain existing platform width; construct consistent asphalt width of
two 1 1-foot lanes and maintaining shoulder widths of two feet to four
feet.
Provide two-inch overlay with leveling course resulting in a total
pavement section of three inches to four inches.
No guardrail or safety improvements required.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
3.
1.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
2.
April 30, 1996
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 4
Probable Costs
Probable costs have been estimated using estimated
County.
1. Segment 1 -- $275,000
2. Segment2- $113,000
3. Segment 3 -- $4O.OOO
Total Probable Cost: $428.000
!mpact Fee
Projected road impact fees would be approximately $ 180 per dwelling unit for improvements
thru Los Amigos Drive. lf the Los Amigos Ranch property were required to participate for
improvements thru Pinyon Pines, the road impact fee would be approximately $2OO per
dwelling unit.
Please call me if I can provide any additional information or respond to any questions
concerning the above.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Mr. Greg Boecker,
Larry Green, Esq.
Los Amigos Ranchcc:
DWG:st/O 1 502C05.1
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
1996 construction values for Garfield
Jz-\I
ENGINEERS
SUBVEYORS,M:
(e70) 94s-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
SCHMIJESER :
GORDON MEYER
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
February 27, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
Regulatory Office and Personnel
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
RE:Los Amigos Ranch
Preliminarv Plat Filinqs 6 throuqh 10, Drainaqe
Dear Mark:
This letter transmits additional drainage information as a follow-up to our Tuesday, February
24, 1998 meeting. Recapping, Wright Water Engineers recommended in their January 9,
1 998 letter that an analysis of existing conditions be conducted to facilitate an analytical
comparison for downstream impacts of the development. This was based on Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations, Section 9:43 which states "Where new developments create runoff
in excess of historic site levels, the use of detention ditches and ponds may be required to
retain up to the IOO-year storm".
These calculations were included in our re-submission and showed that the low density of the
project resulted in minimal increases in flood flows. Nonetheless, there was still concern
expressed at our meeting over the perception of downstream property owners. While Wright
Water Engineers generally agreed that the effects of the increased runoff on downstream
drainage structures would be minimal, they still thought that it would be in the County's best
interest to have an analysis of the structure showing that the effects of the increases were,
in fact, minimal. Another option would be to provide detention and release flood flows at less
than historic levels.
The revised copy of Sheet LAD, the Drainage Master Plan, shows how detention storage could
be incorporated into the Los Amigos Preliminary Plan. The four major points of
concentration for drainage leaving the project are identified as Discharge Points 1 through 4.
Tributary areas for each of these points have been identified and are shown by thick, dashed
lines. Potential detention areas are shown by hatching. A thick dotted line indicates the
portion of the basin tributary to the detention ponds. Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic
calculations (using the methodology appropriate for larger basins), as well as a site survey,
will need to be performed for each detention pond location. A trial and error procedure will
be utilized to determine the optimal outlet configuration and storage volume that results in a
1OO-year flow rate that is less than historic at the four discharge points. This detailed level
of analysis and design would be performed prior to the Final Plat submission.
.tig?if r
,,,*#irii"frilontr
February 27, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 2
ln summary, the low density of the development results in minimal flood peak increases that
can be easily mitigated by standard engineering practices if the County deems this necessary.
Additionally, an analysis of downstream structures could be performed which would show
that the effects of these minimal flood peak increases would be unnoticeable. As a last
resort,improvements could be made to downstream drainage structures.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require additional clarification on any of the items
discussed.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.d;44
David M. Kotz,
DMK:lec/1 5O2C14.1
Enclosure
cc: Michael Erion (via fax: 945-921O)
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC,
Roy Romer, Covernor
Paui Shwayder, Executive Director
Dedicated a protxting and improving the health and environment o( the pople of
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Bfud.
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver CO 80220-6928 \. -*
Located in Clendale, Colorado (303) 692-3090
http I / www.c d phe.state.co. us
February 11, 1998
Mr. Dean Gordon, Principal
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
STATE COLOIUDO
ff,B i,8 lg96,
GAfit'' cL D CorrN' r&l".Td? * ffi.*
RE:
and Environment
Request for a Ground-Water Discharge Permit Application for Wastewater Treatment
Lagoons At Spring Valley Sanitation District; Garfield County.
Dear Mr. Gordon:
The Water Quality Control Division @ivision) mailed you an application for a ground-water
discharge permit on March 20, 1997. You had requested a permit application for the Spring
Valley Sanitation District's lagoons. In addition, the Site Approval #4300 required that Spring
Valley Sanitation District apply for and obtain a permit to discharge to ground water. See
condition number 7 in the February 26,lgyl site approval letter to Spring Valley Sanitation
District.
The Division has assisted in the development in the information for the application and placement
of monitoring wells. It is also imperative that the application contain a certification by a registered
P.E. as to the liner thickness and soepage rate through both the first and second lagoons. You and
I last spoke on the telephone on December 12r 1997. At that time, you were in the process of
modeling the area to ascertain the likelihood of impact from the lagoons. It was my understanding,
after our telephone conversation, that the Colorado Mountain College was considering connecting
to Aspen Glen and would no longer be connected to the Spring Valley Sanit"ation District's lagoons.
We also discussed the need for the Board of the Sanitation District to focus on flow measuring
device with totalizer and relocating the shed to house the flow measurement device.
To date, the Division has not received an application. It is imperative that an application be
submitted along with the completion reports for the upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells.
The Division notified Spring Valley Sanitation District to apply for a discharge permit nearly one
year ago. Because the District has not applied for a permit, the Division is forced to consider this
facility as discharging without a permit. This may subject the District to enforcement action and
penalties of up to $10,000 per day for any unauthorized discharges {See CRS 1973 25-8-501 and
25-8-608 [1082 repl. vol. 11.]].
It is the Division's preference that the District make application for a ground-water discharge
permit within the next sixty days to avoid being considered as discharging without a permit.
\
Page2
Fcbruary ll, lg)t
Dean Gordon, kincipal
G.W. Permit Application, Spring Vdley Srnitetim Dishict
If you have questions pertaining to the application or to the regulations, please contact me at
the following telephone number: 303+692-3588
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Phil Hegeman, Unit Manager; WQCD
Mark Bean; Regulatory Office, Garfield County Health Department
Dwain Watson, D.E., West Slope Field Office of the Tech Services Unit, WQCD
Greg Boecker, Spring Valley Sanitation District; Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Unit
Waier Quality Control Division
J-oN-27-1998 IAl3A DIU HATER RESOURCES 343 866 3589 P.O2/43
STAIE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OT THE STATE ENCINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Narural ReJources
131 .J Sherman Street, Room Bl8
Denvqr, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 666-3ssl
FAX (303) 866-3.s89
January 26, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Gaffield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 8'1601
RE:Los Amigos Ranch PUD, Filings 5A, 6, 7,8,9,10 & 11
Sections 5 & 6, T7S, R88W,6th P.M.
Sections 31 &32, T63, R88W,6th P.M.
Sections 35 & 36, T65, RE9W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. Bean:
We have reviewed the subject preliminary plan, which proposes to create a total of 178
single'family dwellings on 751.87 acres located in filings 5A through 1 1. The proposed waler
supply is to be provided through a central system operated by the Red Canyon Water Company
(Company). A letter of commitment from the Company, dated February 9, 1996, was included in
the submittal material-
A letter from Mr. Loyal E. Leavenwo(h, dated November 24, 1997, indicated that to date
final plat approvals within the Los Amigos Ranch PUD totals 47 single family lots and 96 multi-
family units, This proposal results in a total of 321 units. At full buildout, the PUD is projected to
include a total of 327 single-family homes and 96 apartments. Total annual water demand at
buildout will be 194 acre-feet, and consumptive use will be approximately 68 acre-feet. The 68
acre-feet of depletions are to be augmented pursuant to a plan for augmentation, which was
approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. B7CW1SS.
The PUD is currently supplied by two wells, known as the Rancho Los Amigos Wetl No. 6
(permit no. 40906-F) and the Los Amigos Ranch Well No. 5 (permit no. 18147). Well No. 6 is
decreed in Division 5 Water Court case nos. W-3873, W-3893, and g4CW36 for 300 gailons per
minute for municipal use. Well No. 5 is decreed in case no. W-2156 for 300 gallons per minute for
municipal, commercial, domestic and industrial uses. The water rights used to supply this PUD
are owned by the Los Amigos Ranch Partnership, are leased to the Company for a period of 50
years with a 4}-year renewal option.
A report dated November 17,'1997, prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, lnc.,
indicated thatWell No.5 had been test pumped at 110 gallons per minute, and Well No.6 had
been test pumped at 400 gallons per minute. The oombined yield of the two wells exceeds the
estimated required peak day pumping rate at buildout of 335 gallons per minute,
Roy Romer
Covemor
lamer 5. tochheitrJ
Execoire Director
Hcl D. Simpmn
State Engineer
qqN-2?-1998 1A!38 DIU T.JRTER RESOURCES 303 866 3589 p.Z3/23
lvll , lvlcll l\ lJEdl I f AVe Z
January 26. 1998
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1XhXl), C.R.S., the proposed water supply appears
adequate, and injury to decreed water rights will not occur, as long as the Company operates
pursuant to the decreed water rights and plan for augmentation, which are leased from the Los
Amigos Ranch Partnership.
Should you have fufiher questions or comments regarding the water supply for this
project, please contact Craig Lis at this ofiice.
Sincerely,
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPUCML
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
TOTRL P.A3
FEB-1A-199A 742?'5 FRON GRRFIELD CO ROAD & BRIDGE TO
GARFFtOAP ,- rcl
tH L. (el, t-r r...1 cl <-r ci
PH
F><
Itlr " Scott Br'adyBarrett Resources Co.
P0 Box .370Paracirr.r'te, CO BiO3S
'l 0 February 1998
94577A5 P.O7
L D COLINTY& E}Rtr DGE
B"r> >< Z 7-5 4r-i-nqs, C() ff16.tJl,*C)--Sldts[!'-61 t IcJ---9,4.5*Og3zr
t weekerrd, thatEast end oftha County
County
Roi'rd
make
woul d be pref erob.l"e toIy restrictinq traveL on
IE
E)
.S r:9'79a
RE: Road Damage To County Road 3ZA
Dear Mr. Brady:
rt has corne io our atten'Lion that over t,he currenBarrett, tlrror-rgr'r 6orne of thoi.r operatl.gns rcrl UleCoun ty Road 309 has da.maged the pa.ved por..Eion ofRoad.
if b/e rftrr r.eli<:lvc thio sLtuerEiurr IhaicesBati_on of i;sr.lirrg pernrits ancl totB,Ithese i'o*ciri.
EffecEive Ehis date t,he Frc3t Lah,,^ri11 be 1n effect onRoads 309 and 323. The damaqes that occuri-ed to county309. wi.-l-l be trre res;pohgibirit,r of aa,-rleri Resouroes f,of u11 repai r'-c, a.nd resti tu'tion when condi tions sI Ior.,.
Yorrr c.-rop#ratiorr in ever ting any r"ur Lrrer road damage woul.d begreatly oppraciated, Addttionaily, your coopera.tion inmit).ge;rting i'he si tuation of [racking mud onto the county Rcedstl'ret we. ha..re boerr dealing witl.r i.url ia"aial weer.s would be verymuch crpnreciaterl
If yot.t ha,ze.: i)rtr! cluestions, i:]ei-rr.ge give me a ca.ll-
'CC:- "BOCC
Chr.tc:k 0e:;t-:hen*scr370trrt
O1trficr,.r Man;tger
TOTRL P.A1
Sir-rcerely,
FOR ,KiNG LI-
02/L0/s8 TtlE 09:10.FAX 1 970 945 5948 SCHMTIESER GORDON MEYER @ ooz
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
EI/d,INEEFS.-;- slfivEloei=%r-*M--
(e70) 945-1004
FAX (970) e4s-5e48
February 9, 1998
vlA MAIL AND FAX: 945-77As
Mr. Mark Bean, CountY Planner
Garfield County Planning Office
1O9 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood SPrings CO 8161O
RE: Los Amigos Ranch
Pteliminary Plat Flling: Fillng 6-10
Dear Mark:
The purpose of this letter is to aid in your review of the engineering portions of the above-
referenced apptication dated January 21, 1998. Specifically, this will be an item by item
response to the January 9, 1998 letter from wright water Engineers with respect to a
previous pretiminary Plat submittal for Los Amigoi Ranch, Filings 5A through 11 dated
November 26, 1997.
Beferencing the Wright Water Engineers' review, some of the comments are no longer
applicable because o-f the new Preliminary Plat submission, On the other hand, from an
engineering perspective, I am not sure that any additional issues or design elements are
evident in the new submission. Therefore, responses to the prior review comments should
be the primary basis for a subsequent review'
A poinr by Point Tesponse follows:
WAIER SI'PPLY
. The quantlty calculations for in-house water suPply is based on 80 gallons per
day per person and 3,5 people per singlc-fEEiry residence. For planning
p,rrpo.o,-100 gallons per person per day is typically used. In additionr larger
[oni* whicb io"Uae guest residences or 'rin'law" rcidences will often house up
to 5 or 5,5 people p"i aay. Actual water usage could be more than whnt was
estimated.
The engineering calculations are consistent with the Augmrcntation Plur currently in
in plad for LoJ Amigos Ranch and also consistent with the calculations accepted by
the Basalt Water Con-servancy District. They are also consistent with all submittals
from this Applicant for previous filings for Los Amigos Ranch PLID' Any change
in those calculations *ould likely require a change in warer rights procedure- Note
that guest residences and in-law resideoces are not allowed as suggested ia the
review cofirment.
02/ L0 / s8_-t-. . a
TtlE 09:11 FAI 1 970 945 5948 SCHMTIESER GORDON }IEYER @ oor
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 2
The preliminary plan application report stsles that the water $lPply will be
chlorinated and a 30-minute contact time will be achieved through 460 feet of
a z-incb line. This 30-minute contact time will be met as long as the total flow
from the chlorinetiou building is less than 370 gallons per minute'
No comment.
well No. 6 should be located and shown on the Master weter Plan sheet'
Weu No. 6 was shown but not labeled on Sheet LAV-2. Labeled as requested.
We recommend the water line minlmum depth of cover be at leest six feet' and
preferably seveE feet, rather then the 5.5 feet proposed'
All waterlines constructed to date in Los Amigos Ranch have been constructed with
a minimum 5.5-foot cover. No freezing lines have ever been experienced.
Nonetheless, a note has been added to Sheet LAU-2 addressing this comment'
The minimum operating pressure on the design analysis for the Water system is
20 psi. This is low for a single-family residence and will require booster PumPs
for individual lots.
Low pressures have been addressed in the design lefier on Page 3 and also on Sheet
LAU:z. Sheet LAU-2 shows those homes where booster PumPs may be rcquired.
Also note that lrh" services will be constructed for drose loB which may require
booster pumps.
The weter system analysis includes water senice for the four rurel lots;
however, seryice line connections to these lots, especially to Lots 2, 3, end 4
would either require a separate easement through the adjacent single-family lots
or a very long service [inl. We recommeud easements be added to a{iacent lots
that would a&ommodate the shortest route for water service lines to serve these
four rural lots.
Except along the access route, there are no alternative alignments which would
proridt *ata-t utility access from a lorg tetm maintenance perqPective,,nor from the
perspective of initiit visual impact. Note that these lots range in size from 46 to 7l
."rei, and while an allowauce for contrection of these los has been made with
respect to central water system calculations, it is anticipated that individual wells will
be constructed on these properties. A discussion of individual wells is contained
GORDON MEYER,
_ 02/L-9/58 TLIE 09:11 FAX 1 970 945 5948\,
February 9, 1998
Mr, Mark Bean
Page 3
WASTEWATER
SCHMUESER GORDON }IEYER
within t[e Engineering Report on Page 4. Given the size of these lots, We agree
with the review comment that constnrction of a water service line witl be difficult
and costly. However, in the event that individual welts corrld not be completed on
these prOperties, the size of the central system would allow that to occur as an
alternative.
The storage tank sizing aPpears to be adequate for the proposed population'
No comment.
We understand that the Carboudale & Rurnl Fire hotection DisEict will be
reviewing the drawings end the hydraulic computations for Frre flow
requirerients, hydrant Jpaclng, cul-dssac lengths, and the hydrant detail' In
some cases, the lydrant spacing appears to be in ercess of the proposed Efi)'foot
spacing that is discussed in the report-
The hydrant spacing as shown on Sheet LAU-2 has been changed from the initial
suUmiital and represents a layout based on a mectrng with Bill Gavette of the
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District- Rattrer than usiug only a spacing
criteria, hydrants were located based on the ability to serve the lots within the
project.
The typical trench section shows the depth of cover to be 5.5 feet. This will
probably be acceptable for sewer lines with steep slopes. The profiles on Sheets
St through 54, however, show areas where coyer is less then 5.5 feet and should
be adjusted to maintain the minimum cover.
Not applicable. See further discussion of ISDS on Page 5 of the Eugineering
Report. Also, see letter from Hepworth-Pawlak, Inc. dated lanuary 19, 1998 as a.tr
artachment to the Engiueering Repon.
Twenty-one exploratory test pits were excavated to evaluate the subzurface
conditions. In many of the exploratory pits, practical refusal was encountered
at less than six feet due to a hard, dense rock formation. Percolation tests were
performed adjacent to some of the pits and percolation rates were within
acCeptable rgnges. Ifowever, according to County standerds, areas with
bedrock less than eight feet deep require a mound or other engineered systcm.
Based on the results and locations of the test pits, fhis appears to be the csse for
SCHMUESER GORDON METER, INC.
@ oon
02/L0/Sg TtrE 09:12 FAX 1 970 945 5948,\
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 4
SCHMTIESER GORDON }IEYER
the m4ioritf, of the lots. Site speciFrc analysec will determine the type of syslem
for eech lot.
See further discussion of ISDS in the Engineering Report on Page 5. Also, sec the
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Iener dated January 19, 1998 as an attachment
to that repon.
Easements should be provided for sewer mains that are outside of the road
right-of-way. For example, I.ots 40r 3, and 5 on Drawing Sl, Lots I and 52 on
Drawing 52, and Lot I on Drawing 54.
Not Applicable.
BOCC Resolution No. 9G34 requires central sewer for certain lots and allows
15DS for the renraining lots nrbject to the applicart submitting an analysis of
environmental and neaitU impacts for review by the BOCC end the Coloredo
Deprrtment of lleelth. We did not flud such an analysis in the submittal.
Resolution No. 9G34 also conditions use of ISDS on e favorable recorrmendation
from the State regarding the proposed method of sewage disposal.
See further discussion of ISDS in the Eugineering Report on Page 5. Also, see the
Hepwonh-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. letter dated January 19, 1998 as an aBachment
to that report.
The existing Spring Valley Sanitation Dietrict (SVSD) wnstewater treatment
plant has a permitted capacity of 52,fi[ gpd. Data presented in the submittal
show that existing development sewer dernands total 51,M) gpd nnd there is no
existing capecity to serve the proposed Filings 5A through 11.
Not Applicable.
The approved Site Application for the proposed expansion of the SVSD
treatment facility to serve an additionat 110,fl)0 gpd expires February 26,1998.
It is our undemtending that plans and specificatlons for the expansion have not
been submitted to the State and the approval wiII likely exPire.
Not Applicable.
The Site Application approval dated February 2,6,l9!n required the SVSD, in
accordance with State poticy, to develop a service area to include all existing and
future development adjacent to existing sewer service (Item O. It is our
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
@ oos
__. 02/_L0/gg TtrE 09:12 FAX 1 970 945 5948,t SCHMTIESER GORDON MEYER @ ooe
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 5
understanding that this requirement was appccled due to financial hardship.
This provision of the Site ApplicatioD approval was rubsequently removed.
Not Applicable.
. The SVSD stated in a letter dated November 25r 1997 that the District can end
will serve those portions of the Los Amigos submittal proposed for central
sewer. However, until the District obtains a Discharge to Groundwater Permit
(i.e., demonstrates that the existing facility is operating in compliance with
applicable standards) and obtains approval for the desig! plans and
specifications aud a Discharge to Grouudwnter Permit for the proposed
enpansion (end new site application if existing approval expires), we do not
believe the District can demonstrate the ability to serve the proposed project-
Not Applicable.
DRAINAGE
. The dreinage calculetions reference 1E drainage elements. However, they are
not identified or labeled otr ony of the drawing;s.
Drainage Elements and labels have been added to Shcct LAD, the Drainage Master
Plan.
. The culvert sizings are all hased on inlet control which is acceptable. However,
a maximum headwater to depth ratio should be held at 1.5. This may affect
culvert size. Drainage Elements No. 15 and 18 both appcar to be undersized.
All culverts have been sized with the headwater rc depth ratio of less than 1.5 for
the 25-year storm.
The impervious coverege used for the drainege calculations assumes e building
footprint, including driveways and garages, of 31500 square-feet- Based on
"xisting
development, we believe this should be closer to 5,0(X) to 7,000 square
feet.
The drainage calculations have been revised to reflect lots with 5000 square feet of
impervious surface.
Subdivision Regulation Section 9:43 states that'rnew development^s, whore they
create runoff in excess of historic levels, detention ditches and ponds may be
I
I
I
02/L0/98 TtrE 09:12 FAX 1 970 945 5948
t'
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 6
SCHMTIESER GORDON MEYER
required to retain up to the lfi)-year storm.rr Existing conditions for this site
were not calculated so there is no analytical comparison as tO whether or not
there are downstream impects from this development' We recommend thnt this
analysis be conducted to determine if detention is required.
The historic flow rates have now been calculated assuming the same boundaries as
the proposed basins. The results show a minimal incrcase over historic values' It
is "o**on practice to waive the detentiou requirement ou lOw denSiry residential
developments which produce minimal increases iu runoff. An example would be the
Town of Gypsum Regulations which do not require detention on subdivisions which
result in a-gross resldential deusity of two (2) dwellings per acre or less' or on
developmen[s which produce less than a 10 percent incrcase over historic flow rates'
Due to the concentration of flows in arees that may be highly erodible, we
recotnmend the use of BMPs to minimizp the impacts of erosion due to
development.
Culvert Outlet ptotection and cha:rnel lining are used to reduce erosion'
In areas where cglverts are Proposed under the new tOads, wG recommend the
iollowing. First, culvert outtets should be protected with riprap. This is
especially importaut on the steeper culverts. Secondly, we recomlnend that the
discharge be airected into a drainage easement which will carry llows along the
propert-y lines or into existing swales. In areo.s where there are no existing
.*a1.., the flow should be ie-disbursed 6)0 as to minimize the impects of
concentrated flow which could ceuse erosion below the property.
Culvert outlet protegtion, easemeils and riprap diSpcrsions have been added'
The ditch sizing cslculations should be revised to reflect the following items.
trirst, sfunnnsls *ith stopo that are steep enough to create critical depth should
be sized for critical Aeftn and not for super+ritical depth. Secondly-, velocity
should be considered and appropriate channel linings and/or energy dissipation
inctuded in the design.
Ditches have been sized for sub-critical or critical depth, Ripap lining added in
areas of potential erosion.
. The Drainage Mester PIan Sheet LAD and the Drainage Elemrcnt Worksheet in
the calculations do not correlate at all locations. For example, the culverts for
basins 6, 8, and 10 are not shown. The plan is missing several culverts that are
OOROON MEYER,INC.
@ ooz
FebruarY
Mr. Mark
Page 7
TLIE 09:13 FAX 1 970 945 5948 SCHMTIESER GORDON MEYER
9,1998
Bean
Eoted in the catculations End also includes several culverts thnt are not noted itr
the calculations. These should be corrected to metch each other and flows and
culvert sizes verified.
Missing Culverts now Shown. Plans and calculations correlate-
There are severel culverts located at low points in the roadway, but are not
located in the swale centerline of the topotraphy imuredietely adjagent to the
road. These should be re-evsluated to ensute that flows will reach the culvert'
Two examples include a culvert tocated at Stntion 4it+t$ on Los Amigos Drive
and a culvert locsted on lvest Road at station 35+90.
Culvert locations have been revised for topogfaphy. A general note on thc drawings
indicares thar the locatlon, length and slope or Lulverts are to be field-verified prior
to construction to ensure an optimal installation'
The side slopes used to size the roadside ditches are all et 2:1. However, this
does not rnatch the typical ditches shown on the road cross sectlons- This should
be resolved.
The 2:1 slope utilized in the calculations was the anticipated maxirnum and results
in conservaiive depths if flatter slopes are built.
. There is a worksheet for a circular channel flow ln the calculations. Ilowever,
it is not sleal what thls pertains to.
The rating rable was included as a general reference and has now been removed'
, The major swcles shown on the drawings should be evalueted for depth of flow
relative to the proposed building sites immediately a{iacent to it'
Flow depths in these swales are generally shallow and easements shown arc adequate
to contain the anticipated floodhows. Proper site grading (to be evduatcd at the
time of design reviiw) will further ensure that these homes are Protcctd ftom
potential flooding.
. Drainage easements should be added where epplicable'
Drainage easements have beeu added and arc shown on the plans.
ooRDoN MFTEF, lNC.
@ ooe
02/L0/98 TtrE 09:13 FAX 1 970 945 5948
tl
February 9, 1998
Mr- Mark Bean
Page 8
ROADS
SCHMTIESER GORDON MEYER
The entire subdivision is served by a single rcad access off of County Road ll4.
We recommend adding a second access road.
The qqestion of seconda.ry access was resolved as part of the PUD zoning approval
for this project.
Road B is shoum with a vehicle trips per day of 2il0 which would put it in the
category of secondary access versus nrral access as proposed in the submittal.
Changes made as requested. See Engineeriug Report, Page E and Sccondary Access
Detail Sheet LA-?,
The cross-section used for the rural access shows a 2-fat distence betweerr the
shoulder and the center of the flow line of the a{iacent ditch. However, county
regulations require 6-foot minimum ditch width whic,h would make this
dimension 3 feet.
Changed as requested, See details on Sheet l-A-2.
There are mveral radii that are less than those noted in the county regulations.
All cenrerliae curve radii have been confimed agaiast Couuty Sundards. Radii
changed as requesrcd, Those curve changes are Curve 9, Sheet 3; Curve 19, Sheet
7; and Curve 21, Sheet E,
There ere several stretches of road that exceed 8 percent gredes as noted in the
repoft. However, we did not see any that wcre over 10 percent, which is the
maximum allowed in the County Regulations.
All road grades are consistent with the Garfreld County Requirements.
There are at least five cul-de-sacs that exceed the 600-foot length and several
dead,ends. This exceeds the County's standards for cul-dFsacs end dead-end
streets.
Cul-de-sacs were approved as part o the PUD zoning approval. Emergency acoess,
consistent with Fire bepartment requirements, have been provided. See Preliminary
Plan.
GOROON MEYER,INC.
@ oog
02/L0/98 TtlE 09:14 FAX 1 970 945 5948 SCHMTIESER GORDON MEYER
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 9
. There ere severel intersections off of Los Amigos Roed that occur on tight
curves. Sight distances should be addressed'
All intersection sight distances have been verified'
. Access to rural l-ot 4is not dellned on the drawings. Responsibility and desigU
standards for construction of the access to rural [.ots 1, 2, and 3 should be
clarified and deFued.
Rural residential Lot 4 will access by driveway directly off Couuty Road 114. The
shared access easement for rural residential Lots I through 3 is shown on the
preliminary Plan. This access will be constnrcted to the County's Driveway_
Standards. Responsibiliry for constrnction will be by the homeowner at time of
building permit is with aoy other lot within Garfteld County.
. A cost estimste analysis for reparr of County Road 114 was prepared b;
Schmueser Gordon Mlyer in A,pril L996. The estimate appears to be reasonable
for the stated assumptions' This esti-ate ie for a onetime cost and should'
ideally, be done eftei construction of improvemeuts ere complete. However,
with the proposed extended phasing, intermittent repair work could be needed
which is not included in the cost analysis.
No Comment. Even though the cost estimate was prepared prior to the County
subsequently adopting a Road Impact Ordinance, the methodology is consistent with
that resolution.
. The submittal stetes that a left-turn lane wae constructed at County Road 114
and Los Arrigos Road. As constructed drawingB should be submitted for
review,
This work was coordinated under the direction of the County Road and Bridge
Supervisor and is not Part of this submission.
GBOLOGICAL HAZARDS
There are several hazard areas noted in the submitted reports. One is a
lendslide area and the others are a series of faults. The report recommends thet
building sites not be located neer these areas. We recommend the faults and the
landslide areas be shown on the site plan, including any recourmended setbacks
for proposed buildings.
GORDON MEYER.INC.
@ oro
02/L0/98 TtrE 09:14 FAX 1 970 945 5948
February 9, 1998
Mr. Merk Bean
Page 10
DETAILS
SCHMTIESER GORDON MEYER
Sheet LAG, Geologic Conditions Map, was added to the plau set. See also
additioual submission located in Appendix E3, Geologic Hazards Evaluation,
CTl/Thompson, Inc., dated Jauuary 21, 1998.
The landslide areas (two are noted in the Lincotn-DeVore report) are dlscussed
as being fairly stable. However, there is a possibility that the proposed culverts
will concentrate surface runoff and affect the drainage in these gullies which
could, ln turn, affect the stability. We suggest that this scenario be reviewed by
the geotechnical engineers, The stability of these areas are of concern, especially
where they leave the project site and could potentially effect neighboring
properti6.
See additional Exhibit E3, Geologic Hazards Evaluation, CTl/Thompsotr, Inc.,
dated January 21, 1998. Also note that historic runoff conditions are being
maintained as part of this project.
The Lincoln-DeVore report references the palisades topography and
recommends that setbacks be required from any of the palisade fotmations.
This informetion should be identified and transferred to a site plan with
appropriate setbacks shown,
See additional Exhibit E3, Geologic Hazards Evaluation, CTl/Thompson, Inc.,
dated January 21, 1998. Additioually, building eovelopes for those lots adjaccnt to
the Palisade Formation will be shown at the time of Final Plat-
The soils report, done by I{epworth-Pawlak, identifies e Basalt formation which
in many locations is within 6 feet of the ground surface. This may affect the
ability to insiall a standard ISDS system.
See prior comments.
Revise water/sewer crossing to include crossings with new sewer.
Not Applicable.
Service line details should show property lines. The water service should include
a marker post.
Completed as requested.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
@ orr
I
I
_. 02/ Ll/Sg TtrE 09 : 15 FAX 1 970 945 5948 SCHMTIESER GORDON MEYER
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 1 1
Recommend bedding under the base of standard manholes.
Not Applicable.
Hydrant placement note should be revised since there is no curb atrd gutter On
this project. Also ned to label depth of bury (or cover)'
Completed as requested.
Label side slopes and/or width of drainage outlet svele.
Completed as requested.
Label pavement sections (i.e,, depths of materials, etc.) of road sections'
Note thar, unlike hot bituminous Pavement, chip/seal sgrfacing is not usually
associated with depth. It is the lnteut at Final Plat to include consruction
specifications indicajting chip/seal will be consistent with CDOT specifications, which
for application over gravel surface is a 314" aggregarc'
It has normally been our experience that the review process is expedited by an exchange of
information between Review Agencies and our office with respect to technical details prior
to the actual Planning & Zoning Commission hearings. lt has further been our experience that,
for an overwhelmin! maiority of items identified by the Review Agencies, those can be
clarified and/or agreed upon between the Applicant, Review Agency and County staff prior
ro such meetings. We would welcome the opportunlty to participate in exchange of
information prior to the P & Z meeting so that only those issues which remain unresotved need
to be further discussed at those meetings.
please feel free to contact me by telephone with any additional request for information.
copy of this letter directly to Wright Water Engineers, I am attempting to expedite
transmittal.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
DWG:lec/1 502C1 9.LA
cc: Mr. Michael Erion/Ms. Pe99y Bailey. Wright Wator Engineers (via fax & mail)
Mr. Greg Boecker, Los Amigos Ranch Partnership
Larry Green, Esq.
@otz
By
its
GORDON MFTER" INc"
l
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
E'VGT'VEEFS
=-7 SURVEYORST..tM-
Jvntwuc,En
-
GOBDON MEYER
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
February 10, 1 998 rlB
Mr. Mark Bean, County Planner
Garfield County Planning Office
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
RE:Los Amigos Ranch PUD
Preliminarv Plat Submission, Filinqs 6-10
Dear Mark:
This letter is in response to the questions about the status of the improvement work at the
intersection of County Road 1 14 and Los Amigos Drive. Attached, please find a letter to King
Lloyd, County Road and Bridge Supervisor, indicating that the work has been completed wlth
the exception of paint striping to be done this spring.
I trust this addresses the review agency concerns about the status of that improvement.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
DWG:lec/1 502C 1 9.1
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Greg Boecker,
Larry Green, Esq.
Owner's Representative
oou.frY
I
ti
nL
i 1998
T..-M
SCHMUESER
GORDON MEYER
ENG"VEEFS
SURVEYOBS
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
February 10, 1 998
Mr. King Lloyd, Supervisor
Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept.
P.O. Box 2254
Glenwood Springs CO 81602
RE: Los Amigos Ranch PUD
Countv Road 114 lntersection lmprovements
Dear King:
This letter is written on behalf of the owner of Los Amigos Ranch PUD and to document the
completion of the intersection improvements at Los Amigos Drive and County Road 1 14.
The improvements have been completed in essential compliance with the attached sketch and
in accordance with Garfield County Road and Bridge specifications noting the following:
Nine inches of aggregate base course was used for the widened portion of the
roadway as opposed to the six inches called for.
Prior to the placement of the 1%" overlay, a leveling course was constructed.
Therefore, the total depth of asphalt placed over the existing portion of the
roadway is a minimum of 1/2" and likely averages 2%" throughout.
All construction is complete with the exception of striping. The temperatures were too low
at completion of construction last fall to allow a proper striping application. Striping will be
completed this spring as soon as weather permits.
I would request that the security monies being held by the County be released. The Owner
understands that you may retain a small portion of that security until the paint striping is
completed. The estimated value of the painting to be completed is $1,0OO.00.
The work was essentially complete on October 15, 1997 for purposes of establishing a
warranty period for the completed work.
Please call me if you require any additional information with respect to the work completed.
Please release the securities directly to: Mr. Greg Boecker, Owner's Representative, Los
Amigos Ranch Partnership,2929 County Road 114, Glenwood Springs CO 81601; phone:
945-6399.
1.
2.
February 1O, 1 998
Mr. King Lloyd
Page 2
Thank you for your prompt consideration.
Respectf ully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Dean W. Gordon,
President
DWG:lec/15O2CO7
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Greg Boecker
Larry Green, Esq.
Date
REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED
King Lloyd, Road & Bridge Supervisor
GORDON MEYER,INC.
LOS FM]GIS RFNCH TEL :305-945-6599 Feb 09,98 10:50 N0.001 P.01
1 /\ |{501-
,oo. _ L-Ds i\wt lr-oS
SHEET NO oF-- .
,^* slztlx(
DATE
CALCULATED BY-.
CHECKED 8Y-_
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
I 18 W. 6llr St. Suile 2O0 P.O. Bor 2155
Glonwood Springs, CO 81601 Aspen, CO 81612
(303) 945.r0O4 (3O3) 925-6727
FAX (303) 945.594S rAX (303) 925.4t57
rI
E
{,
S"
c..sI
n
F
G\- P
{/\(^)-
*'JI ]NI;
,l
rl
T
t\s
g
L
$
I
$
E
ifl*q
F
2tniI
P
L.
8,
J.
6l${+
1
5flrFr n
CC {!.1 4
47F
idttto lrr tl
Eil*trF
\tl
u,J-
!t
"{lil
u
(t,
L.$s
0A
Ehftt\
f\,
nl
6a d :51N>,+(,' flfl
J
,fl F:($ ,n.
J5.R
,
:r
s
oc
B
5_t
t
$
g
fl.cess,
(970) e45-1004
FAX (970) e45-5948
ENGINEERS
7S..*M-
scHMuE-sEB :=
GORDON MEYER
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean, County Planner
Garfield County Planning Office
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81610
RE: Los Amigos Ranch
Preliminarv PIat Filinq: Filinq 6-1O
VIA MAIL AND FAX: 945-7785
FEBIl
CtAri$itl-D rctr;gTy
Dear Mark:
The purpose of this letter is to aid in your review of the engineering portions of the above-
referenced application dated January 21, 1998. Specifically, this will be an item by item
response to the January 9, 1998 letter from Wright Water Engineers with respect to a
previous Preliminary Plat submittal for Los Amigos Ranch, Filings 5A through 1 1 dated
November 26, 1997.
Referencing the Wright Water Engineers' review, some of the comments are no longer
applicable because of the new Preliminary Plat submission. On the other hand, from an
engineering perspective, I am not sure that any additional issues or design elements are
evident in the new submission. Therefore, responses to the prior review comments should
be the primary basis for a subsequent review.
A point by point response follows:
WAIER ST]PPLY
The quantity calculations for in-house water supply is based on 80 gallons per
day per person and 3.5 people per single-family residence. For planning
purposes, 100 gallons per person per day is typically used. In addition, iarger
homes which include guest residences or "in-law" residences will often house up
to 5 or 5.5 people per day. Actual water usage could be more than what was
estimated.
The engineering calculations are consistent with the Augmentation Plan currently in
in place for Los Amigos Ranch and also consistent with the calculations accepted by
the Basalt Water Conservancy District. They are also consistent with all submittals
from this Applicant for previous filings for Los Amigos Ranch PUD. Any change
in those calculations would likely require a change in water rights procedure. Note
that guest residences and in-law residences are not allowed as suggested in the
review comment.
FILult L,
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 2
The preliminary plan application report states that the water supply will be
chlorinated and a 30-minute contact time will be achieved through 460 feet of
a 24-inch line. This 30-minute contact time will be met as long as the total flow
from the chlorination buitding is less than 370 gallons per minute.
No comment.
Well No. 6 should be located and shown on the Master Water Plan Sheet.
Well No. 6 was shown but not labeled on Sheet LAU-}. Labeied as requested.
We recommend the water line minimum depth of cover be at least six feet, and
preferably seven feet, rather than the 5.5 feet proposed.
All waterlines constructed to date in Los Amigos Ranch have been constructed with
a minimum 5.5-foot cover. No freezing lines have ever been experienced.
Nonetheless, a note has been added to Sheet LAU-} addressing this comment.
The minimum operating pressure on the design analysis for the water system is
20 psi. This is low for a single-family residence and will require booster pumps
for individual lots.
Low pressures have been addressed in the design letter on Page 3 and also on Sheet
LAU-Z. Sheet LAU-Z shows those homes where booster pumps may be required.
Also note that 172 " services will be constructed for those lots which may require
booster pumps.
The water system analysis includes water service for the four rural lots;
however, service line connections to these lots, especially to Lots 21 3, and 4
would either require a separate easement through the adjacent single-family lots
or a very long service line. We recommend easements be added to adjacent lots
that would accommodate the shortest route for water service lines to serve these
four rural lots.
Except along the access route, there are no alternative alignments which would
provide water utility access from a long term maintenance perspective, nor from the
perspective of initial visual impact. Note that these lots range in size from 46 to 71
acres, and while an allowance for connection of these lots has been made with
respect to central water system calculations, it is anticipated that individual wells will
be constructed on these properties. A discussion of individual wells is contained
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 3
within the Engineering Report on Page 4. Given the size of these lots, we agree
with the review comment that construction of a water service line will be difficult
and costly. However, in the event that individual wells could not be completed on
these properties, the size of the central system would allow that to occur as an
alternative.
The storage tank sizing appears to be adequate for the proposed population.
No comment.
We understand that the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District will be
reviewing the drawings and the hydraulic computations for fire flow
requirements, hydrant spacing, cul-de-sac lengths, and the hydrant detail. In
some cases, the hydrant spacing appears to be in excess of the proposed 800-foot
spacing that is discussed in the report.
The hydrant spacing as shown on Sheet LAU-} has been changed from the initial
submittal and represents a layout based on a meeting with Bill Gavette of the
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. Rather than using only a spacing
criteria, hydrants were located based on the ability to serve the lots within the
project.
WASTEWATER
The typical trench section shows the depth of cover to be 5.5 feet. This will
probably be acceptable for sewer lines with steep slopes. The profiles on Sheets
S1 through 54, however, show areas where cover is less than 5.5 feet and should
be adjusted to maintain the minimum cover.
Not applicable. See further discussion of ISDS on Page 5 of the Engineering
Report. Also, see letter from Hepworth-Pawlak, Inc. dated January 19, 1998 as an
attachment to the Engineering Report.
Twenty-one exploratory test pits were excavated to evaluate the subsurface
conditions. In many of the exploratory pits, practical refusal was encountered
at less than six feet due to a hard, dense rock formation. Percolation tests were
performed adjacent to some of the pits and percolation rates were within
acceptable ranges. However, according to County standards, areas with
bedrock less than eight feet deep require a mound or other engineered system.
Based on the results and locations of the test pits, this appears to be the case for
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 4
the majority of the lots. Site specific analyses will determine the type of system
for each lot.
See further discussion of ISDS in the Engineering Report on Page 5. Also, see the
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. letter dated January 19, 1998 as an attachment
to that report.
Easements should be provided for sewer mains that are outside of the road
right-of-way. For example, Lots 40, 3, and 5 on Drawing 51, Lots L and 52 on
Drawing 52, and Lot I on Drawing 54.
Not Applicable.
BOCC Resolution No. 96-34 requires central sewer for certain lots and allows
ISDS for the remaining lots subject to the applicant submitting an analysis of
environmental and health impacts for review by the BOCC and the Colorado
Department of Health. We did not find such an analysis in the submittal.
Resolution No. 96-34 also conditions use of ISDS on a favorable recommendation
from the State regarding the proposed method of sewage disposal.
See further discussion of ISDS in the Engineering Report on Page 5. Also, see the
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. letter dated January 19, 1998 as an attachment
to that report.
The existing Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) wastewater treatment
plant has a permitted capacity of 52,000 gpd. Data presented in the submittal
show that existing development sewer demands total 51,840 gpd and there is no
existing capacity to serve the proposed Filings 5A through 11.
Not Applicable.
The approved Site Application for the proposed expansion of the SVSD
treatment facility to serve an additional 110,000 gpd expires February 26,1998,
It is our understanding that plans and specifications for the expansion have not
been submitted to the State and the approval will tikely expire.
Not Applicable.
The Site Application approyal dated February 26,1997 required the SVSD, in
accordance with State policy, to develop a service area to include all existing and
future development adjacent to existing sewer service (Item 6). It is our
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 5
understanding that this requirement was appealed due to financial hardship.
This provision of the Site Application approval was subsequently removed.
Not Applicable.
. The SVSD stated in a letter dated November 25,1997 that the District can and
will serve those portions of the Los Amigos submittal proposed for central
sewer. However, until the District obtains a Discharge to Groundwater Permit
(i.e., demonstrates that the existing facility is operating in compliance with
applicable standards) and obtains approval for the design plans and
specifications and a Discharge to Groundwater Permit for the proposed
expansion (and new site application if existing approval expires), we do not
believe the District can demonstrate the ability to serve the proposed project.
Not Applicable.
DRAINAGE
The drainage calculations reference 18 drainage elements. However, they are
not identified or labeled on any of the drawings.
Drainage Elements and labels have been added to Sheet LAD, the Drainage Master
Plan.
The culvert sizings are all based on inlet control which is acceptable. However,
a maximum headwater to depth ratio should be held at 1.5. This may affect
culvert size. Drainage Elements No. 15 and 18 both appear to be undersized.
All culverts have been sized with the headwater to depth ratio of less than 1.5 for
the 25-year storm.
The impervious coverage used for the drainage calculations assumes a building
footprint, including driveways and garages, of 31500 square-feet. Based on
existing development, we believe this should be closer to 5,000 to 7,000 square-
feet.
The drainage calculations have been revised to reflect lots with 5000 square feet of
impervious surface.
Subdivision Regulation Section 9:43 states that 'rnew developments, where they
create runoff in excess of historic levels, detention ditches and ponds may be
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 6
required to retain up to the 100-year storm.r' Existing conditions for this site
were not calculated so there is no analytical comparison as to whether or not
there are downstream impacts from this development. We recommend that this
analysis be conducted to determine if detention is required.
The historic flow rates have now been calculated assuming the same boundaries as
the proposed basins. The results show a minimal increase over historic values. It
is common practice to waive the detention requirement on low density residential
developments which produce minimal increases in runoff. An example would be the
Town of Gypsum Regulations which do not require detention on subdivisions which
result in a gross residential density of two (2) dweliings per acre or less, or on
developments which produce less than a 10 percent increase over historic flow rates.
Due to the concentration of flows in areas that
recommend the use of BMPs to minimize the
development.
Culvert outlet protection and channel lining are used to reduce erosion.
In areas where culverts are proposed under the new roads, we recommend the
following. First, culvert outlets should be protected with riprap. This is
especially important on the steeper culverts. Secondly, we recommend that the
discharge be directed into a drainage easement which will carry flows along the
property lines or into existing swales. In areas where there are no existing
swales, the flow shoutd be re-disbursed so as to minimize the impacts of
concentrated flow which could cause erosion below the property.
Culvert outlet protection, easements and riprap dispersions have been added.
The ditch sizing calculations should be revised to reflect the following items.
First, channels with slopes that are steep enough to create critical depth should
be sized for critical depth and not for super-critical depth. Secondly, velocity
should be considered and appropriate channel linings and/or energy dissipation
included in the design.
Ditches have been sized for
areas of potential erosion.
The Drainage Master Plan Sheet LAD and the Drainage Element Worksheet in
the calculations do not correlate at all locations. For example, the culverts for
basins 6, 8, and L0 are not shown. The plan is missing several culverts that are
GORDON MEYER, INC.
may be highly erodible, we
impacts of erosion due to
or critical depth. Riprap lining added in
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 7
noted in the calculations and also includes several culverts that are not noted in
the calculations. These should be corrected to match each other and flows and
culvert sizes verified.
Missing culverts now shown. Plans and calculations correlate.
There are several culverts located at low points in the roadway, but are not
located in the swale centerline of the topography immediately adjacent to the
road. These should be re-evaluated to ensure that flows will reach the culvert.
Two examples inctude a culvert located at Station 47+10 on Los Amigos Drive
and a culvert located on West Road at Station 36+90.
Culvert locations have been revised for topography. A general note on the drawings
indicates that the location, length and slope of culverts are to be field-verified prior
to construction to ensure an optimal installation.
The side slopes used to size the roadside ditches are all at 2:1. However, this
does not match the typical ditches shown on the road cross sections. This should
be resolved.
The 2:1 slope utilized in the calculations was the anticipated maximum and results
in conservative depths if flatter slopes are built.
There is a worksheet for a circular channel flow in the calculations. However,
it is not clear what this pertains to.
The rating table was included as a general reference and has now been removed.
The major swales shown on the drawings should be evaluated for depth of flow
relative to the proposed building sites immediately adjacent to it.
Flow depths in these swales are generally shallow and easements shown are adequate
to contain the anticipated flood flows. Proper site grading (to be evaluated at the
time of design review) will further ensure that these homes are protected from
potential flooding.
Drainage easements should be added where applicable.
Drainage easements have been added and are shown on the plans.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 8
ROADS
The entire subdivision is served by a single road access off of County Road 114.
We recommend adding a second access road.
The question of secondary access was resolved as part of the PUD zoning approval
for this project.
Road B is shown with a vehicle trips per day of 230 which would put it in the
category of secondary access yersus rural access as proposed in the submittal.
Changes made as requested. See Engineering Report, Page 8 and Secondary Access
Detail Sheet LA-z.
The cross-section used for the rural access shows a Z-foot distance between the
shoulder and the center of the flow line of the adjacent ditch. However, county
regulations require 6-foot minimum ditch width which would make this
dimension 3 feet.
Changed as requested. See details on Sheet LA-z.
There are several radii that are less than those noted in the county regulations.
All centerline curve radii have been confirmed against County Standards. Radii
changed as requested. Those curve changes are Curve 9, Sheet 3; Curve 19, Sheet
7; and Curve 21, Sheet 8.
There are several stretches of road that exceed 8 percent grades as noted in the
report. However, we did not see any that were oyer 10 percent, which is the
maximum allowed in the County Regulations.
All road grades are consistent with the Garfield County Requirements.
There are at least five cul-de-sacs that exceed the 600-foot length and several
dead-ends. This exceeds the County's standards for cul-de-sacs and dead-end
streets.
Cul-de-sacs were approved as part o the PUD zoning approval. Emergency access,
consistent with Fire Department requirements, have been provided. See Preliminary
Plan.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 9
There are seyeral intersections off of Los Amigos Road that occur on tight
curves. Sight distances should be addressed.
All intersection sight distances have been verified.
Access to rural Lot 4 is not defined on the drawings. Responsibility and design
standards for construction of the access to rural Lots L, 2, and 3 should be
clarified and defined.
Rural residential Lot4 will access by driveway directly off County Road 114. The
shared access easement for rural residential Lots 1 through 3 is shown on the
Preliminary Plan. This access will be constructed to the County's Driveway
Standards. Responsibility for construction will be by the homeowner at time of
building permit as with any other lot within Garfield County.
A cost estimate analysis for repair of County Road 114 was prepared by
Schmueser Gordon Meyer in April L996. The estimate appears to be reasonable
for the stated assumptions. This estimate is for a one-time cost and should,
ideally, be done after construction of improvements are complete. However,
with the proposed extended phasing, intermittent repair work could be needed
which is not included in the cost analysis.
No Comment. Even though the cost estimate was prepared prior to the County
subsequently adopting a Road Impact Ordinance, the methodology is consistent with
that resolution.
The submittal states that a left-turn lane was constructed at County Road
and Los Amigos Road. As constructed drawings should be submitted
review.
This work was coordinated under the direction of the County Road and Bridge
Supervisor and is not part of this submission.
GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS
There are several hazard areas noted in the submitted reports. One is a
landslide area and the others are a series of faults. The report recommends that
building sites not be located near these areas. We recommend the faults and the
landslide areas be shown on the site plan, including any recommended setbacks
for proposed buildings.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
114
for
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 1 O
Sheet LAG, Geologic Conditions Map, was added to the plan set. See also
additional submission located in Appendix E3, Geologic Hazards Evaluation,
CTl/Thompson, Inc., dated January 21,1998.
The landslide areas (two are noted in the Lincoln-DeVore report) are discussed
as being fairly stable. However, there is a possibility that the proposed culverts
will concentrate surface runoff and affect the drainage in these gullies which
could, in turn, affect the stability. We suggest that this scenario be reviewed by
the geotechnical engineers. The stability of these areas are of concern, especially
where they leave the project site and could potentially effect neighboring
properties.
See additional
dated January
maintained as
Exhibit E3, Geologic Hazards Evaluation, CTl/Thompson, Inc.,
21, 1998. Also note that historic runoff conditions are being
part of this project.
DETAILS
The Lincoln-DeVore report references the palisades topography and
recommends that setbacks be required from any of the palisade formations.
This information should be identified and transferred to a site plan with
appropriate setbacks shown.
See additional Exhibit E3, Geologic Hazards Evaluation, CTl/Thompson, Inc.,
dated January 2L, 1998. Additionally, building envelopes for those lots adjacent to
the Palisade Formation will be shown at the time of Final Plat.
The soils report, done by Hepworth-Pawlak, identifies a Basalt formation which
in many locations is within 6 feet of the ground surface. This may affect the
ability to install a standard ISDS system.
See prior comments.
Revise water/sewer crossing to include crossings with new sewer.
Not Applicable.
Service line details should show property lines. The water service should include
a marker post.
Completed as requested.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
February 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 1 1
Recommend bedding under the base of standard manholes.
Not Applicable.
Hydrant placement note should be revised since there is no curb and gutter on
this project. Also need to label depth of bury (or cover).
Completed as requested.
Label side slopes and/or width of drainage outlet swale.
Completed as requested.
Label pavement sections (i.e., depths of materials, etc.) of road sections.
Note that, unlike hot bituminous pavement, chipiseal surfacing is not usually
associated with depth. It is the intent at Final Plat to include construction
specifications indicating chip/seal will be consistent with CDOT specifications, which
for application over gravel surface rs a 3/4" aggregate.
It has normally been our experience that the review process is expedited by an exchange of
information between Review Agencies and our office with respect to technical details prior
to the actual Planning & Zoning Commission hearings. It has further been our experience that,
for an overwhelming majority of items identified by the Review Agencies, those can be
clarified and/or agreed upon between the Applicant, Review Agency and County staff prior
to such meetings. We would welcome the opportunity to participate in exchange of
information prior to the P & Z meeting so that only those issues which remain unresolved need
to be further discussed at those meetings.
Please feel free to contact me by telephone with any additional request for information.
copy of this letter directly to Wright Water Engineers, I am attempting to expedite
transmittal.
Respectf ully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
DWG:lec/15O2C19.LA
cc: Mr. Michael Erion/Ms. Peggy Bailey, Wright Water Engineers (via fax &
Mr. Greg Boecker, Los Amigos Ranch Partnership
Larry Green, Esq.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
By
its
Dpr-,,.rxprr & B,q.l,coMB r
ATTORNEYS AT ITA.IV
P. O. DriA.wER 79O
818 CoLORA.D() A\rENLTE
Clr,nNwooD SPRTNGS, Cor,oRADo
P.C.
a1603
oF CoUNSEL:
RoBERT DELANEY
KENNETH BALCOMB
JoHN A. THULSoN
EDWARD MULHALL, JR.
SCoTT BALCoMB
LAWRENCE R. GREEN
TIMoTHY A, THULSON
LoRI J. M. SATTERFIELD Telephone: 970.945.6546
Facsimile: 970.945.8902EDWARD B. OLSzEwsKr
DAVID SANDOVAL
DENDY M. HEISEL
February 18, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Department of Building and Planning
109 8tr' Street, 3'd Floor
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re
Dear Mark:
Mailing Notices instant to the Los Amigos Preliminary Plan Application,
Filings 6 - 10.
Pursuant to our earlier discussions I provide herewith a copy of the form Notice to be
provided to the landowners within and adjacent to the Los Amigos Ranch Subdivision instant to the
above-referenced Application (this form merely amends the Notice utilized in the earlier December
Application). I anticipate mailing these Notices to the landowners by February 24, 1998;
accordingly, ifyou believe modifications should be made to the Notice I would ask that you contact
me before that date.
Very truly yours,
TAT:(k
Enclosure
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Los Amigos Ranch Partnership has applied to the County Planning
Commission, Garfield County, State of Colorado, for the Preliminary Plan approval for the Los
Amigos Ranch Subdivision Filing 6 through Filing 10, in connection with the following described
property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit:
Legal Description: See Attached
Practical Description: Located approximately one (l) mile southeast of the CR 114/Hwy. 82
intersection, off of County Road 1 14.
Said Preliminary Plan is to allow the Petitioner to subdivide a 1703.058 acre tract into 168
residential lots, on a the above described property.
All persons affected by the proposed Preliminary Plan are invited to appear and state their views,
support or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state
your views by letter, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of
surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request
for Preliminary Plan. This Preliminary Plan application may be reviewed at the office of the
Planning Department located at Garfield County Courthouse, 109 Str' Street, Suite 303, Glenwood
Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8.30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
That public hearing on the application for the above Preliminary Plan has been set for the 11th day
of March, lgg8, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at the Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th
Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Planning Department
Garfield County
tr'l'
A troct of lond situote in Sections J|,32 ond JJ, Township 6 South, Ronge 88
lUest, Sections 5 ond 6, Township 7 South, Ronge 88 llest, Sections J5 ond 36,
Township 6 south, Ronge 89 l{est oll of the 6th Principol Meridion being more
porticulorly described os follows:
Eeginning of the northeost corner of Government Lot 18 of soid Section 3J,'
thence S l'53'48" W 12J9.92 feet olong the eost /ines of Government Lots 18
ond 19 of soid Section J3; thence N 89'46'lJ" W 404.81 feet olong the north
line of o troct of lond described in Book 399 of Poge 265 of the records of the
Clerk ond Recorder of Gorfield County, Colorodo; thence S 0'01'13'E 820.48
feet olong the eost line of soid troct of /ond described in Eook 399 of Poge 265
; thence N 90'00'00' W 890.23 feet; thence S 0'00'00" E 506.00 feet;
thence S 75'06'55" W 94.26 feet; thence 5 9'J2'58" E 222.22 feet; thence
s 47'J2'07' W 282.42 feet; thence S 52',J0'32' W 203.24 feet; thence
S 52'30'32' W 206.00 feet; thence N 5l'01'17" W 294.42 feet; thence
266.03 feet olonq the orc of o curve to the left, hoving o rodius of 748.55
feet, o centrol ongle of 2O'2/'46"; ond subtending o chord beoring
S 3l'47'14" W 264.63 feet; thence S 2/'36'21" W 29.67 feet; thence 75.20
feet olong the orc of o curve to the left, hoving o rodius of 600.18 feet, o
centro/ ongle of 710'45'i ond subtending o chord beoring S 18'00'58" W
75.15 feet; thence N 75'34'24" W 60.00 feet; thence 275.61 feet olong the
orc of o cutve to the left, hoving o rodius of 660. 18 feet, o centrol ongle of ,
2J'55'10' ond subtending o chord beoring S 2'28'01' W 27J.61 feet; thence
S 9'29'34'E 71.77 feet; thence 9J.ll feet olong the orc of o curve to the
left, hoving a rodius of 1216.02 feet, o centro/ ongle of 4'23'14', ond
subtending o chord beoring S ll'41'lf" E 9J.09 feet; thence J10.63 feet
olong the orc of o curue to the left, hoving o rodius of 4531.52 feet, o centrol
ongte of 3'55'39", ond subtending o chord beoring S 15'50'38" 8 3/0.56 feet;
thence S 1748'28'E l57.Ol feet; thence 14J.59 feet o/ong the orc of o curve
to the right, hoving o rodius of 514.80 feet, o centrol ongle of 15'58'51",
ond subtending o chord beoring S 9'49'02'E l4J.l2 feet; thence 75.04 feet
olong the orc of o curve to the right, hoving o rodius of 209.07 feet, o centrol
ongle of 20'JJ'51', ond subtending o chord beoring S E'27'19" W 74.64 feet;
thence S 86'53'07" W 197.30 feet; thence S 62'/8'30" W 471.73 feet; thence
N 70'27'09' W 601.07 feet; thence .S 65'J4'38" W 174.11 feet; thence
s 64'06'04' W 285.9J feet; thence S 86'18'00' W 238.66 feet; thence
.S O'31'll'W 292.72 feet; thence S l0'll'J9" W 64.39 feet; thence
.S ll'12'19" W 245.56 feet; thence N 8742'53" W 184.29 feet; thence
N 68'29'56' W 810.33 feet; thence S 2J'06'58" W 395.J0 feet; thence
.5 2'59'cl " w J25.C2 feet; thertce S 28'30'08" E J52.66 feet; thence
N 6729'00" w 900.50 feet; thence .S o'00'oo' E 1240.48 feet to the north
right-of-woy line of County Rood No. I 14; thence olong soid right of woy line
the following courses:201.02 feet olong the orc of o curve to the left, hoving
o rodius of 445.01 feet, o centrol ongle of 25'52'52", ond subtending o chord
beoring N 57J8'59" W l99.Jl feet; thence N 70'J5'25" W 60.96 feet;
thence 3J4.21 feet olong the orc of o curve to the left, hoving a rodius of
376.30 feet, o centrol ongle of 50'53'12", ond subtending o chord beoring
S 83'57'59'W 323.3J feet; thence S 58'31'2J" W 149.63 feet; thence 306.04
feet o/ong the orc of o curve to the left, hoving o rodius of l8l4.7l feet, o
centrol ongle of 9'39'45'i ond subtending o chord beoring S 53'41'30" W
305.67 feet; thence S 46'51'39" W 177.60 feet; thence J26.89 feet o/ong the
orc of o curve to the right, hoving o rodius of 205.97 feet, o centrol ongle of
90'55'55", ond subtending o chord beoring N 85'40'24' W 29J.64 feet; thence
?
N 40'12'26" W 790.78 feet; thence N J9'40'44" W 1218.56 feet; thence J28.15
feet olong the orc of o curve to the left, hoving o rodius of 1265.07 feet, o
centrol ongle of l4'51'4J", and subtending o chord beoring N 4706'35" W
327.2J feet; thence N 0'00'00" E 2008.90 feet olong the west line of soid
Section 6 to the southeost corner of soid Section J6; thence S 89'10'45" W
2646.JJ feet olong the south line of soid Section 36; thence N 89'52'30" W
553.90 feet olong soid south line of soid Section 36 to the northerly right-of-
woy line of Co/orodo Stote Highwoy No.62; thence N 7l'40'00'W 210.20 feet to
the eost line of Lot 4 of soid Section 36; thence N 0'53'00'E 401.12 feet
to the north eost corner of soid Lot 4; thence N 89'55'00" W 9J6.02 feet
olong the north line of soid Lot 4 to the north right-of-woy line of Colorodo
Stote Highwoy No, 82; thence N 52'40'00" W 730.80 feet olong soid right-of-woy
line; thence N 4l'21'JO'W 102.00 feet olong soid right-of-woy line; thence
N 52'40'00" W 275.JJ feet olong soid right-of-woy line; thence N 4'J4'00" E
1608. I I feet olong the west line of soid Section 36 to the eost l/4 corner of
soid Section 36; thence N 88'15'/4" W 2232.61 feet olong the eost-west
centerline of soid Section 55 to the southeost corner of Lot I g of soid Section
35; thence N 0'08'00" W 299.47 feet otong the eost line of soid Lot 19;
thence N 88'07'00" W 264./2 feet olong the north line of soid Lot 19 to the
northwest corner of soid Lot 19; thence N 6'06'46" E 2593.25 feet olong the
north-south center/ine of soid Section 35 to the north l/4 corner of soid
Section 35; thence S 86'/9'00" E 2448.60 feet olong the north line of soid
Section 35 to the northwest corner of said Section 36; thence S 86'19'00" 8
4897.20 feet o/ong the north line of soid Section 36 to the northeost corner of
Section 36; thence S 0'45'J9' W 926.55 feet olong the eost line of soid
Section 36 to the west l/4 corner of soid Section Jl; thence N 89'J3'/2'E
3444.43 feet olong the eost-west centerline of soid Section 3l to the eost l,/4
corner of Section 3/; thence S 5'06'10" W 1J05.89 feet olong o fence line
described in Book 61J of Poge 567 of the records of the C/erk and Recorder of
Corfie/d County, Colorodo; thence N 89'4J'23" E 2769.40 feet o/ong soid fence
described in Eook 61J of Poge 567 ond Book 614 of Poge 680; thence.S 9'0J'54"W
1395.04 feet olong soid fence described in Book 614 of Poge 680; thence
S 89'43'26" E 1334.71 feet olong the north line of soid Section 5 to o fence
described in Eook 614 of Poge 679; thence N 4'24'02" 8 2/32.23 feet olong
soid fence described in Book 614 of Poge 679 and Book 6/3 of Poge 569 ond Book6lJ of poge 568; thence 5 86'17'J4" f 49.72 feet along the south line
described in Eook 6lJ of Poge 570; thence S 87'15'05" E 1J79.32 feet olong the
north line of Lot 7 ond Lot 18 oi soid Section JJ feet io the point of
beginning, soid porcel contoins 1709.538 ocres more or less.
PAGE 2
A troct of lond situote in Section 5, Township 7 South, Ronge 66 l,ltest of the 6th
Principo/ Meridion being more porticulorly described os fo/lows:
Beginning of o point on the boundory of Los Amigos Ronch Filing No. 5 whence the
Northeost corner of Section I of soid Township ond Ronge beors S 54'52'25"E
2460.04 feet; thence.S J6'J4'44" W J00.19 feet olong soid Boundory to the
north right-of-woy line of Los Amigos Drive; thence along soid right-of-woy /ine
the following courses:216.21 feet olong the orc of o curve to the left, hoving
o rodius of 680.42 feet, o centrol ong/e of 18'12'22", ond subtending o chord
beoring N 65'20'09" W 215.30 feet; thence 49J.60 feet olong the arc of o
curve to the right, hoving o rodius of 429.60 feet, o centra/ onqle of
65'49'54': ond subtending o chord beoring N 4l'31'23" W 466.89 feet; thence
N 8'J6'26" W /86.44 feet to soid boundory of Los Amigos Ronch filing 5;
thence S 80'48'37" E J77.50 feet o/ong soid boundory; thence S 46'27'51" E
468.05 feet to the point of beginning, said porcel contoins 5.767 ocres more or
less.
A tract of lond situote in Section 5, Township 7 South, Ronge 88 l,lest of the 6th
Principo/ Meridion being more porticu/orly described os follows:
Beginning of o point whence the Northeost corner of Section 8 of soid Township
ond Ronge beors S 60'38'00"E 1067./4 feet; thence S J2'07'00" W /095.76
feet to the north right-of-woy /ine of Los Amigos Drive; thence olong soid
right-of-woy line the fo//owing courses: N 66'/6'26" W l/7.03 feet; thence
228.88 feet o/ong the orc of o curve to the right, hoving o radius of 775. / 0
feet, o centro/ ong/e of /6'55'08", ond subtending o chord bearing
N 5748'52' W 228.O5 feet; thence 92.49 feet o/ong the orc of o curve to the
right, hoving o rodius of /2O.OO feet, o centro/ ongle of 44'09'J9'i ond
subtending o chord beoring N 27'16'28" W 90.22 feet; thence 728.02 feet
o/ong the orc of o curve to the right, hoving o rodius of 477.49 feet, o centrol
ong/e of 15'21'40': ond subtending o chord beoring N 2'29'1/" E /27.6J feet,'
thence 233.88 feet olong the orc of o curve to the left, hoving o rodius of
695.00 feet, o centrol ong/e of /9'16'52", ond subtending o chord beoring
N 0'31'34" E 232.78 feet; thence N 9 06 52 W 428.92 feet; thence leoving
soid right-of-woy line on o course beoring N 73'35'42" E 45.58 feet; thence
.9 l5'J0'40" E 389.18 feet; thence N 72'41'46" 8 50/.54 feet; thence
N 89'05'04" E 3J9.22 feet to the point of beginning, soid porcel contoins
1 /.857 ocres more or /ess.
PAGE J