Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 CorrespondenceDIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Perry D. Olson, Director 606 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 retgtgop4G$$2e7'11s2 Garfield County Planning 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Dave: The Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek proposed subdivision lies within mule deer winter range and adjacent to critical habitat for mule deer and elk on the Crown directly to the east. The proposed subdivision receives heavy mule deer use during the Spring as the fietds start to green up. Loss of this area to subdivision and its associated disturbance wiII displace the deer to adjacent ranches and increase game damage potential. area will still receive some deer usage but that wilt depend the amount and type of disturbances. In the proposal the applicant stated that a Homeowner's Association would be formed and thzrt protective covenants will address issues such as dog control " One of the most significant impacts to wildlife from this subdivision wiII be dogs that may harass or chase mule deer or elk. This can result in directmortality as the dogs drag down and kill the animals or addj-tive stress and energy expenditure which may use up vital energy reserves the animals may need to survive the winter. In addition,with the surrounding ranches dogs rnay also chase livestock and their calves. This is especially si-gnificant during the winter and spring. Protective covenants rnay be advisable but theygenerally do not work when it comes; to dog control and are seldom enforced. In addition, with increased traffic on Prince Creek Road mufe deer/vehicle collisions will increase as there is a major road crossing just north of the subdivis;ion. Homeowners wiII al-so experience damage to ornamentals and landscaping plants. The DOW is not liable for this type of damage. It is possible that big game speci-es witl die on their property and homeohrners will need to properly dispose of the carcasses. I believe that it is important to inform potential buyers of these impacts. Imapcts to wildlife can be minimiz<rd by the following:1. Restrict homeowners to 1 dog/home with a kennelrestriction. The kennel should be constructed before the C.O. is issued. This shoul-d be in addition to any covenantsthe homeol^rners rrmayrr create. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, ExECUtiVE D ECTOT WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman. Louis F. Swift, Vice-Chairman . Arnold Salazar, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member. Eldon w. cooper, Member. Rebecca L. Frank, Member William R. Hegberg, Member. Mark LeValley, Member ,,O" OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES REFER TO For Wildlife - For People the mule The upon ffi 2. Maintain aII utilities be buried as stated in the application. This wi}l reduce raptor and bald eagle mortafity due to electrocution and broken wings 3. If homeowners have horses/livestock that aII haystacks be fenced at the homeowners expense with 8' game damage prevention type fencing. A. All fencing be 42", 4 strand or less with a Lzn kickspace betw5en the top 2 strands. Any rail fencing be 3 rail 6r less of the round or split rail type fence with at least 18tr between 2 of the rails. If you have anYThank you for the opportunity to comment- questions, please give me a ca1l. Kevin WrightDistrict WiI Carbondale LOTGDOsTArE OFtO -FICE OF THE STATE ENCINEER r.rrvision of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources l313 Sherman Street, Room BI B Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (103) 866-3581 fAx (303) 866-3s89 December 22,1993 POLICY MEMORANDUM 93-4 Roy Romer Govemor Ken Salazar Executive Direclor Hal D. Simpson State EnBineer SUBJECT: Use Restrictions for Permits lssued as the Only Well on 35+ Acres The following standards are adopted as policy to provide lor the consistent evaluation and conditioning of applications for new well permitsand iequests to amend the use of existing wells approved as the only exempt well on a tract of 35 acres or more under the provisions of Section g7-g2-6}2(3xbxll). bnly wells outside designated ground water Erasins are affected' - This policy becomes effective January 1, 1994 and shall be modified or revoked only in writing' 1. New wel permits approved pursuant to Section g7-g2-6o2(3)(bxllxA) as-!|3.9.ntV wellon a tract of 3s acres or more and for use as described in 37-92-602(1)(b)' shall be conditioned to provide for allthe uses described in that subsection, including use in up : to three (3) single-family dwellings,.regardless of whether or not the applicant requested any specitic n.irO"r of dwelling-units or all the other uses. Provided that if the only use r.equested is watering of livestJck on a farm or ranch such permit will limited the use to oniy watering of livestock on a farm or ranch' Z. Requests to amend existing well permits, issued under the provision of Section 37-92' 602(3xbxil)(A) t or 602(3xbxll) I as the only well on a tract of 35 acres or more' to allow use for a1 or any of the ,i"d l6.cribed in'subsection 37-92-60?(1)(b), including use in up to three single{amily dwellings, shall be approved provided the documents indicated below are submitted. 'tto fee shall be charged for this service. A request to amend is appropriate any time the condition of appro-vat uses are less than or not specific to the -. use desired' a. A letter, signed by the appiicant, requesting the permit amendment and addressing the uses desired. b. lf the applicant for the amendment is not the original applicant of record in the Division's files, an application for a change in ownership/address (FormNo' GWS- 11) and a copy of a'deed showing that they are the owner(s) of the 35+ acres described in the existing well permit. c. A legal ilescription of the 35+ acre tract, if that information has not already been Provided. {"^ (-o,- Hal D. SimPson State Engineer HDS/SPUsl o MT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX l.302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601- February 9, L995 Dave MichaelsonGarfield County Planning Department l_09 8th sT, sTE 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir: At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris.Soil Conservation Districtl tne Boird reviewed the application and plan for the Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek and have the iollowing comments and. concerns about the project. Any cuts for roads or construction strould be revegetated to prlvent erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used for any ieseeding of the area. Monitoring of all seeding should be done to see ii tne grass is establishing or if weeds are becoming a problem. Reseeding or weed control practices should be implemented if a problem is notj-ced. The board is alr,rays concerned about anirnal controL in an area where there is the potential for conflict between wildlife or domestic livestock ind dogs from the subdivision. Doqs runni-ng in packs of two or more can maim or kil-1 domestic livestock and withtife. The Distrrct recommend.s animal- control regulati-ons be adopted. in the covenants for the subdj-vision and that they be enforced. Of prime concern to the Board, is the proper maj-ntenance and prolection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site. New landowners should. be informea that the ditch owners have right of way easement to maintain the lrri-gation system, that they wilL be cleaning and working on the ditch, and that this work may be in their yards. The district would like to know what the impact will be on the Wetlands in this area? All Wetlands should be protected and remain in as pristine condition as possible- During the review of this development the members were pleased to see the continued use of the pressurized irrigation system for the lawns and yards. This system wiII continue to conserve water and assist in the proper application of water on the 1and. There will be less surface runoff and less deep percolation of - tne irrigation water. This will reduce the potential of pollutioi Uy fertilizers and other lawn chemicals to the Crystal River The Board recommends that any irrigation water rights be used by the landowners so they are rnlintained. Their concern is always for soil and water conservation and preservation and plans should consider these concerns. With increased concerns about Water Quality, the District is concerned about monitoring chemical- application for fertilizer, weed. control, and other pest management reasons. Their concern is the chemj-ca1s that will be used to fertilize grasses and control weeds in the area. They feel that the chemicals should be closely monitored in this area due to the possibility that the chemicals will soak into the soits and run off into the river' The District suggests drilling of welIs to monitor ground water pollution, and tfat this expense and future expenses shou]d be bore by the developer. Sincerely_, ,,r.,// /./ ,/,/ ,/Qr' rtLr,'c- - Dee BIue, President Mount Soprj-s Soil- Conservation District hJt]TtR RES. hICHARD D, LAMM Governor 302UI TEL:505-866-5589 l4ar 03 95 17 : 09 No .010 P . L-14 JERIS A. OANIELSONIilElc EnOin6er OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOUNCES I3l3 $herman Streel-Room gtB Danver, Colorado 90203 (303) 886-3sE1 t'4s. CYnthia I"t. Houben Garfield Counby Planninq Departrrent P. O. Box 540 Glenwood Sprirrgs, ffi 81602 JuIy I?, 1984 Re: l4ountain t"leadows Preliminary PIan Section Il, TBS, R89W Dear t'1s. Hcubenr Water supply plans for Llris proposed eight-Iot subdivision are insuffi- ciently aevelopcd Lo r*"o*r=nri approval of the preliminary plan. Ihe follow- lrr,g infornratlon Eeelltst reler,ranbl I. 61re of E6e propoeed Iots lras an existing residence served by a dorres- tic weII which-also serves tvro otjrer dweltings on sepera[e ldts- Ttris arrangerent wa.s apfErently the result of a previOUs exetrpbion not revievled by thls office. Ttre information fransmihted do'cs nol: irdicate tf thls weII ie registered or adjudicated' Z, The applicant inclurJes an unsigned a:pplication for a waLer allocation from ^nisalt Water Conservancy District but contains nelther a ocnmit- rrent from the pietrlct nor a cronEraet. In additiOn, vre require a statefirent from the pistrtct indicating bhe property is within the direct exchange df,Gdr "area Ail. 3. the proposed application t-o Basatt ls for in-house use bub it is not cleai that covenants or plat notes would restrict water use. 4. Insgitutional arrangernents seem poorly defined. In Lhe current situ- atlon three partlcs share the r+el1 buL the develoS:er ap,Srarently hg! "7/g inter.=ior ownership. hh believe a}} users should be equiEaOfy represeneed In Ehe management of the water s-ygEeu-r in order to assure a rellable 6upply. rtre lnstitution resl:onslble for waEer supply will probably have-Eone responsibiltty to keep the DisLrict's excltatrEte conEract current and dues f>aid. Iot purchasers should be nnde aware of t1rese responsihili[ies. Ttre instltr-ttiotr musL be strorg enouglr to assurc lot owrrers PaY their dues. ,,'jr' ;';, [JHTER RES.TEL:303-866-5589 ['1ar 03 95 17:10 t',10.010 P.05 M$, Cynthia M. Houh:n July I21 1984 Page 2 5. No acf,uaI inforlnaLiorr ot dat,ir is 1:resettLr:cl Eo;:r.edi<,:L fl'rr,- yield of t[-re 1:rolx:sed we]_I. 5. Any conncctir.rrr of tire existing weII to Ll're new systl.nr would requirc a now well 1-errnil- a;:plication for bire old tvc,l.I irr ad.lition to Lhe pnr- mit applicaLion for bhe new weII. ltrc transrnittal does noL indicate whether the sysberns would be separafe or connecbcrl. Wr' reconnencl fl'rat the waeer system l:)e conritructed and.rpl"rroved by Lhe corrnt-y's en(,ineer prior to lr-:t; sales. Alterndbively, a perfc.,rmarrce lrcncl should be retquireC. lypically, honeowners asscxriationE: for c"ighb-Iot suhrlivisi.ons ck"r not have power necessary (:o corrstrucb d water system, hthj.Ie bhis f;rofrosa). maiz have some merit, we rnust reconunend it be held in aheyance until wator supply plan^.; are eompleted arrr! reviewed by thl.s office, The above items repre6enL our concerns af[er ttaving reviewed tlre limiLed i nformatiorr suppl ied. Sincere1y, //, (- iU) A ).,--,.*HaI u. Simpscin, P.E. Ass j stant State ltrrgineer HIJS,zXCX:ma cc: Orlyn B€Iy, Div. n-rg. Frod lool rj ROE}ERT EI EMERSON March 2, l-995 LAW OFFICES ROBERT B. EMERSON, P.C A6 SOUTH THIRD STREET CARE}ONDALE, COLORADO 41623 (3o3) s63-37oo rax (aoe) 963-o9gs GAfii:: i [L i:] *'CU'FJTY Mr. Mark Bean Garfietd County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Sprinqs, CO 81601 Re: (New) AIlen Subdivision application Dear Mark: This letter is to follow up on our telephone conversation regarding the above-referenced matter. You have asked me to write a letter regarding this subdivision application setting forth the information that I provided to you in our telephone conversation regarding my discussion with Dr. Allen and the issues to be addressed in the subdivision review process. Dr. Al}en met with Nancy and me to discuss the proposed subdivision several weeks ago. In that meeting, h€ requested our support of the subdivision and indicated that he would respond to and-provide solutions for our concerns. I will try to qener?Ity Iist those concerns, particularly as they deal with the original plan, since we have not seen an amended plat or any documents relating to the new application: l-. Domestic Water. We are not Sure of the location of a weII or wells as a water source for this development. We want to make sure that any such wells would not adversely impact the existing weII wniLn serves our house and others. I believe that an engineer's opinion on this is needed. 2. Irrigation Water. There is now an underground system that operates both by gravity and pump. Issues exist reqarding how the irrigation water for the new subdivision and three lots currently served by it are to be managed. In addition, the plat needs to contain elsements for the existinq underground pipes and covenants are needed to deal with issues related to maintenance and repair of the slzstem, tapping privileges, user fees, control, and other matters. At the piesent time it appears that building envelopes (which t^rill be discussed betow) would allow for construction of homes over existing lines. Dr. Atlen agreed to have the proposed plat modified to show the lines and eliminate encroachment of the building envelopes. "HAR 0t lees r1 tlr!ti l-j Mr. Mark Bean March 2, 1995 Page 2 3. Buildinq Envelopes. We believe the buildinq envelopesare too large. We discussed with Dr. Allen the need to reducLthe size of the proposed building envelopes, perhaps as much asby one half, and to locate the corners of the buitding envelopes on the ground so that the neighbors could see how their propeity would be affected by the Iocations. The building envelopes needto be located so as to minimize impact on views from other lots. 4. Building Height. Another concept that we discussedwiLh Dr. AIIen is timitinq the maximum building height, either byexisting zoning regulations or by covenant. That discussionincluded attempting to construct a pole on various buildingenvelopes to illustrate the impact of a building constructed tothe maximum height to illustrate view plane impact. In addition, we discussed the concept of havinq more stringent heightrestrictions on those lots that would have the greatest impact onthe existing homes. 5. Drainage. A drainage plan needs to be provided toassure that problems are not caused by drainage from the proposed subdivision onto northern lots where our houses are located. 6. Protective Covenants. We have discussed the need forprotective covenants that wi}l dovetail with the existing covenants on our property. In addition, those covenants shouldinclude provi-sions relatinq to domestic animals, fencing,architectural control, underground utilities and the othermatters mentioned above, i-ncluding height restrictions and management of the irrigation and domestic water systems. To summarize our position, w€ are witling to work with the Allensto achieve satisfactory resolutj-on of the issues set forth above. We have not heard back from Dr. Allen since our meeting in earlyFebruary, and have not seen any revised documents. Thus there may be other issues in addition to those raised in this letter. I would be happy to discuss this with you more fully if you wish.I am sending a copy of this l-etter to John Schenk so that he is aware of this communication and our discussions with Dr. AIIen. Sincerel-v.t'bL RBE/rJ Jcc: Mr. John Schenk Dr. Allen Robert B. Emerson LORADO o STATE OF CO OTFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 81B Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-1581 FAX (303) 866-3s89 Roy Romer C,Overnor March 3, 1995 Mr. Dave Michaelson Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Mountain Meadows at Prince Creek Sketch Plan SW 1/r;, Secti:n 11 and f\iv" i/4, Scctioi';14, T r'1 S, R Be !J,6th P.M. Water Division 5, Water District 38 Dear Dave: We have reviewed the above referenced subdivision outlined in the sketch plan submittal by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, lnc. dated February 6, 1995. This proposal will create eight single- family lots on approximateiy 17.68 acres. The proposed water supply for this development is to be p?ovided by one or more new wells that will be connected to a central water distribution "y"i"r. The well(s) are to be operated pursuant to a water allotment contract with the Basalt Wat.r Conservancy District (District) and the District's substitute water supply plan. An existing house on lot 8 and two other nearby houses are served by an existing well, permit no. 80997. According to information in the submittal, the water requirements for household use for this developmeni will be approximately 10 gpm. Other wells in the area are reported to produce between 10 and 15 gpm, so one well is expected to serve the entire development. A second well is proposed if production of the first well is found to be insufficient to supply this development' Waterfor irrigaiion is to be provided by an existing underground distribution system that obtains water from the Crystal River by way of the East Mesa Ditch. tsaseci upon irrforrnaiion in iire si.rbmitiai, thu State Llrrgineer's OfficE' offers tlre foltcwing opinion pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1Xh)(l), C.R.S., for your consideration regarding material injury to decreed water rights and the adequacy of the proposed water supply: It appears this otfice previously commented on this development in a letter to Garfield County dated July 12,1984 (copy enclosed). Our comments for the present development are as follows: ]ames S. Lochhead Execu[ive Director Hal D. Simpson State Engineer r,tjr* c 6 1995 1. Mr. Dave Michaelson March 3, 1995 Page 2 The applicant will need to obtain a well permit for the new well to serve seven single- family dwellings. While the applicant does appear to have a valid contract with the District for 3.3 acre-feet, it appears the location of this development is outside of the area approved in the District's substitute water supply plan. lt is unlikely a well permit could be issued without a plan for augmentation approved by the Division 5 Water Court. lf the existing well, permit no. 80997, is connected to the centralwater distribution system, a new permit for the expanded use of this well must be obtained. lf the existing wel! will not be connected to the central system, but will be used to serve three single-family dwellings, permit no. 80997 should be amended pursuant to our policy # 93-4 to reflect this use, A copy of this policy is enclosed. frlttrough genci'al infcrmation was p,'or:ided in the submi'.lal regarciing adjacent weiis, we are unable to comment on the adequacy of the water supply without an engineering or geotechnical study documenting the physical availability and dependability of ground water for the proposed uses at this site. As outlined in the statutes, Section 30-28-133, C.R.S., the subdivider is required to submit adequate evidence that a water supply that is sutficient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of water. It is our opinion that material injury to decreed water rights may occur if diversions are made without a court approved plan for augmentation. The filing of a plan for augmentation and the subsequent judicial review and final decree should provide adequate terms and limitations to protect decreed water rights. Should you have further questions or comments regarding the water supply for this project, please contact this office at the above address. Sincerely, l%b,aW Jeff Deatherage Water Hesources Engineer Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner Steve Lautenschlager, Assistant State Engineer mountmed.sub 3.